Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST

Obama is sending out signals that they will reject Florida and Michigan having a new election, while at same time rejecting the notion that either MI or FL should have their votes counted toward the Democratic nomination.

Donna "Don't even think about a 'do-over'" Brazile, a go-to person for the Obama's strategy being pushed out, says:

I believe the DNC had no choice in 2004 but to enforce its rules. Therefore, regarding Florida and Michigan, I believe that in spite of the risk of alienating millions of voters in states that could ultimately decide the election this fall, Howard Dean and party officials must also stick to the rules.With two-thirds of the primary contests already completed, the DNC cannot allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to decide the nomination. It would be wrong. And it would be dangerous....

It's been suggested that credentials committee members who seat the delegates should take up the issue of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan -- after voters in states that complied with the rules settle on the nominee. While Michigan and Florida may not be happy with this decision, perhaps they can learn to live with it if the alternative is being shut out the process completely.

Basically, the Obama camp believes that they can control the credentials committee, based on the number of pledged delegates, and lock out MI & FL-- they want the status quo to be the deal.

Florida is looking like it could have a mail-in primary, and it looks like we have a solution in MI too:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign officials told the state's top party official that they wouldn't accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm's idea of a party-sponsored primary.

Granholm had suggested a "firehouse primary," which would allow Democrats to cast their ballots again sometime before June. It would cost about $10 million.

It would be the same procedure Democrats have used in past Michigan presidential caucuses. Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

Sounds like a good solution, right?  The Obama's campaign (Michigan 'firehouse primary' nixed by Obama camp) says its not their problem:
The Obama campaign maintains that it "played by the rules'' in not campaigning in Michigan and Florida when the Democratic National Committee decided that the two states' delegates to the summer nominating convention would not count because the states held January primary elections in violation of party rules.

"Our campaign will support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair remedy to this problem,'' Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, told the Tribune this morning. "However, allowing Sen. Clinton to change the rules and award her the non-existent delegates when there was no campaign in the state and Obama's name was not on the ballot is not the answer.

"It's our view that the state parties and the DNC need to work this out,'' Burton added. "Whatever the resolution,' we are looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the general election.''

No leadership, just punting publically, and behind the scenes, they are sending messages to MI officials that they don't support the MI efforts:
Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.

"That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations," said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.

"And we can't do anything without the agreement of both the campaigns," he added.

This sorta reminds me of when Brazille and the Gore campaign decided that, instead of doing the right thing and calling for a total state recount of Florida in 2000, they tried to just target the counties they though would push them over the top by recount. You don't win the moral high ground by denying voters their right to have their vote counted; and you don't win by trying to play games with the rules to count some votes more than other votes. The Obama campaign seems to have bamboozled themselves into believing that only 'the math' that matters is the one that gives them the victory, and really are failing to see the big picture here of how they will lose the nomination to Clinton by trying to deny Florida and Michigan having representation.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 167 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

Are you ignoring Clinton's statements that she would not support a do-over in Florida and not the proposed caucuses in Michigan?  Seems like she's been the "leader" on this particular issue.  Really, I can't imagine why her comments on this issue were not also mentioned...


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

Clinton has said to count them already. That's not the same as what the Obama campaign is signaling, which is to not count them either originally or with a do-over.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:52:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (none / 0)

So she's only a half-hypocrite?  Why criticize Obama's full position when half of it is identical to Clinton's?  


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (2.00 / 1)

It's obvious that Clinton supports them re-voting too, Granholm and Nelson.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (none / 0)

But there's been no endorsement of a plan by Clinton, and even a few days ago she publicly stated that she did not support re-do efforts.  There has been no "leadership" on this issue by either camp.  As for the surrogates, who can say if they're speaking for the candidate or not.


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (2.00 / 3)


COUNT THE VOTES.

The DNC has failed in its obligation to protect the voting rights of all its Democratic voters.

This is worse than incompetence; it's an absolute travesty.

Heads must roll at the DNC.  Whom do they think they work for??


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (none / 0)

If you think Nelson and Granholm aren't "speaking for the campaign" then you don't know what you're talking about. Of course Clinton would rather the MI and FL results from January count, so she's sticking to those guns. But it's totally obvious she would agree to redos. It's called "anchoring the debate."


by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy (2.00 / 2)

Obama's official position is that he supports do-overs if sanctioned by the DNC. So I don't know what you are trying to tell us. Should we believe some Michigan party officials who happen to be Clinton supporters or his official campaign position? Your quotes actually do not support your own conclusion.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not funny (2.00 / 1)

Your views are so biased, it's not even funny. Spinning for the Clintons like there is no tomorrow.

I am really wondering whether, if you would read your own statements again a year after (or a year before) this primary, you could take yourself seriously.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 1)

Without pointing toward anything, your lecture sorta reminds me of Obama's speech.

What I've seen Clinton say is that she rejects a caucus, and supports FL being counted. I doubt very much that she is against what Nelson and Granholm are pushing for in a re-vote. I'm sure we'll find out, and then you can figure out another rationalization to work with...


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (none / 0)

That is not where your bias comes in though. You are saying that the Obama campaign is against do-overs and that is just plain wrong. The only thing I heard from them is that they are for do-overs and that is even supported by your own quotes. So I seriously don't get what you want to tell us - unless you just needed to find another bogus line of attack.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 1)

Did you read Brazile's article?  She's in Obama's camp. Did you read what the Obama camp is telling the MI officials behind the scene?  Don't deny reality, it tends to result in a sharp whiplash.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (none / 0)

funny you are telling me that


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry, did I miss something?  Last time I checked, Donna Brazile was not on Obama's payroll, nor had she publically (nor have I heard that she has privately) endorsed either candidate.

Now yes, she has made some pro-Obama statements on CNN, but I don't see enough evidence to say that she is "in Obama's camp."


by shalca on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (none / 0)

Everybody who does not share his level of disillusionment is in the other camp by definition.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 1)


That's right:  she's not on Obama's payroll; she has a leadership role in the DNC.  Just who does the DNC work for, anyway? Brazille and Dean have miserably failed in fulfilling the DNC's obligation to protect the voting rights of all its Democratic voters.  They should resign.
by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No the MI and FL Dems who selfishly moved up their (none / 0)

primary dates should resign.

Thank Goddess for Howard Dean.  Unlike the arrogant Clintons and their supporters, he supports the rule of law, including the DNC rules with MI and FL officials intentionally and consciously broke.


by Terry from Killingly CT on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 1)

Donna Brazile is in Obama camp. You are not a 5 year old that she has to give it to you in writing. Follow the pattern (as Obama campaign is so great in mentioning).


by Sandeep on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (none / 0)

Actually, last I heard Donna Brazile hasn't endorsed either candidate. She said that on the This Week show a few weeks ago. I haven't heard an update on that.
by Becky G on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 3)

Hillary went by the rules she didn't advertise or campaign in MI. Obama on the other hand choose to take his name off in MI and then had John Conyers buy radio ad's to encourage everyone to vote undecided to take votes away from Hillary. In Fl he was the only one who ran ad's.  This guy is not a man of his word.


by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not funny (2.00 / 0)

I agree. He lied, said something, did something else. What sort of ideals his followers will have if he is nominated?


by Sandeep on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Yeah, that seems like you are spliting hairs. I frankly don't understand why what either one of them says matter here. Either the states believe they want a do over based on their own voters or they do not. Sure, it's nice to know this, but let me ask you- what's your main concern here- the voters of FL and MI or the two candidates and their jocking? I do think that Obama's shine is coming off with this.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (2.00 / 2)

One crucial point that is gotten at in the quotes above is what is happening behind the scenes.

Obviously, the Obama campaign doesn't want to have its fingerprints on any attempt to quash a re-do of the primaries. But from the quote above, it seems they are raising obstacles behind the scenes to such a re-do in MI -- and clearly without the consent of the Obama campaign, the re-do will not happen.

In the end, all of this is going to have to come out  in the wash. Whatever goes on behind the scenes will find itself coming out in public in terms of accusations by one side or the other. And the problem for the Obama campaign is that it's going to be insupportable for them to look as if they've quashed the MI re-do, while also insisting that the MI delegates not be seated on the basis of the original primary.

I think it's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. The Obama campaign has a very, very real dilemma here. It's going to be the irresistible force of democracy meeting the immovable object of its narrow electoral interest.


by frankly0 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

I've been watching the ju jitsu amongst his supporters over the last week as well. It's certainly as tortured if not more so than the Clinton camps initially manipulations behind the scenes. I know I am in the decided minority, but I worry about process and the voters. Jerome and others remain firmly in the camp of big D Democrat rather than little "d" democracy. It's frustrating , but not unexpected, given their reaction to public financing.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

It all makes perfect sense to me.  Clinton didn't think she needed FL and MI to win and she was wrong.  She didn't care about disenfranchising these voters when she didn't need them.

Obama will win on delegates and votes and the only argument Clinton will have left is that she won FL, OH, MI and hopefully PA.  Why would Obama hand her the only argument she has for the nomination?  Remember, the only argument Clinton has left has to do with perception, not votes, not delegates.  It's a little silly for people to think she cares anymore about the will of FL and MI voters.  She wants to win.  She won't win on points, so she wants to win the perception game.  Why should he let her?


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Look, unless Hillary clearly loses on both pledged delegate count AND popular votes EVEN IF FL and MI are included, it's not going to be acceptable to the public at large -- and certainly not within those states -- to deny the voters in those states a voice.

That's just the way it is. No candidate is going to have legitimacy unless, at base, there is the perception that democracy has been served.

This is a larger point than whether democracy serves the interests of a particular candidate, or whether other arbitrary "rules" set beforehand by the Democratic party and/or the campaign themselves happen be adhered to. All such considerations must in the end bow to the overarching concern of democracy itself.

We'll see how all this plays out. So far, we're seeing from both sides the initial skirmishes on the issues here. Sooner or later, push will come to shove, and then we can see who's taking the high road and who isn't.


by frankly0 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

I agree with almost everything you've said above.  There is a telling difference though.  Clinton has gone from agreeing with the DNC, to calling for the votes to be counted in a very self-serving way, to calling for a re-vote, but only if it is a primary.  I honestly don't know where they stand as of today, because the campaign and their surrogates don't seem to be on the same page.

Obama's position has been consistent, right or wrong, that he would abide by the rules set out by the DNC.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Again some of you have a hard time getting this- Clinton and Obama's positions and their consistency etc are irrelevant. We don't have democracy based on the motives of particular people.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Look, I'm responding to what Armstrong was saying.  He wants to call Obama and enemy of Democracy if he doesn't hand Clinton the nomination on a platter.

As far as the larger issue here, I agree that the will of the people should reign supreme.  But lets remember one thing, most of the time in Primaries, the majority of people's votes count for nothing.  Heck, I'm from CA and my vote has never counted in my lifetime.

The Clinton plan, from the beginning, was to ensure that votes after Feb. 5 would be moot.  That was her plan.  Obama's plan, as laid out in his "leaked" memo, was to fight for the nomination across the entire country.  That is inspiring, and that is good politics.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (2.00 / 0)

the proper response isn't to play reaction for Jerome's action. Its to be concerned over the large issues without rationalizations such as the following "But lets remember one thing, most of the time in Primaries, the majority of people's votes count for nothing.  Heck, I'm from CA and my vote has never counted in my lifetime" My first thought is- this justifies what exactly? You seem more dismissive of the bigger picture than concerned about it. You mention and and then go on to talk about the candidates again as if they are relevant to whether democratic principles of voting are  happening or not. democracy doesn't = Obama. Sadly, you don't seem to get that. So this is once again with yet anohter supporter of another candidate a waste of my time.  


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

I pretty much agree with you.

Look, the reality is that the most favorable situation for Clinton would be to go with the previous primary results from MI and FL, and use them as a basis for seating delegates. The most favorable situation for Obama would be to deny MI and FL delegates a seat.

But the best interests of democracy lie in between: namely some kind of primary/caucus that best corresponds to a fair election.

My expectation is that in the end this is what will have to come about -- nothing else will be acceptable to the American people.

Both side will just have to take their lumps. But the lumps will very likely be bigger for the Obama side.

But there's no way he can successfully stand in the way of democracy, and he'd be much better off recognizing that from the earliest possible stage. Nothing will take the sheen off his campaign faster than the perception that he cares more about getting elected than about enfranchising voters.


by frankly0 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

You mentioned your views as they relate to candidates, so your opinion is a waste of his time.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Sadly, that comment probably very well captures your own ability to address the underlying issues.


by frankly0 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

Exactly the point. He or she sees the candidate name and they assume your underlying thesis was about the candidate. They are unable to process that we are talking bout the underlying value of the right to vote. It's why in his comments to me its a quick "I agree" but then a return to the arguments that rationalize the disenfranchisement.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

This is not necessarily true.  A caucus in Michigan could very well result in an Obama win, and it would, at the very least, have closer results than the current joke results, and thus make Clinton's argument for winning even more dubious.  Florida would certainly hurt Obama, but I'm not convinced that Michigan really would - at worst, he'd lose a couple of delegates out of a Michigan redo.


by jlk7e on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

And thus you make the case for why this isn't about the candidates. We don't know what the outcomes will be. What we do know is that the present status quo with regard to process and democratic values isn't acceptable. It's only when you start to jockey for one candidate or another that one feels the need to rationalize.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

I don't care what Clinton wanted or didn' want. That's exactly my point with regard to Jerome's point about Obama. This may be really confusing for some of you- but not everything is reducible to which candidate one supports. My candidate isn't even in the race anymore. So when I say this- it's really about process and the voters. That's it. So please stop with the he said, she said. I don't care.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters or the Candidates? (none / 0)

I love your statement:  "the irresistable force of democracy meeting the immovable object of its narrow electoral interest."

good one!


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

MYDD should change its name to HRCDD. Hillary spin - not the truth.


by katmandu on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

A lot of blogs should change their names to whatever candidates they support. I don't even bother to visit Daily Kos as much fo the same reason. I can tolerate Open Left and Talk Left because at least they are clear about whom they support, and seem to be able to have some objectivity about it. That's all I really seek. Not bias, but the ability pull back and be honest. This front page post is disappointing on that level.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

At least two Front Pagers here are Obama supporters: Jonathon Singer and Transplanted Texan.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to PLAY BY THE RULES (2.00 / 1)

You're selectively picking information even more blatently than the Clinton campaign.

Just kidding, they're worse.

But come on, picking and choosing facts is weak. Clinton said she'd abide by the rules. Then changed her mind when she needed the votes.

That puts the onus on HER, not Obama, to come up with something fair to Obama -- not the other way around. She wants to go BACK ON HER WORD, something that you and others would find unexcusable if Obama was the culprit. But since Clinton is grasping at straws, you're trying to do a little rhetorical trickery here.

It's ugly trickery, so instead of making the "protecting the rights of the voters" -- why not try to "protect the rights of the voters to take their candidates at their words."

Clinton can not have the delegates as is. She already accepted that reality. Any change requires her begging the indulgence of the rest of the national dems and presidential candidates who FOLLOWED THE RULES as they are, not just the rules as they wish they'd be when they're in desparate trouble.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to PLAY BY THE RULES (none / 0)

The onus is on neither of them. It's on the system. What is y our idelogical bent? I am starting to ask that question when I see stuff like this where everything is attributed to the individual action.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI (2.00 / 1)

She opposed a primary do-over in Florida.


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI (none / 0)

That's not what Clinton herself said a few days ago - paraphrased, it was no MI caucuses, no FL primary.


by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI (none / 0)

That is not what she said though. She said exactly the opposite.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI (none / 0)

That sure sounds an awful lot like compromise language. Just where are Senator Obama's famous working across the aisle and uniting people skills when you really need them?


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

Of course, he's ignoring the obvious to get a few shots in on Obama.

You expected differently?


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore's FL 2000 recount strategy: (none / 0)

Back then I had no web access (except at work and using it for personal reasons was a firing offense), but I have a memory of a FL elections official explaining that a recount could only be requested if the challenging candidate could show to some extent that a hand recount would actually change the outcome.

Does anyone else recall that? Have any cites either way? Could Gore have requested a full state recount at the beginning of the process?

Appreciate any solid input on this issue. THNX.


by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST

Re: Gore's FL 2000 recount strategy: (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I believe he could legally request recounts only in counties where he could show evidence that there were problems, and only 4 (?) counties met the criteria.  This was not a tactical mistake, it was playing by the rules.  There were strategic mistakes about not playing the media refs harder and howling louder, but that's another story.  


by chiefscribe on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome's letting his bias show. (none / 0)

You're right - Gore was playing by the rules.  Jerome knows that, but he's chosen to ignore it so he can bash Brazile.


Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
by Drew on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that both camps are playing hardball (none / 0)

for now in the public eye but behind the scenes things are being worked out.

I wouldn't worry about it right now.  Something will be worked out in a few weeks.


by puma on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (1.00 / 2)

Changing the rules mid-game and holding "re-dos" reminds me of things I did as a kid on the playground, not stuff we do in presidential elections. With that said, Clinton will try her darndest to steal this election because she is power craven.
Furthermore, we can't take anything Jerome says seriously anymore because is he is completely biased, in my opinion, a tool for the Clinton campaign and he has impliedly admitted so much, in my opinion.
by mecarr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 2)

"Clinton will try her darndest to steal this election because she is power craven."

No bias at all in your statements.  Thank you for your objectivity.


by realistic democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more Obama hypocrisy! (2.00 / 2)

LOL. Well said! I am amazed how people write such stuff which proves their hypocrisy so well.

Obama supporters:

Just accept that both candidates will do anything to win because they are both politicians.

Dont try to preach!

Most Hillary supporters dont live in messiah-worshipping world. It is politics. It is a game and we all (including Obama) are playing it.


by Sandeep on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stealing elections (2.00 / 2)

excuse me.  two million Democratic voters have been disenfranchised.  all votes must count.  counting all votes is decidedly not stealing an election. disenfranchising all those votes would amount to stealing an election.

and the DNC leadership has failed miserably in its obligation to protect the voting rights of all its Democratic voters.  they should be fired.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stealing elections (none / 0)

I'm sure that they count all the votes in Cuba and pre-invasion Iraq, also.

When the voting process is rigged then the results are invalid.

It's quite a simple concept, really.


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Wing (none / 0)


Guess which candidate endorsed Lieberman in the last Senate election?

Hint:  it wasn't HRC

Answer:  yes, it was BHO who endorsed Liebermann

p.s. Sen. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat; he left the Party after losing the primary in the last election, ran as an Independent -- and won with strong Republican support.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both Hillary and Obama endorsed Lieberman in the (none / 0)

2006 CT Primary.  They both supported Ned Lamont by donating $5,000 each from their respective PACs to Lamont's campaign.

I have my issues with Obama.  Not an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but I've long despised the Clintons because they believe, like Bush, that they are above the law.


by Terry from Killingly CT on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both Hillary and Obama endorsed Lieberman (none / 0)

Thanks for the fact update, Terry.

My reference to Lieberman means that the candidate places himself (or herself, in the case of HRC) above the welfare of the party.

HRC has obviously decided that sabotaging a fellow-Democrat's chance at the WH is her best career path. She's stabbing every Democrat in the back because she wants to be positioned to run against McCain in 2012.


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both Hillary and Obama endorsed Lieberman (none / 0)

Thanks for your correction.  Sometimes I'm relying on my memory and I screw up.  I remembered that Hillary endorsed Lamont after he won the Dem primary and I also remember hearing about a rally Obama had for Liebermann so I assumed he had endorsed him.

Obviously, I don't agree with you at all about your back stabbing comment -- and I don't agree with Terry about the above the law crap.  Yes GWB didn't abide by the Iraq resolution and signed more signing statements than all other presidents combined, so you can apply that to him, but not to Hillary Clinton.

Than god the Reagan/bush years were interrupted by a Dem President in the 90s who pulled the country out of the red, left behind a trillion $ surplus.....we all know where that went...


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rigged voting (2.00 / 0)

Your point?

What do rigged elections in Cuba and Iraq have to do with 1.7 million of voters disenfranchised in Florida by the DNC because the Republican-ruled Legislature changed the primary date?

Do you think the Republican Legislature rigged the election?! If that's the case, should Democratic voters have their votes taken away?


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rigged voting (none / 0)

Are you seriously contending that a MI ballot without Obama's name on it represents a fair ballot?

Clinton has had how many DECADES to build her name recognition with FL Dems and loyalty through favors to the FL Dem power structure. Obama has started behind, way behind, in every contest in this nominating process. Yet, he consistently closes, if not exceeds, Clinton's vote. Obviously, a primary where the relatively unknown candidate doesn't campaign (according to an agreement among ALL candidates) isn't a valid primary.

FL Dems weren't forced by Republicans to go against the party rules. They could have raised money and held their own primary or caucused or any other of a number of solutions.

The FL Dems played chicken with the party and relied on electoral blackmail to get their illegitimate vote accepted. I'm fresh out of sympathy for rank and file FL Dems and their elected representatives who voted 100% for the illegitimate date.

I have no problem with starting over. But, pretending that the results of the MI and FL primaries are legitimate insults any unbiased sense of fairness.

But, hey, I'm beginning to see a pattern in HRC's "heads I win, tails Obama loses" approach. HRC agreed to the rules. If the coronation had gone as planned, I bet she wouldn't have had a syllable of protest over "disenfranchised" Floridians.


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rigged voting (2.00 / 0)

It was Obama's choice to take his name off MI ballot.  Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel all had their names on ballot.  (and you do know about the O supporters Uncommitted campaign, don't you?)

I was in Florida visiting my mom during primary season, and people were very well informed about the candidates.  The election was practically all anyone was talking about.  Most people have TVs, and people I ran into were all talking about the debates and the issues and plans of the different candidates.  Even when I went to the public library, people were standing in the entranceway chatting about the election.  Believe me, Floridian voteres were very well informed -- and they turned out in all-time record-breaking numbers to cast their votes.  These voters had nothing to do with the date change.  The DNC threw 1.7 million of their voters out with the bathwater.  Shame on the DNC for not fulfilling their obligation to protect the voting rights of all Democratic voters.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

Big mistake by the Obama campaign. Of course, that seems to be their standard lately--one screw up after another.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:28 PM EST

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

Nowhere do i see Obama trying to stop or being opposed to new voting.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM EST

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

"Michigan 'firehouse primary' nixed by Obama camp"

So the reporters are lying to us?


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Denying MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Reporters are ALWAYS right.

This from U.S. News interviewing Senator Clinton posted Thursday.

"I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."


by Benstrader on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying MI and FL (1.00 / 1)

I laughed when I read this, but then I came to realize Hillary and her supporters would do anything to distortnot only Obama's but her own record, words, and actions.

/This is so sad


by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying MI and FL (none / 0)

And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

It's called saying the most intelligent thing. The voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported Hillary. Do you really think that she would turn her back on them?

Do you even realize how important the state of Florida is in the GE?


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying MI and FL (none / 0)

Do you really think that she would turn her back on them?
Only if it meant that she might possibly win the nomination.
Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Question about seating these delegations (none / 0)

I have a question.  

If the MI & FL delegates are seated as is by some machinations, would this not open up the floodgates for a free-for-all in which states would scramble to be first on the calendar in a primary season? At the rate we're going, we'd have primaries over a year before the general.  If there is no enforcement mechanism (punishment) for this jumping the line, it seems like our party will be resigned to chaos in the next election.

That said, I have a problem with IA & NH always going first, 2 essentially lily-white states not representative of the US population as a whole.  So that will need to be addressed, and I'm sure it will.

But the idea to simply allow those delegations to be seated in their current form is an open invitation for all out disaster for the party in the years ahead.  


by swarty on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (none / 0)

Perhaps you should try opening your eyes first.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is why Clinton will fail (1.00 / 2)

Instead of focusing her resources on upcoming contests, she focuses on the insult 40 state strategy and bending the DNC rules.


by carbocation on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM EST

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (2.00 / 3)

You like the 48 state strategy that puts ID and SD ahead of FL & MI better, I guess.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Yes, those states have Democrats who are smart enough to follow the rules. We should reward intelligence and good behavior, not insolence and stupidity.


by carbocation on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (2.00 / 2)

So Florida and Michigan states are now insolent and stupid... is that on Jonathan Alter's talking points memo?


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Typical of the Clintons - let's reward bad behavior when it benefits your own cause. Rule of law be damned.


by carbocation on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bad behavior (2.00 / 1)


two million democrats casting their votes is bad behavior?

to the contrary:  disenfranchising those voters is horribly bad behavior.

The voters did not change any rules and must not be punished.  The DNC has thrown two million babies out with the bathwater.  This is mis-directed punishment, to say the least.  

Blame the victims; and when the upiddy victims speak out about the injustice inflicted on them, blame them again for playing "the victim card."  slap! slap! slap!  How dare those voters think their votes must count.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

oh Jerome just cut it out, Ikes himself voed for this and now that they are losing and need those votes so badly they want to have a fake outcry on "disenchated voters"?  Where was Hillary on the DNC announced the delegate seats wouldnt count?  Why wasn't Hillary decrying her own aid when he voted for the plan?

/This moral high ground you rabid Hillary supporters are taking is sickening


by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Rewarding ID & ND  for "good behavior" is not going to help win an election in November. On the other hand, counting the votes of people in FL & MI is essential to a victory in November. This isn't about rewards and punishments, this is an election and it's about winning.


by LakersFan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Don't waste your breath. They only care about the states Obama won. States like Ohio are regarded as Samantha Power said, obsessed with fairness and the like.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Are you like even aware that the Republican controlled Florida legislature is the one that pushed this through and that the Florida Democratic party attempted to stop them? Are you aware that the governor of Florida is a Republican and that he pushed this as well and signed it into law? Are you aware that the DNC's own rules state that if the Democratic party made an attempt to stop the Republicans then there is an exception to the rules?

Or is it more likely that you have no regard for the facts and prefer to spout your points of view that have no grounding in truth?


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why Clinton will fail (none / 0)

Wow, it's amazing that "ready-from-Day-One" Hillary didn't recognize the injustice and fight for the rights of disenfranchised FL and MI Dems.

Afterall, her campaign agreed to the rules in advance.

Is this the type of planning and foresight that takes her over the "threshold" for CnC?

Wait. I know. She thought that she'd have the coronation, I mean, nomination wrapped up by the first Super Tuesday so that Florida Dems' votes wouldn't matter-- just like all the Dems' votes in states that she's lost.


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

It's not up to the candidates to decide, so hllary's and Obama's posturing is pointless.  The state parties decide.  The DNC rules state they can hold their primaries or caucuses anytime after Feb 5th, and the previous ones don't count.  They don't need anyone's permission to hold a re-vote.  It's already written int he rules that they can do so.

So, the campaigns can both stick it!  A revote is good for the democratic party as a whole, so it should be encouraged.  Neither campaign will get an unfair advantage, really...  I believe the whole effect will be a wash in terms of delegates, but the campaigning will increase excitement and voter registration in the states affected.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST

FL and MI are two very different situations: (2.00 / 1)

MI's Dem officials and Dem Party worked to move the date earlier. Against warnings. A do-ver seems not only fair, but mandatory in MI.

FL's ReThug officials and ReThug Party worked to move the date earlier. Against warnings, but R voters would lose only half their delegates. Dems, who had no control, were told by the DNC they would lose all their delegates. There was an important state constitutional question of the ballot, so the FL Dem Party felt they could not ignore the primary (and could afford to run one of their own).

Since when do we let the other party determine how our party's delegates get seated?

Also, in FL, no one actively campaigned, so the candidates were on equal footing. Obama appeared in FL for a fundraiser, took reporters' questions outside of the site, got some TV exposure. No big deal. Clinton came to FL for a fundraiser and was filmed at the airport, got some TV exposure. No big deal.  Obama had some ads running in FL, part of a national ad buy. Clinton did not. Both had spillover coverage from campaigning in other states. Both, along with Edwards, were on the ballot. Obama was coming off a huge win in SC, with tremendous PR.

FL Dem voters turned out in record numbers for this primary. They voted. FL voters would like their votes counted. FL Dem voters did not get their votes counted in 2000--not a good thing for national Dems to remind them of, btw.

Now, the DNC is allowing FL Repub Gov. Christ to make mischief with this issue all over again.

Why is the DNC letting this happen?


by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST

Should be: FL D's could NOT afford to run own: (2.00 / 1)

primary.


by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

Since when do we let the other party determine how our party's delegates get seated?

Every Democrat in the Florida House voted to move the primary up to Jan 29.


by EvilCornbread on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't reward stupidity (none / 0)

Yup. The Democrats in these states have no one to blame but themselves. I've seen several pundits on the 24/7 networks try to push the blame of Florida onto a "Republican legislature" when in fact EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT in the legislature voted in favor of moving the primary forward.


by carbocation on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't reward stupidity (none / 0)


Do you know the FL Dems introduced legislation to make the date Feb. 5th, which would have avoided all this problem.  The FL Repub majority shot this down, and also including in their own package legislation Dems have been fighting hard for since 2000:  implementing a paper trail back-up for all votes -- making it impossible to vote against.  devil's in the details.

My mom is a Florida Dem voter; she had nothing to do with these legislative changes.  1.7 million ordinary voters had nothing to do with these legislative changes.  For the DNC to throw 1.7 million of its own babies out with the bathwater is a travesty. blaming the victims is no answer.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

The republicans put a poison pill in the legislation that enabled there to be a paper trail of electronic balloting. The Democrats would not and could not vote against that, so they voted for the bill.

How about actually researching the history of the matter rather than rely on talking points you learned at Obama camp?


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

So maybe if they had a "present" vote in the Florida Legislature, they could have used that instead of going along with the republicans like babies.


by swarty on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

I am a Florida voter. This:

"Also, in FL, no one actively campaigned, so the candidates were on equal footing"

...is the goofiest thing I have ever heard. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye since the early 90s. Obama, not so much. I know for people who obsessively follow politics (i.e. the people on this board) have known who Obama is an have followed this race forever think its strange that a lot of people don't know who he is, there are a lot of people who don't know who he is. That's especially true considering how early the Dem primary was. In January, Obama won his first caucus, then his name was out there, but still a lot of people weren't paying attention.

All Florida voters had to go off of was name recognition. If you want people to vote off of issues, this election is bogus (and I voted in it).

Further, the Obama campaign can make a legitimate argument that everyone who would have voted in a legit primary didn't vote in the Jan. contest. Most people went out to vote on the property tax amendment. Who doesn't care about property taxes? People who don't own homes. What enormous block of voters don't own homes? College students. Judging from Obama's margins among the youth vote in most other primaries (and especially in the 4 states that voted before the Florida primary), he should have blown out those populations. He did only marginally better in the counties encompassing Tallahassee and Gainesville, which each have, at minimum, 48,000 college students.

What'd more likely:

In an election where the youth vote is exploding across the country, young people in Florida missed the wave and didn't vote.

or

The fact that all the talk coming up to the Florida primary was that it didn't count, so they they took the DNC at their word?

I won't excuse either campaign grandstanding on this issue. Obama should be open to new votes, or some agreement on seating the delegations. Similarly, Clinton should accept new votes (either primaries or caucuses--the fact that Obama does better in caucuses isn't a good reason for rejecting them). If her victories in those states were legit, then she has nothing to worry about. If they were Potemkin victories, they shouldn't count.


by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

Complete bullshit. Obama ran commercials in the state and held a press conference in direct violation of party rules. And he has been the media darling from the start of this so don't play the name recognition meme. It is a falsehood. As if that mattered to you.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

I don't recall insulting or being rude to you or people who disagree with my stance, so why don't you try to elevate the dialog instead of calling everyone you disagrees with you a liar, or someone uninterested in fair elections.

Obama made a national ad buy. Florida is part of the nation, of course the ad played there. I don't know about the press conference you are referring to, so I won't comment on that.

However, a Pew poll put out on 2/23/2007 shows Clinton's name recognition at 99% while Obama's was at 73%. While 73 is still high, Clinton had universal name recognition, statisticians don't do 100%, but its safe to say that everyone knew who she was, and at least some of those people hadn't heard of Barack Obama.

Quarrel with the numbers all you want, but don't be rude simply because we disagree.


by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

I said your points were falsehoods because they are. If that insults you it's not my problem.

So your excuse for Obama violating the rules is that it was a national buy that he knew would violate the rules but it was a national buy and well it's a national buy.

If you are really so concerned about people not criticizing your point of view perhaps you should present it in a manner that is at a minimum factual.

If you aren't aware of Obama's press conference then perhaps you will investigate it. I suspect that it doesn't matter to you because he wasn't as universally known as Hillary therefore he had every right to break the rules. I also suspect that is how you justify the voter intimidation and death threats from Obama supporters.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

How about you not conclude, with any kind of certainty, that I would condone death threats.

And if you want to talk about fairness (and by fairness, I mean your obvious opinion that whatever works to Clinton's benefit is fair, and whatever doesn't is a clear violation of the rules), why don't you explain to me Senator Clinton's statements prior to the Florida vote that she would press to get the delegates seated? Sure, she might not have been standing in Florida when she said it, but it was carried on the news, and the news is national, which squares with your argument about Obama's ad buy.

Also, if Senator Clinton is so concerned about every vote counting--not just the votes that go to her--why did she agree with the decision to strip the MI & FL delegations of their convention votes in the first place? IF she was truly concerned about every vote counting, why did she promise the four early states that she wouldn't campaign there? It's because her campaign was sure she would win ia, nh, nv and sc and seal the deal on feb 5. At which point it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

You can argue for the seating of the delegations or oppose the seating of the delegations, but to argue that senator clinton wants the former for any reason other than blind opportunism is ridiculous.

My argument is factual. You don't get to selectively refute parts of it and then say the entire thing is false. Want to question my intellectual integrity, have a little of your own.


by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL and MI are two very different situations: (none / 0)

Those commercials also ran in Iowa & NH, states that had already voted.  National ad buy.


by swarty on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Hillary just needs to pubically say Obama wants to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. People don't tend to like votes not being counted because of "rules". What is he afraid of? Oh yea losing again in two of the nations largest states that will be critical to Democratic success in November


by rossinatl on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM EST

Yup. (none / 0)

That'd fit perfectly with her comparing Obama to Karl Rove and Ken Starr because she doesn't want Dem primary and caucus voters to know where her skeletons lay.


Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy to deny MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

"It's our view that the state parties and the DNC need to work this out,'' Burton added. "Whatever the resolution,' we are looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the general election.''

Yeah, they're totally punting? I don't see anything other than an opposition to seating the delegates in the two states as currently allocated.

Obviously, both states have the right to have contests that comply with DNC rules. The "firehouse" primary in Michigan or caucuses sound good to me. I think a mail-in primary in Florida is the way to go. If the Obama campaign seriously opposed that, I'd disagree.

I see no indication that they do. Hell, a recent poll shows Obama tied with Clinton in Michigan and a "firehouse" primary or caucus could only benefit him there (certainly better than a 80=1 delegate split).  

Jerome is simply demagoguing and going hysterical on this issue.


by College Progressive on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST

Jerome going hysterical. (1.66 / 3)

Give Jerome a break.  He's doing the best he can with what he has to work with.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome going hysterical. (none / 0)

I agree with him on many things, I just don't understand why he has to be so inflammatory. Todd Beton is a Clinton supporter, and I like almost everything he writes. He's fair and honest and calls both candidates out when they say something wrong.

Jerome seems fixated on the Presidential primary (when has he last posted about something else? and how often?) and he's always offering criticism of Obama, never a positive evaluation of Clinton.


by College Progressive on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome going hysterical. (1.5