FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama, a Misunderstanding

by USArmyParatrooper, Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:19:14 PM EDT

I'm a relatively new member of mydd. I migrated over from dailykos, which I learned about from the "Colbert Bump". My screen name on dailykos is the same.

This is my first diary so I'll start by introducing myself. I'm a 34 year old, long time Democrat currently serving in the US Army. I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps reserves, during which time I worked in the semiconductor industry. I joined the US Army in October of 2003 as an Airborne Infantryman. Having served with the 82nd for two years, including one tour in Iraq, I came down on orders to recruiter duty :o( I'm currently wrapping up my time in recruiting and next month I report back to the 82nd :o)

For my first diary I wanted to discuss the FL and MI situation because I feel there's a misunderstanding. I think many Clinton supporters believe the argument against seating them as-is is about punishment. In my opinion that's the furthest thing from the truth. In actuality (ironically) the issue is about voter fairness.

A few bullet points.

1: Clinton flip-flopped on this issue and her "outrage" is obviously politically motivated. But this is the least important argument and it's a hot-button issue so let's just digress to the remaining three. I had to throw that in because it's a soar subject with me. I apologize if #1 is offensive to Clinton supporters.

2: Since all parties involved, Clinton included, said the votes weren't going to count many who wanted to vote stayed home. This taints the results and disenfranchises those voters who wanted to vote but didn't.

3: Obama has consistently closed the gap or pulled ahead in Clinton states where both campaigned. Having neither campaign there gives Clinton an unfair advantage, tainting the results.

4: Michigan only had Clinton's name on the ballot. Arguing to seat those votes? Seriously.

Voting is about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (as a collective). When candidates cannot make their case before the people, when the people of that state are told their votes won't count, when the ballots are altered the results are completely tainted. You do NOT get a correct representation of the will of the people.

So now we're left with two choices. Throw completely muddied up results into an otherwise clean pot or leave them out completely. The latter was agreed to in the beginning by all parties. And in my opinion it's the lesser of two evils.

I'm sure this is going to resurface a great deal of arguments and tired, old debates. And that's fine, because the matter isn't settled and it needs to be discussed. Hopefully (trolls aside) we can discuss these matters in a civil manner.

You may agree or disagree with my contentions. But I at least hope you Clinton supporters realize that's it's not about punishment, and it's not about F*** Florida and Michigan.

In the end the country can NOT afford 4+ years of McCain. At this point I think it's all but a done deal for Obama as our candidate. But in the unlikely event Clinton takes it I have pledged that I will vote for her. I won't like it but I can't let my emotions help McCain win. Far too much is at steak. I hope ALL of us, Obama and Clinton supporters alike can make the same pledge. This one is bigger than all of us as individuals. This is about ALL the people in the USA and how our future actions will effect the world.

Tags: clinton, Elections, obama, unity (all tags)

  • 71 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

71 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Tip Jar

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 05:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
yup

This has never been about democracy, its been about Clinton last chance at staying alive.

This diary is all about rational thinking, and a bunch of Clinton supporters here won't have any of that.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-30 05:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Tip Jar

Florida's Democratic Party is okay with halving the delegates.  Al Giordano has it up as a letter from Karen Thurman Chairman of the FDP.

http://www.ruralvotes.com/thefield

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 05:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Tip Jar

A corpsman here- figures; only a Marine would be dumb enough to re-up into the Airborne. ;)

Excellent take on the diary, kudos to you.

by ragekage 2008-05-30 06:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama, a Misunderstandin

Although I disagree with some of your points, I think this is a well-thought out diary.  I do think the DNC needs to rethink the "firsters" in a primary, because punishing states like FL and MI just doesn't make sense.  they are both huge swing states, and in the case of MI (the state I grew up in), words just doesn't being to describe how I feel about the DNC stripping them.

My folks that still live in MI came out & voted, even my 85 year mom (who never drives in the snow and it was snowing that day where she lives)

MI is a state that has been in ruins economically for 30 years and to have the DNC state it wasn't "important" enough to be one of the first states to go this cycle is just ignorance on their part.  MI is what the rest of this country will become if we don't fix our economy and job situation.

I don't understand how Iowa, NH, Nevada or NC were "better" states to kick off the primaries with over MI.

maybe next time, the DNC will just have a date when primaries can begin & to hell with the firster states.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-30 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's not that the first states are better

It's just that we still need to have some important first state or states.  And they need to be small.

This year is actually a perfect example of why.  If we just had a massive national primary, we would never get an outsider challenge to the insider candidates.  The establishment candidates still win much of the time but the retail politics of a small state give candidates like Edwards and Obama a shot at getting into the game.  You don't need 100 million dollars to win Iowa.  You need to run a great campaign in Iowa.  And the state is small enough for a much wider range of candidates to do that.  

Doing away with the retail politics of the small state at the beginning could actually be a long-term disaster to the party even though on the surface it appears to be more just.  A talented politician who is right for the times would have no chance at getting into the race if it was a national primary from the start.  The party would calcify around points of power even more than in the past.  

Does it need to be Iowa?  Debateable.  But it should be some smallish state.    

by Sun Dog 2008-05-30 05:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's not that the first states are better

NC is small?  Really?  How about Nevada - that small as well?

And Iowa did go first as did NH.  They moved their dates up.  So, MI & FL did go after them.  However, there is some laws that state that there has to be a certain amount of cushion between the firsters and the rest of them.

Perhaps we just need to draw state names out of a hat every four years and do it that way.  I don't think this year was a good example to use, because the campaign started last summer and we had debates and all.

I have never lived in a state where the candidate came a knocking at my door.  I've been to rallies, but they have them in just about every state.

The idea that people in other bigger states really pay attention to Iowa or NH is over-rated, imho.  Most people don't pay attention to it.  

by colebiancardi 2008-05-30 05:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's not that the first states are better

Yes, compared to MI & FL, SC & NV are small.

by Cochrane 2008-05-30 05:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes, those states are small compared to many

I'm talking populations more than geography.  

I didn't say Iowa didn't go first.  Why are you 'correcting' things I didn't say anything about?  I guess I'm not entirely clear what you were saying there on the fisrt part.  

As for Iowa and NH not having an impact on the bigger states, I think you're just way off there.  If Obama had not won in Iowa, it's unlikely he would have taken off to the point of being able to be the only real challenger standing on SuperTuesday and then actually win the delegate battle that day.    

I understand that most people in bigger states don't pay much attention to what is happening in Iowa for the year they're campaigning here.  That's why Hillary still led big in national polls even as Obama began to surpass her in Iowa.  And then when he won in Iowa, the numbers nationally started to shift.  

He did it because he could campaign head to head with her.  If someone could go see Hillary or Edwards one week, the same person could go see Obama the next.  The same thing would happen over and over for a year until people here had a much clearer picture of the candidates than the rest of the country.  The state is small enough that if you really want to ask any of the candidates a question, you yourself can probably get that done.  I met Obama twice myself, Richardson and Edwards once each and I saw every one of them speak in person.  

It meant a lot that Obama won Iowa.  It was an incredible campaign even if much of it didn't happen in front of the rest of the nation.  

I do agree with you that it may be possible to switch around from year to year which state goes first.  Although I do think there are some that would be better bellweathers than others, we need to preserve the retail politics aspect of it one way or another.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-30 06:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's not that the first states are better

I agree that Iowa,New Hampshire,Nevada,and South Carolina- should have their primaries first. We should have allowed Florida and Michigan to have their primaries after Iowa,New Hampshire,Nevada,and South Carolina and before Feb 5 Super Tuesday.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-30 08:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I agree

with everything you just said. Why not do Democratic Primaries like the General Election? Just have one big day and no Supers.

That would solve a lot of problems, don't you think?

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 05:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I agree

That would simply turn it into a competition of name recognition. If we did one big day, the most famous candidate going into the race would win each and every time.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 05:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What if

Each Candidate is given a much broader gap of time to campaign? Travel from state to state as is done in the GE.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

yep.  It would mean that they would have to pay attention to all states, not just a few.

This primary we got all states the attention that the majority of them never got in the past.  That is a good thing, imo.  Voter turnout, attention to what is important to that state.  I am used to being one of the last states to vote in the past and the nominee was already picked based on a few states.

Sure, it would be tough on the candidates, but if they can't deal with campaigning all over the US, then they can't deal with being president of the US.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-30 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

Or they would campaign in the more populous states and forget about the less populous states.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-30 07:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

There would be the problem of fund raising. Obama gained hugely in funding raising by demonstrating that he could win primaries and caucuses. He wouldn't have been able to raise enough to campaign in every state without demonstrating that he could win.

Another problem is that a candidate can't campaign in every state simultaneously except through TV commercials. Since campaigning months in advance is much less valuable than campaigning shortly before the election, the candidates couldn't pay attention to every state in a national primary.

A national election would also prevent winnowing of the candidates. If we had had a national election this year, in which the candidates somehow managed to campaign everywhere, we would either have had a Clinton victory because of her name recognition and early fund raising, or we would have had a situation where no candidate came close to getting a majority, forcing a brokered convention.

by letterc 2008-05-30 08:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

That could work. It's important to have a system where one candidate can't build an insurmountable lead after the first state or two. To keep such a system, there should be as little clustering as possible. No more Super Tuesday nonsense; three primaries a week across the country would allow every state to participate in four months.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 05:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

How about 5 state primaries every two weeks. Break the states down into groups of five focusing on variety.  And then every new primary you rotate the order.  For example New Mexico, New Jersey, NC, Oklahoma and Ohio followed by Tennessee, Louisana, Michigan, Deleware and Oregon, etc. Then the states that went first that year go to the end of the line and the other groups move up..

by hootie4170 2008-05-30 06:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What if

Now there's an idea

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-30 07:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Another perspective

is that we don't consider much about what this does to the actual candidates.

The first time I met Obama he was totally exhausted from campaigning.  I had followed the past month of the campaign very closely and couldn't believe what the guy had been through that month, seven days a week and even the just the schedule from the day I met him.  That was a full month BEFORE the Iowa caucus.  Most people have only seen glimpses of the insane effort since then.  

Seriously, we're killing these people.  

I think a lot of Hillary's 'blunders' are actually calculated to put something out there that they want out there.  But some of her mistakes have flat out been from exhaustion, just as she's said.  She's incredibly tough physically to be doing what she's doing.  I think the idea that that people throw around that she intends to do this again in 2012 is actually off just for that overlooked reason.  

I get to a point like a lot of people where it's hard to relate to the candidates as humans.  But back when I was meeting them, they were all incredibly impressive in what they were doing.  Bill Richardson campaigned himself to exhaustion for most of a year.  Consider that and then think about what Hillary and Barack have done.

It's something worth considering when we make plans for how the campaigns should be run.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-30 07:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That would not give enough

time for people to get to know the candidates, and would make the primary all about money and name recognition.

It would also almost guarantee a brokered convention since you would not have winnowed the field like you do in the current system.

by fladem 2008-05-30 05:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: That would not give enough

It would make fundraising hard, because all the candidates would stay in until Primary Day.

by hootie4170 2008-05-30 06:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Woot! Give it up for the trooper.

It's good of you to lay this out so patiently as you see it but from what I've seen there aren't many hardcore Hillary supporters who are interested in understanding the realities of this issue.  All it seems to represent is some last ditch one in a million chance to overturn the nomination or at least drag it out longer.  

In the interest of that, most who are still fighting will simply repeat the talking points about how it's not Democratic unless 'every vote is counted!'  

Don't you believe in Democracy?!? Huh, don't ya?  etc.  

Not to say it isn't worth it to keep pointing out the realities but most of the blogging Hillary supporters are only interested in the realities of this as a point to argue against.  

That's what I've seen anyway.  Love to be wrong here.  

Thanks for your service.

Peace.

by Sun Dog 2008-05-30 05:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Great first diary...

...thanks for your service to our Country...May God Bless You and Keep You Safe!!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-30 05:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
An idea for state order

Besides a national election day like the GE, we can do the sates in order from smallest to largest.

As the campaign draws on, as the public gets to know the candidates more... and (I hate to say it) as their skeletons get exposed, the bigger states with more delegates start coming into play.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 05:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
nice diary

you might want to update to include the tip I posted (I am diary maxxed out until late tonight).

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 05:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hello

Welcome to MyDD.

I'll try to summarize most of the arguments here that differ from your bullet point list.

1. Moving to seat the delegations out of partial political self interest is no worse than (furtively) opposing the seating of delegations & revotes out of political self interest.

2a. Clearly no one in Florida believed the DNC would do something as draconion as to reenact Election 2000 in their primary again.  They voted anyway in record numbers and with higher turnout than most states voting in January/February.

2b. The voter confusion that arguably depressed turnout (record turnout, mind you) is no less pronounced in FL/MI than in the caucus states where even steeper barriers (time, information, language) minimized the ability of the electorate to participate.  

2c. Of the segment that did not vote because they believed their vote wouldn't matter, there is no reason to believe this group would have impacted the candidate spread either way.  Those that did vote are presumptively representative of the state's partisan spread.

3. Not really.  After Wright/Bittergate, profligate spending and persistent public appearances if anything hurt him more than helped.  He couldn't significantly abate Clinton's presence in Pennsylvania.  He lost Indiana.  His North Carolina victory was 15-20% lower than his victory in all surrounding states.  His margins of defeat in Kentucky and West Virginia were unreal, despite outspending Hillary 2 or 3 to 1.  If anything, Obama's proven very limited in his ability to influence the electorate with spending.  He doesn't get much bang for his buck anymore, now that the February halo has shattered.

4.  Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot consciously and voluntarily.  Nothing required him to do so.  The purpose was to avert a certain loss there and delegitimize the election retroactively.  If he wanted votes or delegates from Michigan, clearly he should have remained on the ballot.  The fallout from Obama's sabotaging of the Michigan election isn't something for which Michigan voters should be penalized.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 05:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

First let me say, I'm so glad this will soon be over.

Now

The purpose was to avert a certain loss there and delegitimize the election retroactively.  If he wanted votes or delegates from Michigan, clearly he should have remained on the ballot.  The fallout from Obama's sabotaging of the Michigan election isn't something for which Michigan voters should be penalized.

You make these assertions a statements of fact when they are nothing but reverse engineering to tell a  story you want to tell.  Every major candidate except Sen. Clinton removed their name from the MI ballot and Sen. Clinton said it was clear the vote in MI would not count.  

Now unless you possess a time machine and can go back and change the real facts your summary is a construct of your imagination.  

You are part of...

by nextgen 2008-05-30 06:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No more lies, please

"Every major candidate except Sen. Clinton removed their name from the MI ballot."

There were 5 choices on the ballot: Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Uncommitted.  

Cite me the rule that requires a candidate to remove their name from the Michigan ballot.

Can't find it?  Oh wow, that might be because it doesn't exist.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 06:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It happens to me too

I miss an important word in a comment that changes the context.  I'm sure it was just a mistake on your part.  

I said every major candidate.  

You are a member of ...

by nextgen 2008-05-30 06:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It happens to me too

I noticed that.  You were using a distortion and diminution of the candidates in Michigan to prove a point that was factually incorrect.

Hide rated for the "Denial Machine" insult.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 06:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It happens to me too

From you this is a compliment.  

The last option of the defeated, hide post that call you on your lack of intlectual honesty.

Don't be mad because you got called on your revisionist history  

You will soon be able to move on, there is plenty of room for you at redstate and I hear noquarter is accepting applications.  

by nextgen 2008-05-30 06:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It happens to me too

You violated the site's guidelines with a personal attack.  Nothing further.

by BPK80 2008-05-30 07:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It happens to me too

No, I described your refusal to address the facts as denial that's not an attack its a diagnosis.  

But it does not matter, no convoluted backwards fact twisting justification will change the fact that this contest is over.  

So to make sure I don't attack you.  I would describe the refusal to face reality as...

by nextgen 2008-05-30 07:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
hmm?

In a recent comment someone wrote...

I have no idea why you are so condescending and inhumane.  Please don't ever respond to me again.  Thank you.

Is that comment, attacking someone as inhumane and condescending, more or less of a personal attack than suggesting someone is in denial?

by libertyleft 2008-05-30 07:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: hmm?

It's a defense, not an offense.

by BPK80 2008-05-31 03:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
sorry, but i think you are mistaken...

here are the results from MI:

Hillary Rodham Clinton      328,309     55.2%     
Uncommitted     238,168     40.1%  
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,715     3.7%  
Christopher J. Dodd  3,845     0.6%  
Mike Gravel        2,361     0.4%  

Delegates stripped by party.

maybe you owe the previous poster an apology?

by canadian gal 2008-05-30 06:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: sorry, but i think you are mistaken...

Thank you.  This is the same person who went on an endless tirade against me when I said I admired Hillary after reading her autobiography.  I've come to expect the worst.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 06:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: sorry, but i think you are mistaken...

No this is the same person who pointed out that she didn't write the object of your admiration and you got all defensive.  The fact was never disputed you were insulted that I suggested that you might not have known.  Don't worry I won't hold it against you , I know it's a difficult time right now.  

by nextgen 2008-05-30 06:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: sorry, but i think you are mistaken...

I have no idea why you are so condescending and inhumane.  Please don't ever respond to me again.  Thank you.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 07:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: sorry, but i think you are mistaken...

"Major" candidates, did I say major candidates, yes as a matter of fact I sure did.  

I don't know that you would consider 3 candidates that got 4.7% combined major..

Or you might.

by nextgen 2008-05-30 06:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

1. Nothing wrong with trying.  But Hillary has opposed several of the proposals, as well.  The ones that don't favor her.

  1. Florida's 'record turnout' would have been much higher if the election had counted.  Diaried by (I believe) Todd yesterday.  And it's not 'clear' that no one believed that their votes wouldn't count - they were told that they wouldn't count.  2b & 2c - these are not supported by fact or precedent.
  2. Obama outspent Clinton because he had to fight the name recognition factor.  Demographics in later states have favored Clinton - breaks of the game.  Timing counts.
  3. Obama removed his name because it wasn't a sanctioned election.  Only elections sanctioned by the DNC count.  If they work something out, fine.  But he shouldn't be punished for sticking to the rules, and Clinton shouldn't be rewarded for ignoring the rules.

All that being said, I appreciate the way you presented your arguments.

by haremoor 2008-05-30 06:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

The "rules compliance" meme that Obama floats around to justify his removal from the ballot doesn't pass the smell test, if for no other reason than there was no rule requiring him to do so.  

It was tactically advantageous to evade an early big loss and to then further use the tactic as justification to exclude the state from the party's convention.  

No offense, but one would have to be naive to believe Obama's removal from the Michigan ballot had anything to do with morals or complying with rules (that didn't require him to do so).  We're talking about the same guy who backstabbed Alice Palmer and won his 1996 election by challenging signatures that were printed rather than written in cursive.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 06:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

I didn't say that he was following the rules by removing his name, I'm saying that the election didn't count.  If the election didn't count, why leave your name on?
   And if it was tactically advantageous to 'evade a big early loss', that would fit into the argument I was responding to - point no. 1.  There's nothing wrong with trying to win - as long as you play by the rules.    Which also speaks to your other point re: Alice Palmer.  Rules rule.  
  Doesn't make him a backstabber, and doesn't make me naive.  

Seriously, it's not what Clinton or Obama have done that is the problem, it is the motivations we attribute to them that is the reason for our differences.  They both want to win.  We all want to win.  We just disagree between the two options we have.  We are both emotionally invested.  
    In politics, I often find it helpful to ask " what if the shoe were on the other foot?"  If someone argues that Bush should be able to do what he wants, I ask them if they would be OK with Gore, or Bill Clinton, or Kerry, or Hillary Clinton, or Obama having the same power?
   In doing that, I often find that if the Obama and Clinton positions were reversed, I am forced to admit that if Obama did what Hillary was doing, I'd be OK with it.  Other times, not.  It's an interesting experiment - try it!

by haremoor 2008-05-30 06:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

thank you for an honest answer.  

but i think its important for you to know that this hypocrisy is what drives HRC supporters mad.  

yesterday someone wrote a diary that basically said that BO's negative attacks were okay and "new politics" because he denied or appeared less negative.

by canadian gal 2008-05-30 07:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello
Yeah, well, Canadian Gal, Intertoobs are like a*holes.  Every a*hole has one.
   Some people come here for honest discussion.  Some don't.  Most of the reports from real life (you know, the stuff that happens outside the internet) indicate that when Hillary and Obama supporters meet, in a primary, or a caucus, or a state convention, they get along!  They talk to each other, maybe even have a drink, share a joke, and walk away feeling pretty good.
    Here, it's too easy for anonymity to color the discussion.  I've enjoyed a few of the recent diaries, where people reveal some things about themselves, and explain how their life situations have played into their choice of a candidate.
    I'm a Suns fan.  My team lost in the first round.  So I rooted for New Orleans.  They lost to the hated Spurs in the second round.  So I rooted for the slightly less hated Lakers to beat the Spurs, which they did last night.  I was happy watching the Spurs lose.  But I'll root against the Lakers in the Finals.
     We make our choices based on the choices we have.  I am interested in electing a Democratic President this fall.  I supported Kucinich (sp?) first, then Edwards, then Clinton, then Obama.  Kind of like basketball.  
    Maybe, someday, we can get together, have a drink, share a joke, and maybe you'll walk away thinking I'm not such a bad guy.  
    It could happen.
by haremoor 2008-05-30 07:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

"I didn't say that he was following the rules by removing his name."

Yes, you're not naive and you don't fall into the category of people who would buy that thin pretext.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 09:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

I don't think anyone claims he was (required) to remove his name. But him removing his name is completely irrelevant. All of the (major) candidates besides Clinton removed their name as well.

Clinton herself said "Michigan doesn't count for anything."

I'm sorry. But it baffles me how Clinton supporters can claim the results are not tainted. It baffles me how Clinton supporters actually think she's the one on moral high ground.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 09:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

I never said the results weren't tainted.

But the reason for the taint is the direct result of a group effort of unfavored candidates engaging in a maneuver strategically designed to unhinge the impact of the Michigan election.  

"Hillary's gonna kill us there.  What should we do?  You think we could get away with it?"

Evidently, yes.

by BPK80 2008-05-30 10:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello


I never said the results weren't tainted.

Oh, OK. Because I was under the silly impression that the purpose of an election is to obtain an accurate measure of the will of the people. Otherwise you're just negotiating different colored jellybeans.

But the reason for the taint is the direct result of a group effort of unfavored candidates engaging in a maneuver strategically designed to unhinge the impact of the Michigan election.

Wow! They were trying to unhinge the impact of Michigan. Darn Hillary Clinton and company!

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 10:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Context

I know that quote is famous and is regarded by some as the holy-grail of indicting Clinton's inconsistency.  Let's see that quote's full context:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_ pf.html


"But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

...

"I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.

...

"If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn't, in my view, meaningful, but I'm not going to say there's an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it"

Clearly, it's not as inconsistent with what Clinton is doing now, despite strident contrarian efforts to "gotcha!" sound-byte Clinton.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 11:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Context

Let's see that quote's full context:

Absolutely NOWHERE in there did she say, or argue, that the delegates in Michigan should count. That entire discussion was her explaining the reason she was keeping her name on the ballot. Did she at ANY TIME say, "because I think we should seat their delegates?" NO! In fact she plainly says she recognizes their votes "won't count for anything". BUT she says she just doesn't want them to feel 'completely' ignored because it could in November.

The entire line of questioning was all about whether or not she was back peddling on their agreement, or whether or not she's going to pull the same exact shit that she is right now.

So tell me, context INCLUDED, what exactly did she mean by, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,"

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-31 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Context

Nonsense, BPK80. This could be seen as a valid excuse once upon a time -- and indeed I think back then it may have indeed been her reason for leaving her name on the ballot: She wanted to win on November, she would be using the same old Michigan+Ohio+Florida strategy, so she needed not to lose the percentage points it'd cost her if some hypothetical Republicans stirred up resentment in those states.

That'd be a perfectly legitimate argument: "I'm not going there to win delegates, I'm leaving my name so as to show respect for the people of Michigan". Perfectly proper the argument she presented back then -- the votes don't count for the primaries, but we must show respect.

Now, however, what she's doing by trying to make the votes count is she's trying to drive the people of Michigan+Florida against the democratic party. She's basically being the hypothetical Republicans that she once presented as the inciters of resentment.

You can't get a much more perfect example of transforming into what you once pretended to fight.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-31 07:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Context (EXACTLY!) n/t

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-31 07:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

The primary reason for the "taint" as you call it, is that the candidates weren't allowed to campaign there -- giving an instant benefit to the best-known name, the name which (all too coincidentally, I'm sure) was left on the ballot.

It's not that Obama was morally obliged to withdraw his name. There was no such obligation -- he simply had the moral right to choose to do so.

Clinton on the other hand had the moral obligation not to demand the votes be counted in such an invalid unfair content, and she failed that moral obligation.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-31 06:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

Moving to seat the delegations out of partial political self interest

partial political self interest? She agreed to it, her campaign even endorced the idea, and Clinton herself casually stated, "MI doesn't count". Since then you heard crickets until she was way behind. Being as objective as you can be, can you honestly say it's not all political?

(furtively) opposing the seating of delegations & revotes out of political self interest.

What is your evidence of this? I do not buy silence as evidence. The ground rule were set and agreed to. SHE is fighting them, and he's letting her and the DNC sort it out.

The voter confusion that arguably depressed turnout (record turnout, mind you) is no less pronounced in FL/MI than in the caucus states where even steeper barriers (time, information, language) minimized the ability of the electorate to participate.

First of all it's not voter confusion. There is nothing confusing about "your vote will not count". The entire election has had record turn out, but WITHOUT A DOUBT it tainted the results. Nobody complained about caucuses until Obama starting winning them. But in caucuses states BOTH parties were allowed to participate equally.

Of the segment that did not vote because they believed their vote wouldn't matter, there is no reason to believe this group would have impacted the candidate spread either way.  Those that did vote are presumptively representative of the state's partisan spread.

Yes, no reason to believe a massive amount of people not voting doesn't skew the results.

3: Bittergate was a joke and Clinton had a number of scandals of her own. The whole sniper thing was an embarrassment. But while I disagree with much of what you said, I'm not going to delve in just yet. The reason, NOTHING you said refutes the fact that the end results in Clinton states were MUCH more narrow than the initial polling. Obama gained on her every single time. From the initial polling, input both of their campaigns and time has always been on Obama's side in the long run.

4: Delegitimize the election retroactively? You're kidding me right? The Clinton camp was a BIG factor in delegitimizing MI, not retroactively but rather FROM THE START.

Watch this video and then answer the following

So you think Obama with ZERO votes is a representation of American democracy?

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 07:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

What if we give Obama 50% of the Uncommitted Votes in MI.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-30 08:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

You actually being serious?

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 09:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

Uncommitted is an officially recognized status by the DNC.  The RBC has no basis to assign delegates to candidates who did not appear on the ballot.

Personally, I'd like a few Michigan delegates myself.  I think a cadre of BPK80 for President voices would help my resume.  But like Barack Obama, I wasn't a contender in the Michigan election.  

Note that nothing prevents Uncommitted delegates from voting for Obama at the convention.    

by BPK80 2008-05-30 10:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

The RBC has no basis to assign delegates to candidates who did not appear on the ballot.

Well it was silly of them to expect the loser of the elections would be an adult and stick to what they cheerfully agreed to.

Note that nothing prevents Uncommitted delegates from voting for Obama at the convention.  

Correct. But the thing is Pledged delegates are supposed to go proportional to who received which vote. You cannot deny that

1: Hillary Clinton initially agreed to, and even endorsed the DNC's decision about MI and Fl.

2: Thus, the election results for those states have been tainted so we cannot acquire a real representation of the will of the people.

3: Hillary Clinton (the election loser) suddenly wants to change the rules as a last ditch effort.

BTW, please link me to YOUR protests on here prior to Clinton falling behind.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 11:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

Well it was silly of them to expect the loser of the elections would be an adult and stick to what they cheerfully agreed to.

Agreed to what?  I don't think Hillary ever agreed to not advocate for the full seating of MI/FL in the unlikely contingency that they weren't able to have a revote.  

It's easy to overlook that many of Hillary's comments were said under circumstances where it was expected that Florida and Michigan would hold revotes (which they tried to do, and failed per obstruction by Obama's lawyers).  

"3: Hillary Clinton (the election loser) suddenly wants to change the rules as a last ditch effort."

The only "rules" she's changing are the profilgate misinterpretations of the rules that have been peddled by the media and supporters of her opponent.  Anyone with a decent head on their shoulders can clearly see the rules provide the means for the RBC to seat Michigan and Florida fully (20.C.5 / 20.C.7).  

Thus, the election results for those states have been tainted so we cannot acquire a real representation of the will of the people.

1.7 million Democrats don't represent the will of the people.  But 40,000 caucus-goers in Nebraska do, even while the skewed results they produce are demonstrably at odds (by 30%) with a more inclusive tally of the state's will.  That's called spin.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 11:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

The 1.7 million Democrats in Florida and Michigan voted despite the fact their votes would not count.

Hillary's strength in Florida and Michigan was based on name recognition. Obama's strength in Florida and Michigan was based on momentum.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-31 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

Agreed to what?  I don't think Hillary ever agreed to not advocate for the full seating of MI/FL in the unlikely contingency that they weren't able to have a revote.

In the Army we have tasks and "implied tasks". Implied tasks are assumed to be common sense in keeping with the Commander's intent. For example; "mop the floors". The implied task in that case, which is completely unspoken, is to sweep the floor first.

Obviously when you AGREE for the votes NOT to be seated you're agreeing not to fight about it after. How does it make any sense oppose it after the fact and not before? What would be the point in agreeing not to campaign there?

in the unlikely contingency that they weren't able to have a revote.

Unlikely contingency? Are you fricking serious? Yes, in the UNLIKELY event they won't have an issue with holding, funding, and organizing AND ENTIRE NEW ELECTION that the DNC will sanction.

The only "rules" she's changing are the profilgate misinterpretations of the rules that have been peddled by the media and supporters of her opponent.

Since you want to play semantics perhaps "rules" isn't the correct word. Sure certainly isn't violating the rules, per say, by flip-flopping. But she is backpedaling without a doubt.

1.7 million Democrats don't represent the will of the people.

The will of the people has to do with the will of ALL people combined. That is how a PRIMARY is supposed to work.

Show me where Clinton OR you ever complained about Caucuses before she started losing them. Show me how the results are 30% at odds with the states will.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-31 07:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

"Since then you heard crickets until she was way behind."

Hillary pushed for seating MI/FL since January.  Even in her famous quote about "the election not counting," the rest of the speech is much more sympathetic to Michigan than she's given credit.  Keep in mind the purpose of this power-play wasn't to exclude Michigan & Florida.  It was designed to inspire revotes in both states, as had happened in Delaware in the 1990's.  Unfortunately, every attempt to organize a revote was blocked.  Barack Obama was determined to not hear the voices of Michiganders and Floridians, and that has not changed.  

It's very comparable to his backstabbing of Alice Palmer, where he won a 1996 election not through voting, but rather through tactical schemes based on draconian rules technicalities.  

"Being as objective as you can be, can you honestly say it's not all political?"

I can't put a percentage figure on it, but no, it's not all political.  I've already said it's partially politically motivated.  It's also the morally superior argument (Sanctity of the Calendar vs. Voters!?).  Likewise, as a Democrat, Clinton has a vested interest in seeing the party healthy both in the short term and long term.  It's not hard to see that ostracizing Florida and Michigan from the convention (and by symbolism, the party) is a huge insult vis-a-vis John McCain's intent to now seat Florida and Michigan fully.  Friction between the DNC and state parties in Florida and Michigan isn't what we need in the fall, especially not in those states.  

"What is your evidence of this? I do not buy silence as evidence."

Silence is evidence.  Check out the Federal Rules of Evidence for one example.  Admission by silence is not an alien concept.  

"Yes, no reason to believe a massive amount of people not voting doesn't skew the results."

Unless there's demonstrable evidence that the election warded off more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters, then that's correct; there's no point in hypothesizing what the result would have been.  

There is nothing confusing about "your vote will not count". [sic]

Oh but there is, when it becomes a message mixed with both tacit and express encouragement to vote, for instance, Conyers' "Vote Uncommitted for Obama" in Michigan campaign.  

The reason, NOTHING you said refutes the fact that the end results in Clinton states were MUCH more narrow than the initial polling.

Not true.  Before the impact of Wright and Bittergate, Obama was predicted to win Indiana by as much as 7%.  He was on track to win North Carolina by huge margins, on par with neighboring Virginia (28%), South Carolina (29%), and Georgia (36%).  He lost Indiana instead and won North Carolina by only 14%, despite furious campaigning on both sides.  

Pennsylvania's a tougher call since it looked like Obama was closing in on Clinton, until in the immediate aftermath of Bittergate, the results ended up close to double digits rather than a narrow win.

Despite massive spending advantages, Obama was hammered in Kentucky by 35%, right after the Edwards endorsement was supposed to help defray an anticipated 28% loss (RCP).  Instead, the loss just expanded.  Ditto for West Virginia.  Aside from D.C., West Virginia had the largest margin of victory of any primary so far, 41%.  Unreal.  After he was declared presumptive nominee.  

: Delegitimize the election retroactively? You're kidding me right? The Clinton camp was a BIG factor in delegitimizing MI, not retroactively but rather FROM THE START.

She kept her name on the ballot, which was obviously the smart thing to do (and consistent with the rules).  Obama's voluntary removal of his name from the ballot has made it difficult to discern voter intent in that state.  Had he stayed on the ballot, we would know exactly how many delegates to award him.  Instead he sacrificed his votes in Michigan to offset an early momentum-crushing loss.  Now his supporters want the RBC to wave a magic wand and divine some delegate allocation to him based on votes that he never received.  

Being a realist, I'm fairly confident the RBC will nuke Florida and Michigan tomorrow and have them participate only as a formality, unable to influence the process.  Influencing a process however is the very essence of voting.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 11:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hello

"Now his supporters want the RBC to wave a magic wand and divine some delegate allocation to him based on votes that he never received.  "

No, what I want is that it be recognized that legitimate primaries are only the ones that allow campaigning.

If we can't have that, then just give all the delegates to Clinton, even the uncommitted ones, and be done with the farce of supposed legitimacy already. She's evil already, everyone realizes that, so let her have her evil bounty and be done with her whines and Zimbabwe comparisons.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-31 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
To Quick Points

First, as the above poster said, thank you for your service.

Second, your post is logical and right.  

end

by nextgen 2008-05-30 05:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama

So now we're left with two choices. Throw completely muddied up results into an otherwise clean pot or leave them out completely.

Aren't you leaving out the rather obvious choice of simply re-voting the two states?

Isn't that the fairest solution?

by leisure 2008-05-30 06:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama, a Misunderstandin

Aren't you leaving out the rather obvious choice of simply re-voting the two states?

Isn't that the fairest solution?

Sure, I'm OK with that. So long as neither candidate is funding and/or organizing the event.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 07:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama, a Misunderstandin

This raises the question of who gets to vote?  The people who voted in the first election?  The people who didn't vote?  The people who voted in the Republican primary because they thought the Democratic primary didn't count?

    All of these scenarios crate problems in achieving fairness.

by haremoor 2008-05-30 07:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: FL and MI, Clinton vs Obama, a Misunderstandin

CREATE - jeez.

by haremoor 2008-05-30 07:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Excellent Points

And perhaps a revote creates more questions than answers. But I'm at least willing to explore that idea. Anything besides the alphabet soup results as-is. Seating the current results would make a mockery of an election process on two fronts. The changing of the rules after-the-fact to appease the loser, and the acceptance of tainted results.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-30 07:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------