Looks like a revote:
Howard Dean will not bend the party rules to grandfather in the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida, the Democratic party chairman said in a statement today.
Instead, he put the state parties on notice: either they can wait and allow the credentials committee to decide whether to seat their delegates, or submit to a re-vote sanctioned under DNC rules. “We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time,” he said in the statement.
“Everyone seems to be asking what the DNC will do,” a Democrat close to Dean said. “But the question is: what will the state parties do.”
there will be no revote, because the state parties aren’t going to come up with the millions of dollars (18 million for Florida alone, I hear), the DNC isn’t coming up with it, and the states aren’t coming up with it.
Personlly, if Obama doesn’t want the delegates seated, I think he should pay for the revotes — I mean, he has ALL that money, and I know that as the MUP, he couldn’t bear to see people in FL and MI unrepresented at the convention… that would be so, un-unifying!
Oh dude.. opening shoot. You’re gonna so get it. :-) Clearly, you’re enjoying this.
Heh. Yeah, there wouldn’t be any conflict of interest if a candidate paid for an election, would there be? Hey, would he get naming rights? I can see it now… the Barack Obama FL/MI Caucuses, here we come!
The delegates should absolutely not be seated. And if there’s no allowable/DNC-sanctionable (is that a word) re-vote, FL and MI delegates are just SOL. If the state party can’t pay for it, them’s the breaks.
As a Clinton supporter I can 100% support the idea that her “wins” in those states aren’t wins and don’t count. At all. The merely represent a warped (other candidates not on ballots, for example) sample of popular sentiment at the time.
I hate all the differences between caucuses, primaries, open primaries, and all the scheduling quirks of the primary season. But that’ll have to be fixed before next time – now is not the time to just start making shit up.
John, rather than quote from another source, why not link to the actual letter sent out by Dean… because you know what. Ambinder is an idiot if he thinks that Howard Dean himself has the power to “bend the party rules and grandfather in the disputed delegates”. (note below that he uses the word “we”, not “I” in the letter below)
here is the text of Dean’s letter: h/t to MyDD
“I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message.”
shorter p.l: Clintons only need rules and pledges to keep lesser people out of their way.
Seat the delegates, but do not allow them to vote on the first ballot. If neither candidate gets the necessary 2024 delegates on the first ballot, then let them vote on subsequent ballots.
It costs nothing, it doesn’t prevent either candidate from achieving a first ballot victory, and it accomplishes the purpose of the ban without completely alienating those in FL and MI.
It does cost something, Paul, and we both know it. The DNC has the right to make the rules, and the states should play within them. FL and MI chose to break them, and they need to pay a price.
I expect, by the way, that FL will choose to revote, and that MI will choose to let the credentials committee choose.
you know what really accomplishes the purpose of the ban? not seating the delegates, just like the states knew would happen when they broke the rules.
Dennis - SGMM
No sense playing by the rules.
I’d love to see a revote, no matter what the outcome. It would make the voters in MI and FL happy, it would produce more delegates, it would produce more record-breaking Dem turnouts, and it would eliminate some of the most bullshit talking points I’ve ever seen. What’s not to like?
I could not abide by Paul’s proposed plan, though. Not and retain any respect for the DNC.
MI and FL willfully broke party rules, and this primary is run by that party. Why should those results be accounted for? If they want to produce results within the rules, I’m all for accepting them.
What would MI gain by doing that? Wouldn’t the credentials committee just say “whatever dudes, not seating your delegates” or “we’re giving you delegates to candidate x because they’re ahead”…
If MI and FL propose and hold their re-votes before the deadline, great. If not, SOL. Simple, given the situation. And they (the states) can pay for it.
jcricket, you will need to report to room 5-B for disposal of your Official HillaryWorshippingMembershipCard.
Thank you, Citizen. Remember, it is mandatory to be happy. The Computer is your friend, and is here to Make You Happy!
Except for the small, and quite ridiculously unfair fact that if those delegates are seated, they are already pledged to Hillary, simply because in one of those states, Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, and he didn’t campaign in the other. You know, because they HAD AGREED BEFOREHAND THAT THEY WOULDN’T COUNT.
Do you not understand why this is completely cheating?
demi, five states broke the rules… but the rules got bent for three of them.
The bottom line here is that the superdelegates are gonna decide who the nominee is, regardless of what happens with FL and MI. And I suspect that when they do decide, they are going to vote en masse, as the party leadership, after first agreeing to do so, and then polling the SDs to find out where their support is.
They would not have to pay for a caucus/revote.
Truth is, if the party wants to run a revote, I’ll be glad to donate in support. Kos ought to just set up an ActBlue site to pay for running the two elections, and challenge us all to contribute to pay for them.
I like all your reasons and agree with them. The counter arguments are:
* Lengthens campaign season (which I think sharpens our candidates and isn’t gonna be a big deal. Others obviously disagree. )
* Gives people a “do-over” in those states, but you could argue their first “do” wasn’t really a fair try given they were told the votes wouldn’t count…
I dunno. I’ll be fine if it’s just both states being SOL or both hold a revote. Those are the only scenarios I see making any sense to the public – if any sense can be had at all.
I don’t see why its cheating. I mean, IMHO, if the delegatea are seated, either Obama should be given all the “uncommitted” delegates, or they should be allocated based on the exit polling question regarding who people would have voted for if all names were on the ballot. (I would object to seating the delegation without a substantial proportion of the delegates “committed” to voting for Obama>)
And please stop pretending that Obama didn’t remove his name from the ballot to gain a polticial advantage in Iowa and NH. He got what he wanted from the move.
and then crusiing into an accusation of bad faith:
I swear, you Hillary supporters are like the photo negative of Red State assholes. I linked Armbinder because… that is where I saw it.
Then you need to go away and be quiet. You can’t have a one sided contest where the participants don’t participate and then decide after the fact that the results should count as if it were a real contest.
It’s beyond nonsensical, and your promotion of it here is an insult to the intelligence of everybody here. Are you just fucking with us now?
Seating as is is her best option. Barack would gain delegates with re-votes.
…and not all Hillary supporters are as reasonable as p.lukasiak. Heh.
Oh, c’mon, Paul, it doesn’t matter, does it? He took his name out, just like everyone else, assuming that the vote wouldn’t count as the DNC had said. Remember that little fact?
See, jcricket? You’re a failure as a Hillary supporter. John Cole says so.
start exhibiting something akin to treating news about the Clinton campaign with good faith, and we can talk about it, ‘kay?
Ed Rendell: Senator Obama has done a great job of energizing people, and that’s important. But we’re electing a president.
(Real Time with Bill Maher Feb 29)
I really can’t tell these fuckers from Republicans any more. They just spout the whatever shit pops into their heads.
actually, demi, the assumption at the time is that someone would lock in the nomination, and in a show of unity, would graciously urge that the delegations would be seated.
No one thought, at the time, that they would not be seated, the purpose was to punish them for their attempt at drawing the media spotlight and candidate’s attention away from IA and NH (in the case of michigan) and gaining more influence over the outcome by scheduling before the first allowable date (FL).
I wonder if Hillary was involved with Bill in the decision to pardon terrorists.
Who made that assumption, among the candidates? What facts do you have to support the assertion?
No, that’s not cheating. That’s just making shit up as you go along. Base it on exit polling? You’re a fucking joke, man.
Yeah, every fucking candidate except Hillary pulled their name off the MI ballot for political gain, whereas Clinton stayed on the ballot for purely altruistic reasons. That must be why she claims it as a victory in her speeches.
Paul, that’s either incorrect or revisionist history — I assume the former. I followed the debates about FL and MI very carefully — unlike jcricket, I still seethe about the abuse WA has taken over the open primary here — and everybody out here thought that (a) the DNC had done the right thing, and (b) the delegates wouldn’t be seated.
I know. I’m doing my best to destroy the Democratic party from within by forcing millions upon millions of Manchurian voters turn out and vote for Hillary, but it’s just not working. There seems to be some kind of flaw in my plan. Perhaps I should put down the blackface filter I use in Photoshop and start arguing in good faith or something.
I would like to note for the record that not once have I defended p. lukusiak. And also that Obama supporters can be quite unhinged.
OK fine, it’s cheaper. But why would they seat the delegates in that case? Wouldn’t the case be strong for saying your election results doesn’t count?
In the re-vote scenario it’s a lot “cleaner” (or as clean as it could be in this situation).
if I thought that there was any possibility that you would change you mind if I went and did the necessary searches and provide the appropriate links, I’d do so. But inasmuch as you wouldn’t change your mind, I can’t be bothered.
This is what’s so bizarre. Many Hillary supporters all of the sudden, when Obama started winning, started sounding like GOP strategists, bullshitting with the best of them. Why in the hell do I get a faint whiff of the Bush 2000 campaign in Hillary’s campaign?
Huh? What are you seething about? Do you miss the open primary?
I thought we don’t really have an open primary – you have to sign one of those party loyalty oath things. And that everyone was all mad about that b/c they are “lesser” Washingtonians (lesser = i liked the state back in the bygone era before all this newfangled change and technology and indoor plumbing).
We have the caucus + Dem primary that doesn’t matter, which is weird. And the Republican primary + caucus, which both sorta matter, but the Republican state chair hosed up (which made me laugh). I wish we’d just have a primary, but whatever.
do you really think that if Obama or Hillary was in the position that McCain is in now, that the delegations would not be seated?
do you really think that, in December 2007 when the decision was made, people thought the primary season would turn out like this?
Darrell? Izzat you?
Seriously, dude, way to bolster your argument.
I was around for those debates as well, y’know. I remember the big 3 candidates all getting face time talking about this very subject. And y’know, my memory of that time sure as shit matches up with demi’s and not yours. Now, admittedly, I turn 40 in a couple of days, and the old memory ain’t what it used to be, but I have a simple question for you…
We all know Obama is a total shyster, crooked as a snake and the ultimate Manchurian candidate. But why the fuck did EDWARDS take his name off the ballot too?
Enquiring minds wanna know and all of that…
I think you answered your own question right there.
In other words, you have no idea, do you? You are just making all this shit up.
What a fucking joke.
This looks like a job for the Amazing Kreskin.
Because he’s a trial lawyer and was playing some angle for his inevitable lawsuit :-)
Oh, yes, jcricket, I’m a huge fan of genuinely, walk-in-the-door-and-take-a-ballot open primaries, which we used to have.
I don’t think you need to point this out – your comments speak for themselves. I think you do an excellent job of illustrating that it is possible for one to support a candidate without abandoning all sanity and reason.
calling all toasters
That is killer stuff. “I’d prove it to you if I thought you were open-minded enough to listen.”
It’s always fascinating to see an intelligent but unhinged mind argue away the basic realities of a situation.
Bob In Pacifica
I think that p.lukasiak should pay for the revotes. It makes as much sense as Obama paying for them. He didn’t violate the rules. But p.lukasiak comes up with the great idea of punishing someone for someone else violating the rules so I think p. should shoulder the costs.
ntr Fausto Carmona
Crist and Granholm were backing the Clinton campaign’s position, but now Howard Dean has dropped his own ultimatum: Either accept a revote or take your chances with the committee in August. It sounds like Dean has had enough of Hillary’s Calvinball, I can only wonder what else he might have in store in the coming days.
While there must be a revote for Fl. to count (rules are rules, even if it was Republicans making mischief who passed a law forcing the Dems into non-compliance), P.luk is conceding his points by raising the financial angle. It is up to the state how they want to do this – convention, caucus, or election.
If Clinton, Obama and the DNC all want an election, let them each kick in 25% and let the FL dems kick in the last 25%. Otherwise, tough. Maybe the unseated delegates have some sort of persuasive authority, but there is no way to let them vote without making a joke of the whole nominating process.
Sorry Hillary, sucks to be you.
Bob In Pacifica
As long as we’re making things up, how about just giving Clinton and Obama equal numbers of delegates from each state? You know, as long as we’re making things up. No harm, no foul. Or we could award delegates based on the candidates’ horoscopes. Or we could flip coins. You know, as long as we’re making things up.
Like I said upthread, a revote is cool. It’s fair, it eliminates all the bullshit talking points, and it keeps the excitement levels high. Since there have been no sanctioned contests yet, I see no problem with the vote taking place between now and the convention (though I’d be unsurprised if FL went for a date after the convention, just to continue their unbroken string of bad tactical decisions that generate massive amounts of hot air and little else.)
I was supporting a revote from the beginning but I figured it would never happen as long as Clinton kept pushing for them to be counted as is. There’s no way that’s ever going to happen as no one who isn’t already a Clinton supporter is going to accept a vote that everyone agreed wouldn’t count beforehand and that didn’t have everyone’s name on the ballot.
You know, the Mariners would have made the playoffs last year if I could have counted a few of their Cactus League victories. Maybe we should have made that case in September.
You can argue that the rules are arbitrary. You can move to change them for 2012. It’s a little late to do so now though and the more you do so, the fewer converts you make.
You know, I’d love to see Florida get to revote, seeing as I’m a Florida voter, and I’d actually feel like I matter in the decision making–and because I didn’t appreciate Clinton’s grandstanding down here when she “won” earlier this year.
But you know what? My university is facing an additional $10 million cut this fall, after already taking a 6% cut last year. We’ve got better things to do with the money it would take to revote than that. The Republicans in the state legislature decided we needed to move our date, and we got fucked as a result. It sucks, but that’s the way it is, and if we blow up the nominating system between now and 2012, so much the better.
Karen Thurman at her finest.
She has a real kinship with Hillary, though. They both seem to think that the rules exist only for their own personal gain.
And here I was under the impression that my alma mater was flush with money. After all, they are building that nice, new stadium (although they did have to ditch the original plan for a retractable roof on account of the cost).
More MUPpet bullshit:
Y’all try and convict Hillary when Obama’s the one who won’t agree.
p.s. Don’t tell you-know-who I was here
Alas, no. Fundraising has pretty much stopped since the whole kerfuffle over the head fundraiser’s contract buyout last year, and the state has put the axe to the whole university system. I did a little writeup on the latest this morning.
I think any arguments for seating the delegates from any source after Iowa should not only be ignored, but the person making the argument fined $50 just for being a dick.
If those governors were so goddamn concerned about their voters, why didn’t they make this move in December?
Exactly what part of that assertion do you suggest is not true, myiq? Why should either candidate step in to try to “fix” the collossal fuckup created by DNC and these state parties (mostly, the state parties)?
I know. Since the previous run was “everybody but Hillary honors the national party by staying away,” then the Mulligan will be, Hillary stays away on the re-vote.
No campaign, no advertising. She sits it out. And her name is not on the ballot.
That’s fair, right?
We all know the answer to that one. Because they thought that Brunhildary would have it wrapped up and nobody would care about their delegates. Everybody, including me, thought so last year.
You mean you haven’t even done the necessary searches yet? You’re just talking out of your anus? Is that so?
Revote news the day after Clinton realizes she’s in the hold for delegates. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Yeah, Asti — sucks for you that Obama is the one who doesn’t want it, doesn’t it?
It seems a stretch to say Obama doesn’t want it, if by “doesn’t want it,” one thinks “actively opposes it.” He seems fairly noncommittal to me.
But really, why should he want it? He’s followed the rules of the game so far, silly as they may seem at times. Why should he cave into demands from the person he’s beating that the rules be changed at this point?
Bob In Pacifica
myiq, think really hard. Who ruled what to be in violation of whose rules? Clinton has no say in the matter. Neither does Obama. Neither should be expected to come up with the money. They agreed as candidates back in November and December to follow the DNC’s decision. Neither has any authority to change anything, neither is responsible for the two states violating the rules.
The two states can do the revotes or not. Their choice.
J. Michael Neal
I did. Of course, I got the party wrong. I thought it would be the Republicans that hadn’t made up their mind yet, what with 43 candidates splitting the vote and disliking each other. Then Fred went to sleep, Rudy fell down a staircase, Romney couldn’t sell space heaters to Eskimos, and Huckabee . . . well, Huckabee was about what I thought he would be.
With regards to the Democrats and their delegates, of course no one thought that it would make a difference and that the race would be over anyway. A hell of a lot of people thought that house prices would go up forever, too, and look at where that’s gotten them. Sucks to be them.
A bunch of states decided that 2008 was the year to make the primary schedule look as ridiculous as it is. This, in the financial business, is called bad timing. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and all that. The Michigan and Florida parties took a risk, and it blew up in their faces. Risks do that, sometimes. That’s why we call them, “risks.”
I’ve got no problem with holding the primaries again. I’ve got no problem with holding caucuses the second time around. I have no problem with not seating the delegations at all. I have no problem with seating the current delegations if it doesn’t matter. I do have a problem with deciding the nomination based upon these delegations.
Yes, I think that the voters in these two states got screwed, though, I’m closely related to two of them, and they don’t seem terribly unhappy about it. Then again, in their county, Clinton lost to Nobody.
I have no sympathy for the Clinton campaign whatsoever. They are looking for a bailout every bit as shamelessly as the Bank of America.
OK, this is getting asinine.
Plouffe states a fact, and this is evidence of some nefariousness on the part of Obama?
This *is* between the DNC and the state parties, just as it was several months ago, when the state parties violated the rules that the DNC laid down. Saying “Get back to us when you guys get your shit straightened out” doesn’t seem to be out of line, for either candidate. Of course Clinton is jumping at this — she’s desperate to expand the delegate pool to shift the math before the convention. I’m somewhat surprised that Obama isn’t actually opposed, since the revotes have a chance of hurting his standing. And yet, he’s merely neutral on this event. It is not the campaigns responsibility (or right, IMO) to be, as he says, the facilitators. That’s the DNC and the states’ job.
If Obama or one of his spokesmen comments on how the sky is blue, does that have to be taken to mean that he hates clouds and lifegiving rain?
Anybody catch TPM’s post about Nafta stuff leaked by an aide to the PM? And it turns out it was Clinton who was said to take everything with a grain of salt. Wtf was that about?!
J. Michael Neal
You sound suspiciously like someone who plays 3rd Edition. You need reprogramming.
Does it? I hadn’t noticed. If I was in FL still, it might suck for me, but, I’m not in FL anymore.
This is between the DNC and the state parties, just as it was several months ago, when the state parties violated the rules that the DNC laid down.
I can only speak for Florida, but it wasn’t the state party that did this deed–it was the state legislature that bumped up the election day, and the Democratic party down here is in a bit of disarray, to be kind about it.
The punishment for Michigan seems fair but I don’t understand why the Florida Democrats are being punished for what the Republicans did. Here is what I found the Florida Democrats had to say about why they could not follow DNC rules even though they claim they wanted to:
You can read the rest of their arguments at their site. Or not.
Barely breathing is putting it kindly, in Collier County admitting you were a Dem was taking a real stand that could get you fired from jobs and run out of town.
The candidates had the power to ignore the DNC injunction and campaign down here if they’d wanted to. They chose not to, in accordance with the deal they’d made with the early states and the DNC, and the DNC imposed the penalty it had said it would.
What has pissed me off about this from the beginning isn’t the penalty–if the nominating system gets blown up as a result of this drama, it’s worth it to me. It’s the way Clinton came down here and declared victory, when she knew that the delegates weren’t supposed to count, and then has campaigned for their inclusion since then, when she didn’t do dick to try to change the DNC’s mind beforehand.
So your contention is that FL Dems are being punished for the sins of the FL Republicans. As far as I can tell, there is some merit to that, except for one thing: There was *one* nay vote aginst it. (Full text and voting history here)
I find it very hard to accept their assertions in there, especially since this bill passed on 3/21/07 by a vote of 115-1, with no mention whatsoever of a paper trail in this bill. That was added on 4/27/07 in an engrossed amendment.
To put it more simply, that page is flat out lying to you. This, unfortunately, was not a purely Republican trick.
So the governors of two states thought in December that their citizens’ votes didn’t matter and now they think they do, eh? The reason florida 2000 was such a colossal cockup is because the value of those Palm Beach votes increased MASSIVELY from the day before to the day after the election.
Please tell me that some day we will learn from our mistakes.
J. Michael Neal
Let Florida secede this time?
>>do you really think that, in December 2007 when the decision was made, people thought the primary season would turn out like this?
There sure was a late spate of agreeing with this statement after it was vilified earlier – in at least one case the same person did both.
I agree that the race being this close wasn’t foreseen. It really hasn’t happened for a while, ya know?
I agree that Obama has more to lose and his campaign shouldn’t be jumping up and down to get it done. If it’s framed as he’s the only in the way of getting Florida a revote though, it’s not going to look good. (“suppressing the vote” as his campaign charged on Tuesday.”)
I agree that there’s no way MI should be a do-over unless the decision comes easily from both sides. However, Florida was a real election, everybody’s name was on the ballot and the lack of incentive to show up was across the board a disadvantage for all candidates. And still more people showed up than did those for the Republican race. That’s a real election.
The revote there was unattractive to Hillary before yesterday because Obama was running away with the nomination. Now, it’s a better thing as both candidates are, for all intents and purposes, even.
That’s a mighty powerful magic wand you’re waving. You just made about a hundred people disappear.
Plus the party could have ignored the primary and gone with a caucus like Washington did. The party would need to pay for it, but that’s always their option to take if they were opposed to moving it up.
And the whole issue of FL/MI is stupid anyway from the eventual perspective of the outcome since there is a pile of superdelegates that will push the election one way or another. It’s like Clinton is trying to read the weight to the 4th decimal place while Bill Richardson has his thumb on the scale.
I agree that the voters should be heard, so I say to seat the delegates after the nomination is done. They still get cupcakes and a say on the issues and everything else. Revote is cool too, but I don’t see the states giving in to the DNC. I expect they’ll be dicks about the fact that they played chicken and lost.
So I heard a disturbing story from a friend of mine who went to the Texas primaries He had gone to the priaries to vote for Ron Paul and he observed that there were like 200 people there and about 8 of them were Republicans and the rest Democrats. It turns out that most of them were cross-overs voting for Hillary to help their boy McCain.
So we have this other issue, now that the republicans are no longer distracted they are now out on the hunt to get Hillary elected because they feel they have the best chance for McCain to beat. I think this is going to happen. Expect more of this shit.
From ABCNews, via DKos. Without comment.
Just to be clear, demi—you’re basing this assertion on a talkleft inserted editorialization of an AP story written by Nedra Pickler? Isn’t that a little thin?
The entire Obama campaign comment, as quoted by Pickler, was:
That doesn’t say that Obama doesn’t want it, it says that he’s not going to stop campaigning to wade into the DNC/Florida Democratic Party negotiations. That makes sense–it isn’t his place to do so! (He’s not the party leader until and unless the convention nominates him.)
excellent point john d. thanks for a fact. I’ll do some research on that and “report back.’
To make it easy, the bill passed 115-1 on 3/21/07 with one amendment. The bill is a 3 page PDF (in ginormous type in my browser). The amendment is a 2 page PDF, and just deals with local elections. The combined bill is a 4 page PDF. Read #1 and #2, or just read #3, to see what they passed. Then go read the Senate amendments from April, and see where the paper trail issues got inserted. (You can jump to the ones that passed, since they certainly contained the text, or just jump up to Engrossed 1 and Engrossed 2).
Except that a lot of voters were under the impression that it wasn’t a real election. I know quite a few people that stayed home because *they* knew that the delegates wouldn’t be seated. Both candidates and voters had one expectation of the rules and I think it’s appropriate to stick by those rules. If they want delegates seated, revote.
Are the demacrooks trying to do a 2000 election mess again? THEY BETTER NOT SQUAWK SQUAWK
Won’t matter. There aren’t enough of them.
Really, people forget how delegates work at the district level, where most delegates are allocated. Most districts have 4,5, or 6 delegates to distribute.
In 4 delegate districts, one candidate needs to win by 25% in order to break from a 2-2 split, so it needs to break 62.5/37.5. That’s a big margin. At 5 delegates, you split 1 at 50/50 (3-2 break on delegates) and the next at 70/30 (4-1 break). In 6 districts, it’s 58.3/41.7.
So, usually those extra votes amount to nothing. They could swing a delegate if they were close without those voters showing up, but most of the time they just get swallowed up in the rounding. That’s also why Hillary is doomed. She needs to win by LARGE margins to get those delegates to not break 50/50. 10 points will only get her odd delegate districts. She need to be winning by >16 point margins to get the 6 delegate districts and 25 points for the 4.
By not campaigning in so many states, she handed Obama HUGE numbers of delegates.
Somebody on one of the other threads complained that HRC supporters were being unfairly characterized as kool-aid drinking zombies, so first off I’d like to throw out kudos to the numerous calm, reasonable and smart comments from Hillary supports in evidence here. You know who you are – good job!
Also, I support the idea of a do-over in FL and MI and doing something reasonable to fund it out of the DNC or both campaigns or some combination thereof, for reasons both stated up-thread by others and related to what I’m gonna say below.
Now that we have the obligatory sing-kumbaya part out of the way, I’d like to drag in some raw meat from the Frankenthread named Groundhog Days, which I seriously doubt anyone is still reading at 450+ posts and counting. To quote Slim Pickings: “Yee-HAA!”
Leaving aside for a moment the general electoral strategy issues, and the effect on red state down ticket races in Nov., if the Democratic nominee wins they will win something more than just a trip to Disneyland. Last time I checked, the TUS in POTUS stands for The United States. How well is a President going to govern, when they’ve already said, in effect, “you don’t count” to a fair chunk of the country?
Does anybody other than me see a problem here?
Is it possible that actually showing some sort of minimal level of respect for every American in every state might be a good idea when the time comes to actually govern the country? How well has the “piss off you don’t matter to us” strategy worked out for Rove and GWB? Is there a reason why Democrats should be rushing to copy this strategy.
What kind of effect will this have on say, I dunno – maybe recruitment for our volunteer Army, if all of the red states have been told “fuck off, we don’t need you”? IIRC a pretty large chunk of our military comes from those states. Might this give the officer corps a bad taste too – and how well did that work out in 1993? I seem to remember another President named Clinton was sandbagged by the Pentagon right out of the chute by a controversy over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which got his political agenda for that entire year off to a bad start.
This election is about more than just putting a Dem in the WH. Others may differ, but I want this election to be as massive a repudiation of GWB’s legacy as possible. Take everything that Bush has stood for and stomp on it as hard as we can. The idea that you only need to win elections with 50%+1, and that everybody else who didn’t vote for you can go take a flying leap is one of the most odious things to come out of the last 7 years. If that is really Hillary’s strategy, she should not be the Democratic nominee, because thems ain’t the values of the Democratic Party. “I got mine – fuck you” is a Republican value, in case you need reminding. Nothing that GWB has done should be getting that kind of endorsement from Democrats.
Interesting. I’m totally on the other side. I think in deciding who the candidate for a particular party should be, it should be people at least nominally willing to associate with that party. I’m also against caucuses. I prefer closed-party, regular vote primaries. I’m on the fence about whether proportional or winner-take-all is the way to go. Proportional sounds good, but it never seems to work out cleanly with all the gerry-mandering and what-not.
BTW, your opinion obviously makes you unfit for public office. Plus, I’ve got 400,000 years of experience and more dexterity points. And I never worked for the evil empire.
Alright, I’m revoking your weekly ration of magical pony sprinklings b/c of that disloyal comment.
I am for a revote. Part of why the result yesterday was so depressing is that FL and MI are almost certainly going to have to matter.
I think Obama is playing it right. He will accept whatever the rules are but sticking his neck out for a revote could be harmful to him. He could be portrayed as trying to change the rules because he could hardly do worse in FL if he was allowed to campaign there. He won the counties near GA because he got the benefit of campaigning in GA and name recognition among AAs.
From the last thread, from my selfish perspective the Kerry campaign made an error letting Missouri go in 2004 and the Democrats should not make that mistake again. The national party giving Jay Nixon all the help possible is party building. I cannot tell which of HRC or Obama will be more radioactive among the Republicans in rural Missouri.
I will now beg for people to read my diary on Kos. John may enjoy the book.
West Virginia 76, Pitt 62. I know!
Winner take all will keep candidates out of smaller states and will lead to shorter primaries. If we embrace that all of the voters matter, then either we should like long primaries, or we need a national primary. I’m against a national primary. We’ve learned a lot about these candidates in the last 2 months that we wouldn’t have learned otherwise.
I’m also in favor of caucuses or something resembling them. I don’t like that some people can’t participate – but I like that it’s a social thing, that it encourages discussion (at least in Iowa) and that it brings out the people most invested in the party. But they definitely need to be reworked in many respects.
I would just like to point out for the record to Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters that 1)One side is going to have to make up to the other side when the win is declared 2)You’re going to have to bury the hatchet and work together because 3)If you don’t and the Democratic candidate somehow blows this election to the shittiest Republican contender since Bush, the Democratic nominee and their hardcore supporters will become the most hated and despised people on Earth.
I appreciate both sides have strong views and want to win. But please don’t let your inhouse fucking screw the general election, we are all united by the fact we want the fucking traitorous asshat Darrell/EEEL/Paul L/Birdzilla/Redstate/Malkin/Putz/Confed Yankee/LGF/Random Shitstain Republican Party destroyed to the very roots of the Earth and scattered to the four winds where they shall never rise to darken the world again.
Kudos to Dean on how he has handled this.
Is there an “ignore” button or someway I can no have to wade through any post from Paul L? Speaking of which I just Googled his name. Interesting history.
It doesn’t matter what the DNC thinks, what Hillary thinks, what Obama thinks. The people that got punished in this episode, through no fault of their own, are the people that voted. Not Hillary, not Obama. I love all the let the people decide nuts that don’t seem to care that they don’t want to let legally cast ballots count. So I guess it’s let the people decide if they agree with me, right fellow Dems?
And the people who did not vote, because they were told by the DNC, and by the candidates, that the primaries did not count.
“Let the people decide” only works if there is an honest process. Since there was not an honest and fair process for Florida and Michigan, it is a principle that does not yet apply.
Record turn out. In Florida.
So what’s wrong with open primaries all of a sudden?
They seemed such a good idea when the Kossacks were plotting to use them to affect Republican primaries earlier this election season… so what’s wrong with a few “independent” voters in the D-primes?
Karma is SUCH a bitch! (shut up, that wasn’t a Hillary reference)
if you’re using FireFox, then yes.
We interrupt your regularly scheduled Open Thread for a CODE BROWN!
Alert the Keyboard Militia! Batten Down the Basement! Secure the Cheetos! This is all
ClintonHitlery … er … Hussein Obama … THE DEMOCRATS DONE EMBOLDENED THE TERRISTS!
Thank you Cleek!
Sucks that the people who run Florida, both Dems and Reps, seem incapable of following the rules so that they ended up screwing their own people. I would take that issue up with them next time they appear on a ballot down there.
Here in Michigan, remember, not only were Obama and Edwards not on the ballots, but we were told that if we tried to write them in our ballots would be tossed out. And the delegates wouldn’t be seated. So please don’t tell me that we need to seat these delegates in order to avoid disenfrancising Michigan voters. That already happened.
Hillary should offer to pay for the primaries in both states, even if it leaves her with very little money to campaign in them.
Let Obama refuse to pay and then spend a fortune trying to win it.
She’ll get more votes the second time around. Maybe then Obama will quit this scorched-earth campaign to feed his ego and stop tearing the Democratic Party apart to fulfill his ambition. I am sick of his divisive and negative tactics.
Just found an email from Thurman that in essence said: “we can’t do the do-over with our self-imposed impossible conditions so we’ll just have to seat the delegates we have.” And people wonder why there are issues with the FDP.
there’s a reason Fark has a special tag just for Florida
Dennis - SGMM
Harold Ickes, Clinton campaign delegate tracker:
Translation: “We can’t win the election but, we’re willing to steal it.”
I’m confident that Clinton’s profound respect for democracy would be reflected in her presidency.
On a different topic, now that we’ve learned the Clinton campaign called up Ottawa to let them know Hillary’s rhetoric about NAFTA was just political posturing, I expect myiq2xu to
strongly condemn Hillary for being a two-faced liarmake more muppet jokes.
So your contention is that FL Dems are being punished for the sins of the FL Republicans. As far as I can tell, there is some merit to that, except for one thing: There was one nay vote aginst it.
Please, please. You are throwing around facts that might impede Florida Democrat’s reasons to whine. So they all voted for it despite being warned the delegates elected would not count. So what?
So Hillary, Obama and Edwards all agreed the delegates wouldn’t count. So what?
And Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan and a Clinton supporter, insisted on moving up the primary date in spite of being warned the delegates wouldn’t count. So what?
What’s funny is the DNC only asked them to wait one week until Super Tuesday. It’s not like they wouldn’t have been important a week later.
What a bunch of whining, sniveling little shits. You’re told the consequences ahead of time, you vote to do it anyway then you cry like a baby when you suffer the consequences.
I’m fine with a re-vote but let’s not pretend these idiots didn’t bring all this upon themselves by not being willing to wait one damn week.
And unfortunately, the damage was already done in Ohio. I’m betting Harper’s chief of staff and CTV’s Tom Clark get the boot for this.
Other than the fact that the Dems who were planning to help Romney were opponents of open primaries, precisely because such tactics had been alleged in the past?
Why, nothing. Nothing at all.
Karma is such a bitch, isn’t it D-Chance? So is information.
The Other Steve
I was going to say… Watch Hillary fight this tooth and nail because she knows if other candidates were on the ballot and campaigning, she wouldn’t do as well.
And I open up the comments, and there’s lukasiak whining about how unfair it is to have a revote.
Susan Rice, one of Obama‘s senior foreign policy advisors says he’s not ready for one of those 3am phone calls.
That’s his advisor.
30 retired generals and admirals say Hillary is ready.
The Other Steve
It’s rare that anybody actually shows up to vote in this manner.
Besides, it usually backfires anyhow. In Iowa in 2000, Democrats were circulating a rumor of going to vote for GW Bush because he’d be easier to beat than McCain.
The Other Steve
Usually if you are going to link to an article, the article supports the statement you are making.
The Other Steve
Does that list include General Keane? Cause he’s going around telling neocons to not worry about Hillary, she doesn’t mean what she is saying about pulling out of Iraq.
what do you mean, ‘legally cast ballots’? is there a law that trumps the DNC’s decision here?
if merely having a vote in complete violation of DNC rules means those ballots are ‘legal and binding’ then i’m gonna hold my own primary. with booze, and hookers!
my god, it’s full of spoof!
It didn’t help Obama for his campaign to
a) deny there was a meeting between the Canadians and someone from his campaign
b) deny NAFTA was discussed
c) deny they said he was just posturing
and then have it turn out there was a meeting between the Canadians and someone from his campaign and NAFTA was discussed.
“But we’re telling the truth about the third thing!”
doesn’t matter. the clintons got ohio, that’s what they wanted. bad timing for obama, but you have to remember that the clintons are better at this sort of sleazy shit than he is. they’re clintons.
The guy has been in DC for 3 years and he’s been running for President at least 2 of them. I keep hearing how Hillary had huge leads until Obama came along. He’s been running negative on her for months, he just doesn’t get called on it. So who is divisive?
And it does
In fact, I’m rather suspicious of the whole “leak has been identified” report. I see every reason to suspect that *this* report was planted. The only reason that this might even be plausible is that the Harper administration has every reason to selectively release damaging information about both candidates.
The Other Steve
Actually it doesn’t. Want to try again?
And I’m waiting for the condemnation of Clinton for the NAFTA thing.
No – I would think the first amendment assembly right gives a political party an absolute right to determine its own rules and proceedures.
This is standard right-wing meme and it’s bullshit. Can you give some examples of how the Clintons engaged in “this sort of sleazy shit” prior to this election? 1992, 1996, 2000, 2006?
I’ll sit down while I’m waiting.
whatever you say, myiq. obama’s the ‘scorched-eath’, divisive one. why, just yesterday i heard him say that TX and OH ‘don’t matter’ because he lost them.
I’ll use small words.
The article says:
What part don’t you understand?
IOW – You got nothing
Cleek, I assume that fix will work with myiq2xu also? ;)
Another interesting post on the subject by Ambinder:
As of 9:30am, myiq2xu has now gone 25 minutes between learning that the Clinton campaign made secret phone call to Ottawa and
denouncing Hillary for lying about her position on NAFTA in Ohiotalking about Barack Obama being no Barry Goldwater, that’s for sure.
Hey p.lukasiak, I have a question. Do you think you’re helping Clinton with your posts on this forum? Yesterday, I was actually feeling pretty good about the idea of the unity ticket. I was imagining Hillary campaigning in PA and OH, Bill in AR and TN, and Barack in VA and MD and down in the red states to terrify McCain. I was seeing all of the ways that they complimented each other.
Then I read your posts on this thread with their incredible contortions and the dream became a lot less interesting. The point of spin is not to make some bizarre argument that will technically prove that a case can be made; it’s supposed to convince people to your point of view. If the result is to turn people off, it’s not effective.
lol. no, i got reality. you got ‘transference’.
sure, obama’s the negative one. this is just spoofy. next you’re going to tell me that bush ran a clean campaign in 2000.
Secret phone call? Barry Goldwater? WTF?
oh yeah. put as many names in there as you like. i’ve got a half-dozen in mine right now.
If you got “reality” then cite some facts.
And why the fuck would I defend Bush? If he was on fire I wouldn’t piss on him to put the fire out.
The Other Steve
It’s not a question of not understanding, simply that the article you linked doesn’t say what you said it says.
And I’m still waiting for the NAFTA condemnation. This is pretty damning that you are completely avoiding the issue.
Come on, Darrell, you can do it. It’s not that hard.
unhinged is as unhinged does. obviously, it was gore who was the real negative campaigner in 2000.
This thread is exactly why everyone wanted the nomination fight to end on Tuesday. As an Obama supporter, I can say that I would have been content to see Sen. Clinton as the nominee* if it would stop all of this madness.
*Okay, I probably wouldn’t be “content,” but it would salve my disappointment if, at least, all of this bizzaro-world Democratic party sniping would simmer down.
and in fact, myiq, hillary is the actual black candidate in this race. really, she is.
honestly, i think the reality on the ground in this campaign is starting to get to you, so you dropped out completely and lost it.
look, there’s really no way hillary is going to catch up with obama in terms of delegates. and the supers know that if they flip the nom over the delegate count
1) they’ll piss off an entire generation of democratic voters and
2) do unspeakable damage to down-ticket races.
and ya gotta remember, most of the supers are either elected officials who have to answer to pissed-off democratic constituents or members of the DNC who are above all concerned with party integrity.
it just aint gonna happen. it’s okay, you’ve been massively wrong before, like when you predicted that hillary was gonna totally nail obama on super tuesday. but still, it just aint gonna happen.
now, i don’t mind at all that clinton is continuing to campaign. as long as she doesn’t do too much damage to the eventual nominee or the party on the way out, out of spite.
but for god’s sake, man, wake the fuck up. you’re acting like a nut.
Oh, if only someone in this thread had linked a story in Canada’s national newspaper about how it was the Clinton campaign that first contacted the Canadian government to inform them that they were about to launch a big spiel about NAFTA that should just, wink-wink, be taken with a grain of salt. But since that totally didn’t happen, it’s entirely reasonable to go on for post after post about that
McCainClinton ad about the phone call.
Shorter myiq2xu ..
Hey, it’s a strategy. It’s a childish strategy, but it’s a strategy none the less.
i’m imagining some interview coming out where jimmy carter says something like
“you know, to be honest i don’t think anybody’s ever really ready for the job of president of the united states. it’s a huge job with massive responsibilities and nobody’s ever really ready for that”
and myiq is all “JIMMY CARTER SAYS OBAMA ISN’T READY TO BE PRESIDENT OMG!”
OT, but a former President says Obama is unfit to lead!
take that Obamanuts!
Hillary will get more votes, but Obama will get more votes too, because it will, like, count and stuff. According to the Associated Press delegate count Hillary has all of 15 more delegates than Obama from the TX and OH primaries. This may show that Obama did good strategerizing to maximize his delegate count. If he can do the same in Florida and Michigan, the 81-delegate lead for Hillary from those two states projected by Bowers is much reduced.
Good for No Quarter for picking up Alegre. They need all the credible posters they can get, I suppose.
You forgot the “he he he” and “MUPpet” references.
Look, nothing’s over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Nooo…. :-)
I say keep cam
To this point I wholeheartedly agree. It seems like most people here, even TZ and John Cole, plan to vote for Hillary (if nose-holding while doing so) if she somehow wins. I plan to enthusiastically vote for whomever the nominee is. I’m not a huge Obama fan, but I have zero problems and require zero nose holding to vote for him. This doesn’t mean I think the candidates are interchangeable or I wouldn’t rather Hillary win.
It’s a reflection of the reality of the political landscape, the power of Dems controlling the WH, and IMNSHO reality that we have an embarrassment of political riches right now. I know some of you seem to think that Hillary’s basically the devil, but millions of people don’t see it that way. Even the national polls right now show her and Obama beating McCain, both with the help of “independents and moderates”) (albeit with Obama by a bigger margin). So far from some sort of squeaker of a win, I predict a big win with either at the top.
And I’m going to predict it here, if the improbable happens and Hillary is the nominee, Obama will be Veep. Then we will blow McCain out of the water. 15% win!
If Obama is the nominee, Hillary will not be the Veep.
While I wouldn’t write the same, you gotta let a Clinton fan like myiq get a little dig in now and then on Obama. To paraphrase what TZ wrote about p. lukusiak on another thread, “everything Obama supporters write is designed to show him in the maximally positive light and minimize/ignore any negatives”.
It’s a set of phenomenon called confirmation bias and subjective validation and we (supporters of either candidate) are both suffering from it big time.
This doesn’t mean we can’t both occasionally be “right”, but to claim either side is currently presenting facts from a neutral POV is just ludicrous. Doesn’t bother me that it’s happening, it’s called campaigning, but to pretend otherwise is to invite “he he he” type responses.
Nonsense. My (candidate/sports team/spouse) is superior in every possible way to your (candidate/sports team/spouse). Objectively speaking.
Since this is an open thread, can I mention that all I did was LOL a million times when reading this article? Woo-hoo! Party of fiscal sanity and discipline! Go GOP!
Absolutely, except for the sports team and spouse part, and the candidate part. Otherwise, I completely agree.
My milkshake, OTOH, is indeed better than yours. It brings more independent voters to the yard, and what-not.
Oh, you’re bringing in my milkshake?!? That is an obvious sign of your (sexism/racism/classism/ageism/soy-product bias)!
Besides, haven’t we transcended milkshakes, since they are, in fact, drunk up?
This isn’t the first time I’ve asked the alleged Democrats who make these unsupported smears against Bill and Hillary for some facts to back up what they say, and not once have I received any.
IOW – They got nothing.
I think this is true if Obama ends up not on the ticket, or if he wins PA and a bunch of other states and then the supers act like you said. But imagine the following (improbable) scenario: Hillary wins PA by a big margin, and some other states too. MI and FL re-vote and Hillary closes the gap or takes the lead (I know, mathematically very difficult). Supers don’t flip to Obama, but narrowly support Hillary. In the back-room supers and other DNC officials get the candidates to agree to a Hillary/Obama ticket.
In that scenario I can’t see anyone suffering any long term damage. Obama supporters would experience a let-down feeling, especially the political junkies, but I don’t think it would be as bad as you think.
Again, have I mentioned this scenario is improbable?
I do have an anti-soy-product, anti-vegan bias. First is yucky, second group is lame and un-American.
To quote Daniel Day Lewis in his Oscar acceptance speech: Transcend this you fucking fuck!
At least I think that’s that he said. I didn’t actually watch.
On a related note, how is it possible for one actor to be so good in so many roles? Daniel Day Lewis is one of the few I can think that absolutely inhabit whatever role their given and make the performance riveting. Plus, who else can say “I drink your milkshake” and not get laughs in response. Maybe Sean “You’re the Man Now Dog” Connery, but that’s it :-)
Well, yeah. That’s what makes those smears “unsupported.”
But, come on. There are legitimate criticisms (from a progressive viewpoint) one can make about the Clintons (esp. Pres. W. Clinton) that are not “smears” (“triangulation” politics, welfare “reform,” the handling of the Balkan crisis, ignoring Rwanda and Somalia, DOMA, DADT, etc.).
I hope that you can separate the wheat from the chaff, and can acknowledge substantive criticism of the Clintons’ policies while maintaining your (justifiable) disdain for the “the Clintons are as bad as Bush!” meme.
Much as I can acknowledge criticism of my candidate (waffling on “clean” coal and biofuels, further injection of religion into politics, relative “inexperience,” etc.) while rejecting the more . . . unsupported . . . allegations.
Oi, you! Don’t make me sic my vegan, raw-foods diet, yoga master, gay, ex-Navy, all-american friend on yo’ ass. He’ll slap that snark right outta ya.
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Bill and Hillary.
But for years I have heard people say that the Clintons are practitioners of ruthless and dirty politics. They will do anything to win, they are divisive, and they are willing to destroy people. Practically everyday someone on this blog says that the Clintons will destroy the party in order to win.
Where is the evidence? What have they done to deserve that reputation? I keep asking and no one has answered. They change the subject or ignore my question, but they keep repeating those slurs.
i doubt hillary is willing to be anybody’s veep. i’m not sure about obama, either.
Digs are fine, if they’re somewhat clever or funny. Does ‘he he he’ or MUPpets qualify? Sure, if you’re a 10-year-old who’s avidly following the Democratic primary, I guess.
hey, has anyone in this thread linked a story in Canada’s national newspaper about how it was the Clinton campaign that first contacted the Canadian government to inform them that they were about to launch a big spiel about NAFTA that should just, wink-wink, be taken with a grain of salt? just checking.
So that pretty much describes all of us here is what I’d say.
For me it’s less about Hillary wanting/not wanting, and more about her not bringing enough positives (or bringing too many negative potentials) to the bottom of his ticket.
In the reverse scenario it’s about hopefully engaging the millions of Obama fans who might feel cheated/slighted. And I would hope that Obama, in that improbable scenario, would see it as good for the party and the country and vastly improving his chances of being the President in 8 years. I say this because I think a Hillary/Obama ticket would be completely unstoppable.
few presidents want a veep who is far and away more popular than they are. people usually end up picking relatively unknown people who bring something to the table that they were missing, but not some ‘superstar’ type that outshines them. not good for the ego.
No, haven’t heard that story.
Have you found the facts to back up your claims about the Clintons yet?
Maybe, (to tell the truth, I’ve given up on trying to predict the electoral calculus come November – too many variables), but, as long as we’re slinging improbable scenarios around, what ever happened to my dream ticket of Gore/Obama ’08? Go G.O. Team, go go go! It would have been worth it for the slogans.
Extremely fucking foul-mouthed 10-year-olds, you poophead.
funny, its been all over this thread for a while. get back to me when you read it and strongly denounce the clinton campaign for such sour campaigning. i won’t hold my breath.
the ironing is delicious.
it’s funny, some of us still remember the 90’s. the triangulation, the promises made and the important issues thrown under the bus the moment it became politically expedient.
those of us who are for gay rights will never forget how the clintons fucked us over so royally. promised us that they would be the ones to make rights an issue and then turned their backs on us as soon as they got in the door.
He he he.
And now the CBC says they flat out got it wrong.
The synopsis from KOs:
Those conservatives sure do love Hillary – even the Canadian ones!
That is not an answer to my question.
I know you’re not a troll John.
Seriously, can you answer my question?
The NAFTA story is just this past week. Where did the reputation come from?
BTW – I’m not quite sure exactly what that story is supposed to prove anyway.
i wonder what a lot of ohio voters are thinking right about now…
Well, it is in a way. There are serious accusations that Pres. Clinton “talked the talk” for gay rights as pure political calculation (i.e., gain equality cred during the Democratic primaries), and then capitulated without scruple once he gained office. This can credibly be called “ruthless” or “sleazy” politics, or reflect the “win any way possible” mentality.
You can disagree, of course (there is a great deal of ambiguity about Pres. Clinton’s motivations (did he really “throw us under the bus” or was he forced to compromise to keep political leverage?), and it’s questionable if Bill’s sins carry over to Hillary). But it is a direct answer.
BTW – I was in my 30’s during the nineties, and I remember exactly what happened.
Bill wanted to lift the ban on gays in the military but the GOP and some Democrats were ready to pass a law if Bill tried to change the policy. He had to compromise with DADT but he wanted more.
That was when the GOP started its ascendency and there were all kinds of anti-gay legislation and initiatives across the country.
Bill couldn’t even rely on his own party, but you blame him for not doing more?
The original comment was:
Where does that reputation come from? From not fulfilling all their promises?
myiq, there’s also a great irony in your handle, as you’re an absolute idiot.
can you explain exactly what this red herring has to do with what i actually said?
i said the clintons were better at this sort of sleazy shit than obama. and they are, the CBC-NAFTA flap shows it. they’re really, really good campaigners and not because everything they say on the campaign trail is positive and happy and full of ponies. look at some of the cynical, smarmy shit they’ve been pulling during this campaign, the ‘jesse jackson’ remarks by bill, the ‘both mccain and i will bring (what, is she shooting for a split ticket or something?) experience to the WH while obama==teh suck’ remarks, the ‘insult 40 states’ strategy.
and this shit works for them. the nafta thing gave her ohio FFS.
the clintons are much better at this shit than obama. what the fuck are you going on about 1992 for?
IOW – You got nothing
I always thought they could use the “Ebony and Ivory” song as their theme? No? It’s all about perfect harmony and what not.
In all other normal campaigns, I agree with you, and we’ve rarely seen a nominee pick a former competitor from this season’s campaign. But these are special times, and if we get to the near deadlocked delegate state, esp. after a FL and MI do-over, the pressure will be intense for both of the candidates to put aside their egos and hop on the unity train.
Or the great space coaster. Or the magic bus. Horse with no name?
There is some revisionist history going on about the Clinton years – but that always happens once we get a couple years away from any “era” and revisit it. I think the Democratic party has been amazingly spineless regarding gay rights (military, gay marriage, adoption) – and I want that to change really soon. Looks like the public is on our side and I hope it won’t be long before we put this nonsense behind us. I feel the same way about the immigration rhetoric, evolution, taxation, Social Security, Healthcare, etc. – the Dems are too wishy-washy and scared. It’s as if they buy the Republican framing that the public is not on the Dems side (when the opposite is true).
Let the GOP embrace the supposed values of 1950 (or 1900) – see how far it gets them in the future. But we can hasten their demise by now being so afraid of our shadows.
DADT was a joke. clinton faced opposition from the pentagon and he backed down.
he wanted more? what did he do to demonstrate that? the DOMA? some talk about the ENDA and hate crimes bills that he didn’t get passed?
When you say “they’re Clintons” you are stating that “Clintons” do “sleazy shit” as if it was an accepted fact.
You were not basing it on the last couple of months, you’re implying that they have a history of doing “sleazy shit.”
I asked you to back that up with examples from past campaigns, and you can’t do it.
Bill wanted to do more but was unable to. That’s hardly being thrown under the bus.
IOW – you didn’t actually read what i wrote. you skimmed it and went OMG itz teh CDS!
Bill Clinton.. The paragon of gay rights. Pushed into a corner of compromise by those big, bad Republicans.
Except for signing DOMA, pushing Kerry to back local bans on gay marriage and who said outright in ’96:
Seriously, stfu myiq before you embarrass yourself any further.
after getting a 6-month reprieve from the pressure on him from the pentagon and Nunn, and then watching the Meinhold decision come down (which clinton openly agreed with), clinton turned around and took a crap on the whole thing. a year later, clinton’s justice department appealed the Meinhold decision that clinton had previously praised, and argued that the government can in fact discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation on a status rather than conduct basis.
this wasn’t splitting the difference, myiq. the dude did a complete 180. that isn’t ‘wanting to do more’.
TOP OF BUS—-BOTTOM OF BUS
look at this campaign.
don’t tell me what i said. i know what i said. i didn’t say shit about 1992. i said the clintons are better at this shit than obama is. they’re clintons, they’re good at it. again, look at the fucking campaign. do i need to draw you a diagram? maybe a few action figures on a sand table?
i didn’t say shit about past campaigns, dumbass.
hold on, i’m gonna go get a boba fett action figure and a toy bus. i think this needs an actual model to explain.
alright, now i have boba fett. now i’m putting the bus on top of boba fett.
should i take a picture or something?
Then by that logic, you must be one. Or have been pretending to be one.
Pity that, either way.
Sorry if i scared you MARLIN LOWE im not vicious or bad im very gentle i didnr mean to grab you like that so accept my appology and i hope you liked how big i am SQUAWK SQUAWK