I rarely pay attention to John kerry, but this morning on Face the Nation, he explained things regarding the Mi and Fl primaries as clearly and directly as anyone:
SCHIEFFER: What do you think ought to happen?
Sen. KERRY: I think the rules ought to be followed. I think that obviously Barack Obama believes very strongly that delegates from those states ought to be represented at the convention. And Barack Obama believes in inclusivity, but he also believes in playing by the rules, not changing them after the fact. He played by the rules in Michigan. He even went to the lengths of taking his name off the ballot, as did every other candidate except for Hillary Clinton. And now…
SCHIEFFER: And he–and none of the other candidates campaigned in Florida.
Sen. KERRY: Correct. And they didn’t campaign. But–well, there was a campaig under the radar screen in Florida and everybody knows that. A lot of money was spent in Florida, and Senator Clinton went there the night of the primary and claimed a victory.
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Sen. KERRY: So, in a sense here, what you see is sort of two different attitudes about how American politics ought to be played. Barack Obama will play by the rules and he will do whatever the party and the states decide to do. And so…
SCHIEFFER: So if they decide to do what Senator Nelson’s talking about, he’ll do that.
Sen. KERRY: He will play by the rules. He will play by the rules, but let me emphasize that Senator Clinton is trying to change the rules in Michigan. She’s saying, `I won’t accept a caucus,’ which is, frankly, up to the state, also the party, and they had a caucus there. That’s exactly what was there. So she’s busy gaming it, frankly, in the same way that, unfortunately, I think she’s gaming this commander as chief issue.
just paying attention
you may remember, that in the debates, two times mrs. clinton neglected to answer the question as to what she would do regarding superdelegates, giving non-answers like ‘that will work itself out’… look at the transcripts… various pundits somehow took her performances, somewhat romantically, as concessions… she never has said she would back off, ever…
When did Kerry learn to talk in short, coherent sentences? Obviously since 1004.
Dammit, 2004. (Way to ruin a punchline.)
Dennis - SGMM
McCain was the only one running in 1004. That was back before the two-party system was invented.
And, as we all know, McCain was originally beaten by Moses because he could part oceans and McCain was a mere sailor.
Anyway, If Clinton managed an NFL team and her star running back broke a leg, she would try to get the NFL to make a new rule against running the ball on any down other than first and ten when inside the opponents eight.
John Kerry can be annoying, but he’s usually right.
What does that mean?
In the end, it doesn’t matter what the candidates think. The voters shouldn’t be disenfranchised. They are the ones that matter, not Obama or Hillary.
Thanks in advance for making Obama the new Kerry and a total loser to the GOP.
It means that they don’t get a say in the nominee, but after that they get full rights to participate in the platform and everything else. Since the delegates were invalidated due to the election, the only cost to them is involvement in the election.
Am I hearing others right? Playing by the rules makes you a loser???
And that’s why Obama has been saying to just follow the rules. If the DNC puts forward a plan to seat them, he’ll go along with it. Hillary is the one saying no. In other words, Hillary thinks that she should get a say in this, but Obama is just saying that he’ll go along with what the DNC says.
Pelosi is running the convention and she indicated that the delegates won’t get seated because of the rules. It’s her and Dean’s call in the end, not Obama or Clinton’s.
Just as a factual matter, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were all on the ballot in Michigan.
I just watched George Stephanopolous let the governor of Florida ramble on and on about how the voters of Florida went out and voted in record numbers, how Levin, Nelson, and the governor of Michigan want their votes to count, how it would save taxpayer money, yadda yadda. Not one question from George about who these people may have endorsed or whether they have any kind of preference regarding who wins. (Republicans seem strangely keen on Hillary, Mr. Crist.) Not a question about whether seating Florida’s delegates would be unfair to either candidate. Not a question about just why people turned out in record numbers. (As I learned here, there was a property tax proposition also on the ballot.) Weak, weak performance, George. The roundtable was also quite lame. On and on about Hillary’s huge wins, as if the race is now tied; Obama could be about to implode; no mention of Wyoming.
I think I need to stop watching these shows for a few months.
Reid, The major reason the turnout in FL was so high was because there was a property tax amendment on the ballot.
I should point out that I eventually fast-forwarded through the roundtable on “This Week”, so I don’t know for sure that Wyoming didn’t come up. I could only take so much pro-Hillary crap.
Does anyone watch Stephanopolous? It is more fun to go to church than to watch that dry, humorlous, beltway-bound would-be wonk.
Heh, I pointed that out in my post, JL. That’s probably not something I would’ve been aware of had I only gotten my news from the national media, however…. Florida’s vote isn’t quite as invalid as Michigan’s, but there are certainly flaws that would make a do-over the only fair course.
Please tell me you all aren’t naive enough to actually believe that Obama and Kerry wouldn’t be making the exact opposite argument if the situation were reversed, if Obama instead of Hillary stood to gain from the delegates being seated.
Not surprisingly, the junior Senator from Massachusetts has many of the facts wrong. At one point he disingenuously says that Obama “…even went to the lengths of taking his name off the ballot…” inferring that this was a gesture required by MI law, which is not the case.
Perhaps the best reason for opposing Obama’s nomination is reflected in this four minute TV spot.
Dennis - SGMM
I saw that one too. Governor Crist’s sudden solicitude for the Democratic voters of Florida struck me as a bit odd. There was no mention of Wyoming, just endless head-nodding over how Clinton’s “three victories” had reinvigorated her campaign.
I usually zip through Steph and Pumpkinhead in fairly short order. Generally lousy interviews and lousy talking heads. Thank you, tivo.
Dennis - SGMM
Obama had a good shot in Michigan. If he would do what you’re suggesting then wouldn’t he have left his name on the ballot there?
Jason, I just know that given the actual circumstances, Obama is doing what I see as the right thing. I don’t base my opinion of him on things I think he might do. I wouldn’t call him an angel, but he seems to have (by far) the most integrity of the three. That counts for a lot after seven years of unrelenting bullshit.
Dennis, I couldn’t believe George didn’t bring up any of those points with Crist. My hope is that Crist rambled on with the same exact points and phrases so long that viewers tuned out.
Another interesting question that no one seems to want to address is how much effect the “get out the Republican vote” campaign had on Hillary’s numbers. Was it negligible? Measurable in any way?
What I believe is that only one side is arguing in favor of following the rules.
The other side is doing some or other self serving bullshit thing.
Not rocket science. Pick the side you like best.
How in God’s name do you get that?
It was a gesture requested by the DNC:
When you have to lie to make your case, perhaps your case is weak?
If all politicians simply push the positions that suit their best interests, why do they disagree with one another so often, and why do we bother debating which is best?
Obama and his surrogates are saying they would support the states having a do-over and counting those votes, even though in all likelihood the result of a do-over would be a Michigan tie and a Hillary win in Florida. So no, I don’t believe the Obama camp would be acting the way Hillary is if positions were reversed
Beyond that, the current state of affairs isn’t just the result of random chance. In Michigan especially, Hillary put herself in the position of having a selfish interest in an unfair outcome by not taking her name off the ballot as all the other major candidates did. If she’d done the honorable thing from the beginning, as Obama did, the point would be moot.
Dennis - SGMM
It was also strange that Stephanpolous didn’t ask Crist why, if he was so concerned about the voters of Florida, he didn’t veto the bill to move the primary when it hit his desk. The DNC had made it abundantly clear what the consequences would be if Florida moved its primary but, Crist signed the bill anyway. His words of faux concern for Florida’s Democrats should turn to dogshit in his mouth.
I haven’t seen Obama complain about superdelegates when he’s been trailing from the outset or propose what they should do. That’s comparable to FL/MI. Hillary has offered all kinds of opinions of what the supers should do, even though she’s holding the lead on them.
So no, I don’t believe they would raise the argument based on evidence so far.
Because it doesn’t matter. The state party said that cross over votes were kosher, so they count. If you lose under that, tough shit.
And the effect is negligible in the delegate race. Delegates are quantized – so small changes in votes don’t make a difference except right at the boundaries where they flip. The overwhelming amount of the time, that doesn’t happen.
But that’s also why Hillary isn’t getting delegates. Small victories don’t get you much. You gotta win in a meaningful way.
J. Michael Neal
Amended for accuracy.
Martin, one reason to ask about the Republican voters is because everyone is portraying Texas as a big win for her, despite her losing the delegate battle. (I believe that’s right.) If she only won the popular vote because of Republicans “supporting” her, that would make for a much different media narrative now. (I don’t think it made that much difference, though, but it would be nice to know.)
Didn’t Dean offer the state parties the chance to submit a new plan for seating the delegates (i.e., a new caucus or primary or the state party simply assigning delegates)? He also offered them the option of turning it over to the credentialing committee at the convention.
The DNC/Pelosi aren’t refusing to seat delegates, just refusing to seat them as they came out of the previously held FL/MI primaries, yes?
I’m not being nitpicky–just trying to get a handle on this.
Doesn’t matter. We can’t say that earlier wins were any different for her or Obama. And if they are portraying it as a big win, they are being willfully ignorant of the delegate count, which means that any other facts won’t mean shit anyway.
It’d be useful info to have after the election if we want to see changes in the system, but it serves no purpose to argue now since there is no way to criticize the process and divorce that criticism from self-interest. That’s the biggest fault of Clinton. She could be 100% right in her criticism of the caucus process and whatnot, but by not bringing it up until after votes were cast, we can’t say whether it is an honest criticism or a self-serving one. Other evidence suggests is it totally self-serving, however.
Best to just keep your yap shut like Obama.
Correct. Pelosi has indicated she won’t seat them based on how they’ve been awarded, but has reiterated that we should find a fair way to get them awarded. If the DNC signs off on a plan, there’s every indication that she will go along with the plan.
If there isn’t a plan, it looks like she will seat the delegates after the nominee is selected, which is what Obama expressed interest in. Regardless of how the delegates were selected, they should still get a say in the national platform.
Dennis you are a complete apologist. You have every right to be but jeeez-us. If Obama was behind he’d be framing things his way. That he didn’t mention the superdelegates’ unfairness early early on, as someone else said, is not analogous to the situation now.
Also, my brain hurts – OK, it may be yesterday’s heavy root beer drinking – at the idea that Obama is the one who plays by the rules but he’s going to come in and change everything. ????????
It’s a shitty situation all round. Obama has very little to gain, so he’s not for a revote. Duh. I would maintain that Florida, with 1.7 million -2 million people voting for president in the Dem. primary with EVERYONE on the ballot was a real election. MI, not so much.
Whether it gets pushed to the level of people feeling disenfranchised is up to them and the party AND the campaigns.
If the situations were reversed the words coming out of the candidate’s campaigns mouths would be reversed because it is framing.
Unable To Comprehend English Says:
“When you have to lie to make your case, perhaps your case is weak?”
Go back and read what I wrote. I very clearly said that “… inferring that this was a gesture required by MI law, which is not the case.” That statement is 100% accurate.
Martin, I don’t actually speak for the Obama campaign when I post here. I don’t see any problem with raising the question of what effect the Republican voting had and why the media isn’t asking it. It’s just a blog, no need to quell civil discussion.
Dennis - SGMM
I asked a reasonable question. You couldn’t come up with a reasonable answer so I’m an apologist.
Obama played by the rules of the campaign. He stated that he’ll continue to do so. He didn’t say that he play by the unstated rules in D.C., nor would I expect him to.
And how is that? Obama isn’t characterizing or reinterpreting the rules laid down by the DNC. He’s saying that he’ll abide by them – no matter what. If anyone is “framing” it’s the hilbots who feel that their candidate must to win and therefor excuse every slur, every clumsy misstep and every paean of praise to McCain.
That pain that you feel is the mass of internal inconsistencies reaching critical mass.
“I would maintain that Florida, with 1.7 million -2 million people voting for president in the Dem. primary with EVERYONE on the ballot was a real election. MI, not so much.”
While FL is much more legitimate than MI, the fact remains that voters in FL were told that their vote in the Democratic nomination battle wouldn’t count. How much this affected matters, and whether this hurt Clinton or Obama more, is a matter of conjecture. Turnout wasn’t just based on the property tax measure, or the turnout between the Dems and Reps would have been closer, but it is a big part of story. Had Florida been slated to count, things could have been different, especially with the unfavorable news cycle for Clinton after SC.
Given the pattern of Obama closing the gap in most States that he actively campaigned in, it isn’t hard to imagine a considerable # of Clinton voters from the Jan primary would have changed sides for that vote — or for any re-vote.
A re-vote in FL would be fair. So long as the Clinton camp maintains that she won MI, however, she’s a pathetic evil bitch who must die and making FL more fair is just not something that Obama supporters are going to leap up and down about. If the current MI delegation were to be seated with full voting rights, the Obama voters in MI would be the ones disenfranchised, and a caucus next month is far more democratic than a half-assed primary. Yet Clinton insists on treating the American public like they are as stupid as the media that continues to award MI to Clinton on their maps.
“X would do the exact same thin Y is doing if their positions were reversed.” Please use your incredible mind-reading powers to better purpose, like discerning where the 6foot 5inch cave-dwelling Saudi exile is hiding. Inform the commander in Afghanistan, because our CinC doesn’t seem to care.
I was an Edwards supporter, and support Obama. Luckily I live in a deep blue state, so I can sit out the presidential vote if Hillary is the nominee without damaging the nation. What a piece of work.
This is an awful lot to swallow.
Just off the top of my head…
Clinton wasn’t the only candidate on the Michigan ballot, contrary to what Kerry states.
Yeah, what’s a commercial or two between friends?
This is one half of the Obama talking point I’m seeing all over the place. Left unsaid is that this is only true of the rules that assist Obama’s nomination.
The other half of the talking point is seen on this site quite a bit, don’t let “super-delegates overturn the will of the people.” Funny how that doesn’t seem to apply to superdelegate Kerry, who won’t be asked by Obama to vote with the decision of his state at the convention.
This is a seriously negative campaign against Clinton during this primary. She’s a cheater. She’ll do anything to win the nomination. She’ll use superdelegates to overturn the will of the people.
Clinton is supposed to swallow all this, because when she fights back, she’s the one accused of going negative.
Afterwards, during the general, there will be a weekly flow of “OMG I didn’t know that about Obama” moments, courtesy of the helpful people at the RNC.
But the voters were told that it wasn’t a real election.
Would it be fair if California decided to perform a statewide test of its new electronic voting systems on November 1 to ensure that they were accurate and that the staff were trained, with a fully accurate ballot but to then have the Governor declare after the votes are collected that due to budget considerations the state could not afford to hold the real election, but that we should just use the test results instead.
Would that be fair? All the candidates are there. All the voters could participate. It’s not their fault that they were told it doesn’t count, right?
Show us evidence that the Obama campaign has given any spin on what the superdelegates should do.
She’s on the record for suggesting that regular delegates should overturn the will of the people:
Don’t blame us for shit that comes out of Hillary’s campaign. Can she do that? Sure. Does it respect the will of the voters? Fuck no.
So before you come and accuse the Obama folks for attacking, why don’t you try and find a consistent line on the Clinton side to use in your defense.
No one is suggesting changing the rules to require superdelegates to vote a certain way. Suggesting that superdelegates _should_ go with the will of the voters in the DEMOCRATIC party is a fair argument that the supers can take or leave as they see fit.
This is wholly different than asking for a rule change.
The Obama campaign is open to a rule change to allow a re-vote, but not a rule change that gives Clinton a passel of delegates based on elections when Obama voters were told that their vote wouldn’t count.
Now you are just being a douchebag. The only 2 remotely viable candidates other than Clinton, Obama and Edwards, weren’t on the ballot. Arguing that the results of such an election should count is just fucking ridiculous. If you won’t believe anything that doesn’t come from the Clinton Politburo, ask Geraldine Ferraro. Or anyone else with a brain.
Goddam does anybody pay any attention? FL & MI were told well before any actual campaigning was going on to fix their mess under DNC rules or they would have no delegates. This was a long time ago, folks, long before it became a time problem. Charlie Chrit is a lying pile of sun tanned Republican horse shit. The States of FL or MI have exactly no say in when a Democratic Primary is held or how. DNC sets rules for various types of contests and a date limit and from there it is up to the State Party to figure it out – in every damn state and territory. It is not in the least up to the candidates or the State Government. If the State chooses to finance the election, that is nice, but has not squat to do with any damn thing. The DNC owns, lock, stock, and barrel, the Primary. The State Parties have second ownership, once inside DNC rules it is their game. This is a matter of LAW. Either State from the time their asshat legs moved the elections could have set in motion a proper and recognized Primary. ANY TIME. Delegates selected in an invalid election were not ever going to be seated, not ever. DNC has always wanted those states included, but they have got to do it under the rules.
OR leg looked at moving to Feb 5, DNC said no because our vote by mail would put us early (votes counted on Feb 5 and cast over several preceding weeks), the leg still talked about moving it so DPO started the process of setting in place the mechanism for caucuses so we’d still be able to count. The leg backed off so we’re in May, a lot of people said we’d never count or see a candidate, seems they could have listened to me (it’s in my archives). The point is, this did not have to become the mess it is and at least part of the blame for the delay was Hillary’s promise to seat delegates, a power she does not have. DNC cannot let those faux elections stand, it can not do it. It means the destruction of the DNC to do so and letting it go at the outset meant the same thing. You asshats keep getting played by the Republicans and a lazy resentment mongering media. You close your eyes and scream noooooooooo. fuck.
I’ll write this slowly so you can get it,
I t i s n o t D N C ‘ s f a u l t.
Here’s the chain of responsibility and time line,
DNC warns FL & MI illegitimate elections will not count
Republican legs pass bills
DNC warns again only legitimate delegates will be seated
Govs sign bills
Elections declared illegitimate
State Parties go along with the Republicans
Candidates asked not to campaign and warned delegates don’t count
Candidates sign pledges and acknowledge delegates don’t count.
Lies, BS, lazy reporting, DNC blamed.
Get it right, there is no “do-over” because it never happened. It still can, all it has to do is meet the same DNC rules it ever did. It’s getting late and money is a problem and the later it gets the harder the money is to raise and guess who keeps gumming the works? Hillary. And some asshat politician with their own agendas that don’t include the voters or the DNC – whose interests have been congruent from the beginning. Despite “seldom” stupidity.
And I asked you how in God’s name you got that from the statement he made.
He did not mention MI law. He implied NOTHING about MI law.
*You* pulled that out of your ass, and blamed him for *your* inference.
So no, your statement was not 100% accurate in any way, shape or form.
“It was also strange that Stephanpolous didn’t ask Crist why, if he was so concerned about the voters of Florida, he didn’t veto the bill to move the primary when it hit his desk. The DNC had made it abundantly clear what the consequences would be if Florida moved its primary but, Crist signed the bill anyway. His words of faux concern for Florida’s Democrats should turn to dogshit in his mouth.”
“Charlie Crist is a lying pile of sun tanned Republican horse shit.”
This as well.
And the same goes for Jennifer Granholm, Clinton supporter. You knew the consequences and moved up your primary anyway. Suffer the consequences. Michigan voters were “disenfranchised” by their Democratic governor and state legislature. Quit being a whiny finger-pointer and accept some responsibility for your own actions, Clinton supporter Granholm.
As for Florida, my understanding is all but one Democrat in the legislature voted with the evil Charlie Crist to move the primary up. Of so, quit whining.
I’ve been in criminal court and seen guys go before a judge and get nailed to the wall for their actions. They never whine. But then, maybe criminals have some sense of accepting responsiblity for their own actions that Democrats in Florida and Michigan don’t possess.
Clinton reminds me of Joe Lieberman. A Democrat only to the extent that it serves her purposes.
Dug, this is classic pot/kettle rhetoric.
Learn how to use the word “infer” correctly before you criticize others!
Who gives a shit what John Kerry thinks?
I worked for this tool’s campaign in Florida in 2004, then watched as he allowed that state to be stolen from the Dems yet again, and as he conceded to Bush before the voting debacle in Ohio was sorted out.
Something was way OFF in that entire campaign/election, and it’s my feeling that Kerry deliberately threw the election to GWB. Whether you believe that or not, it is clear he’s a spineless, twisted, fuckup who allowed himself to be defeated by a retarded incumbent president with a horrendous record of failue and mendacity.
So again, I ask, who gives a fuck what Kerry thinks?
And why, John, if YOU don’t normally give a fuck what Kerry thinks, do you suddenly choose to do so when his rhetoric as Obama’s new best buddy jibes with yours? credibility, hello?
Frankly, if Obama is now hanging with Kerry, that is a really BAD sign for the direction of what may be his future presidencey.