Thursday, May 22, 2008

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AND OBAMA'S CORRUPT CAMPAIGN

Nothing is more detrimental to the country as a whole than political corruption in any guise. So the statement issued by Barack Obama the other day regarding Florida and Michigan should be seen for what it is: a politician willing to engage in whatever undermining of the democratic process it takes to achieve his political ambition.

In his statement, Obama said that he would support a solution regarding the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates "as long as it was fair to both sides". This is Obama intentionally ignoring the fact that the elections and the results they produced were already fair to both sides.

The fairness of those elections and their results are not and never have been in dispute.The validity of those elections have never been in doubt. And both have been certified by their respective secretaries of state.

The only issue surrounding those elections, is whether the delegates won by each candidate as a result of those primaries will be seated and allowed to participate in the nomination process. The entire controversy is an internal DNC dispute involving a scheduling conflict that had nothing to do with Barack Obama. No one was put at any disadvantage because of either state's decision to move their primaries up.

The decision as to whether to allow them to be seated relates only to the threatened punishment by the DNC against the state parties for moving the primaries to an earlier date. It had nothing to do with validity of those elections and Obama has no argument regarding the validity of the results. He was at no disadvantage, the results are valid and accurate and everyone including Obama knows it.

The DNC threat to ban the delegates was simply stupid from day one. And for journalists who have been in the tank for Obama and the Obama campaign itself, to say Florida and Michigan broke the rules so they should not count, is simply all of them sticking their noses into DNC business. None of them work for the DNC. it's an interna party matter about scheduling and whether any of them think the DNC rules are good or bad is irrelevant to what the DNC decides to do. Yet Obama and these journalists continue to say that these states broke the rules. As if they have anything to say about the DNC rules with regards to anything.

If the DNC rules were that candidates had to hop on one leg 10 times in that state without losing their balance or they lose their delegates and Clinton didn't do it what would Obama and these journalists say? She should lose her delegates because she broke the rules?

What the DNC threatened is just as stupid and the Obama camp and journalists who insist on talking about "the rules" are just as stupid when they try and justify not seating Florida and Michigan because they broke "the rules".

If the DNC decides on a punishment that is more in keeping with a petty scheduling conflict instead of one that completely subverts the nominating process for President of the United States, there is no reason for both elections not to stand exactly as they are. Its all or nothing. There is no compromise that makes any sense.As soon as you start to compromise the very democratic process itself everyone loses.

So when Obama says he wants a "fair" resolution what he really means in his patented passive aggressive style is that he wants an unfair resolution. Unfair to Clinton, since the only fair resolution is to seat all the delegates as per the results of the elections. The elections were fair. The only additional fairness needed is to count them.

Every decision and statement coming out of a presidential campaign is the product of people sitting in a room discussing and dissecting every possible angle, going through every possible scenario, and parsing every word used in a statement. So, when Obama issues a statement about wanting a resolution to Florida and Michigan "as long as its fair" , we know this is not the wail in the wilderness of a lost and wronged soul staggering through the forest of an unfair world, pleading for fairness as rain pelts his face and tears stream down his cheeks. It's a well thought out deviously political calculation designed, not to be fair but to be unfair to Clinton under the guise of fairness, since the only really fair resolution is obvious: seat all the delegates exactly as dictated by the results of the election.

If the DNC wants to punish anyone let them punish the party leaders and ban them from the convention not delegates representing the 2.7 million who voted.

When it comes to Michigan, Obama still tries to brazenly argue that his name wasn't on the ballot. He tries to get away with this dishonesty only because he knows the news media he has in pocket will let him get away with it.

Here is what happened in Michigan as reported in the Des Moines Register in October of 2007.

Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.

John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).

But Obama topped that display about six weeks ago when he floated the idea that he and Clinton split the delegate count in Florida and Michigan 50-50 as a way of resolving the problem. In other words he wanted delegates that didn't belong to him. This was an attempt at a political mugging. He wanted delegates that weren't his, delegates the voters clearly said were meant for Clinton and delegates they clearly didn't want him to have. It was about as brazen an attempt to to corrupt the political process by a candidate for high office as has been seen in recent memory.

If Clinton had made such a proposal the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Betsy Reed, Roger Simon, the ethically and racially challenged Richard Kim, Olbermann, Arianna Huffintington and every other journalist who has corrupted every journalistic principle in existence in supporting Obama, perhaps as a way of somehow absolving themselves of their own racial issues, would have accused Clinton of the lowest form of political bottom scraping.

Yet Obama was ready willing and able to do just that, to take delegates he didn't deserve which is nothing short of stealing the voices of the people he pretends to champion except when those voices interfere with his personal ambition. And this coming from the side that has accused Clinton of doing anything to win.

Given everything that has gone on, the cheap shots of the Obama campaign from his hit and run tactics with his foreign policy advisor calling Clinton " a monster" and then quickly resigning ( as if that was a spontaneous outburst), Richardson and Leahy's pathetically transparent and orchestrated good cop/bad cop routine where they call for Clinton to get out of the race and then have Obama come along, knight in shining armour that he is, and proclaim that she "should stay in the race as long as she wants", ( as if he had to anything to say about it), and then playing the race card in South Carolina, there is a case to be made that Barack Obama is the most politically dishonest, corrupt and underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. He even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas in the person of Alice Palmer.

The joke pinned on Richard Nixon in the Fifties and Sixties for his political underhandedness and dishonesty was "Would you buy a used car from this man"? Well, would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Not if you lived in Florida or Michigan. Maybe not if you live anywhere.

To contribute to the to the running of a full page ad and a 30 second TV commerical I have written for the seating of Florida and Michigan for the PAC Countthevotescast.org click here: COUNTTHEVOTESCAST.ORG

NOTE: .I was told today that the DNC is in big trouble financially, down to $3.5 million against $35 million for the Republicans. Anyone supporting the full seating of Florida and Michigan can call the DNC and the finance committee in Washington and let them know they will not see another contribution now or in the future unless all the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated.

The main switchboard for the DNC is: 202-863-8000. The number that deals specifically with contributions or questions about contributions is: 877-336-7200

Additionally, anyone making a contribution to the Clinton campaign via the link provided (Hillary Clinton For President), will have the contribution matched by a contributor to the
Count the Votes Cast.org PAC for the running of the ad and TV commericial. Contributions will be matched from $25 to $5,000. For every contribution sent under $25, $1 will be sent to the Count the Votes Cast PAC. You can also get more information about contributing to the Florida and Michigan seating here:ACTION ALERT FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN

60 comments:

Gerard Nedich said...

YES!!! You have hit the nail on the head.

Obama is behaving exactly like George Bush Jnr.

Any candidate for the highest office in america should want every vote to count.

He could have just ignored the Florida/Michigan situation and let others get dirty stealing votes but he actually spoke up himself to steal the votes.

This sounds exactly like "politics as usual" that George Bush Jnr would be proud of.

This brazen corruption makes me physically sick.

This is the number one reason Hillary Clinton deserves to be the nominee and the president.

This message really needs to get out but as you have noted the media seems to be ignoring this huge issue.

I know for a fact that many americans feel disgusted by this vote stealing and the DNC is going to have a big surprise if they think they can get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Lawsuit filed today on behalf of Florida Democrats.

Basically - all state count or Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, New hampshire & Iowa Do Not.

It has to do with with Federal Voter Rights, Federal Monies, State Laws & the DNC trying to game the Justice System.

John said...

Love your analysis on this issue. You have really hit it dead on. The worst is yet to come though.

When these "penalties" were first announced, the unspoken understanding was that once the nomination was settled, the presumptive nominee would graciously ask that all FL and MI delegates be seated in the interest of party unity and inclusiveness. By that point, the delegates wouldn't matter and everyone would allow them in by unanimous acclamation and sing kumbaya together on the convention floor.

How much more stupid are the Democrats going to look when the Republicans do precisely that at their own convention with their own FL and MI delegates?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree your article is right on!

I hope the DNC goes bankrupt, I have already told them they will never get a penny from me and that I will give all my money to the Republican Party.

Their behavior has pushed me out of the Democratic Party and they will get the biggest landslide defeat of Obama in November, ever recorded in political history.

Anonymous said...

Anyone remember author James Frey, "A Million Little Pieces"? When is Oprah going to call Barack Obama back on stage and ask why he duped her and the American people?

Anonymous said...

execellent piece !.....i also just read that a law-suit regarding this matter has been filed. we are closing in on this corruption one day at a time. the dnc is toast with obama not being able to pass the Sniff test.......WHAT A NATIONAL EMBARASSMENT TO BE A DEMOCRAT GOING THROUGH THIS TAINTED PROCESS.

Anonymous said...

what about the double standard of hillary formerly downplaying the importance of michigan and florida, yet now saying that they are being disenfranchised?

People were told that their votes would not count, yet they still voted, and now we do not know what would have happened had the process run through as expected. also, how do you excuse MI and FL's childish behavior of wanting to go early on and ignoring any warnings from the DNC about what the consequences would be?

All of this is asides the fact that, even if hillary was given all of the delegates from the two states, she would still be behind.

Jack said...

Of course, it was all Clinton's people who controlled the DNC at the time (Ickes, McAuliffe) the punishment was decided upon. Clinton absolutely stood behind the punishment, though she didn't remove her name from the Michigan ballot as the DNC requested. When asked why by NPR, she said bluntly that it didn't matter, since Michigan wouldn't count anyway.

To blame Obama for this is absolutely revisionist. He wasn't in power when the rules were decided upon; that was the Clinton team.

Sorry, but you can't ignore the truth.

lillianjane said...

"how do you excuse MI and FL's childish behavior"

Michigan and Florida are not humans. I can only think that you are referring to the Democratic state committee officers who made the decisions. So what if those people were "childish"--how does that justify telling millions of people their votes don't count, and in so doing, changing the results of the election? How would you like it if you lived in either of those states? Or if you were a candidate whose success depended on your supporters in those states?

This column is the best analysis of the Florida-Michigan issue I have read.

Anonymous said...

Obama took his name off the ballot when early polling showed he was going to lose by a landslide, in Michigan.

Obama broke the rules when he advertised in Florida days before the election.

Who is sleazy now? What is obama afraid of?

Anonymous said...

Jack, revisionist history is right! Thank goodness there's loads of accurate record out there.

A vote for John McCain in November is a vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton...and all women in the USA.

lloyd said...

Your post is a rant of misinformation. "Revisionist history" is a good way to put it.

"a politician willing to engage in whatever undermining of the democratic process it takes to achieve his political ambition."

Wow, thanks for providing such a fitting definition...of Hillary. As noted by others in these comments, she and her advisors are the ones that PUSHED for the stripping of the delegates. Obama had nothing to do with that decision. She signed a pledge stating would would not "campaign or participate" in the elections. She didn't start her "civil-rights" campaign and pretend to care about the voters until she discovered the primary wasn't as locked up in her favor as she thought it was. Suddenly she wants to participate. Hypocritical, political pandering.

The suggestion that these contests, ESPECIALLY Michigan, were fair as they voted is spurious at best, delusional at worst. Here's why:

First, the vote results' certification only means that the reported vote result is accurate. It says nothing about whether the vote itself was fair.

Second, the people were told their votes wouldn't be counted. This clearly affected how they voted in both states. Republican turnout greatly exceeded Democratic turnout in both states, something only seen (and by smaller margins) in a couple other states -- Republican strongholds -- Utah, Arizona and Alabama. This means that democrats didn't come out in proportion to other states; some likely voted on the Republican ticket, thousands only voted down-ticket.

Third, Florida: Tainted, but not as flawed as Michigan. Overall turn-out was lower than average, but not terribly. Neither candidate campaigned. This did, however, put Obama at a heavy disadvantage given Clinton's name recognition and status within the party. This idea is reinforced by the fact that in nearly every state Obama's numbers increased dramatically when he began campaigning in-state, meeting voters, and getting his message out.

Fourth, Michigan: Any suggestion that the MI vote was "fair" is laughable. Turnout was abysmal compared to other states. People just stayed home.

Furthermore, Obama's (and Edwards' and Richardson's) motivations for removing his name from the ballot and following DNC rules (speculation, which YOU do not know, as you suggest you do, and neither do I) are IRRELEVANT. Whether or not voters were encouraged to vote "uncommitted" to stand against a symbolic Clinton win is IRRELEVANT. The fact remains his name was NOT on the ballot. People COULD NOT vote for Barack Obama! Clinton was the ONLY major candidate who could receive votes. It is undoubtable that some people vote for her or one of the minor candidates because of this. It is undoubtable that some people didn't get the "vote uncommitted" message. It is undoubtable that this confused people. The exit poll from Michigan is clear evidence of this--Hillary's percentage was 10 points less! 18% of the people who wanted to vote Obama and 30% of the people who wanted to vote Edwards voted Clinton!

It was a Soviet-style "election" with only one real choice available (and she "won" 55.2% which rounds to 55 not 56). Not fair by any measure. To put the icing on the cake, her campaign wants to award Obama 0 delegates and 0 votes from MI. You call that Democratic?!?

My final point is that it is impossible to determine how these elections would have turned out, and supremely improbable they would have turned out the way they did. Clinton probably would still have won FL (though by what margin?) and MI is questionable. We just have no way of knowing.

But it happened how it happened, and it is apparent the delegates need to be seated in some way, thus a reasonable compromise is necessary. We're democrats... we're supposed to be good at compromise, right? Obama's campaign has been up-front about being willing to meet Clinton "more than half-way". While entitled to say "those were the rules we all agreed upon, the states don't count," they've instead generously offered compromises that still award her a greater proportion of delegates. She refuses.

A supremely reasonable solution seating the delegates as the states voted, but as half-delegates, has been put on the table. This still greatly advantages Clinton in two states for which she signed a pledge agreeing she would not participate.

Still she stubbornly refuses and insists, as you do, on seating the delegates 100% as the state voted, insisting that the elections were "fair"--despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I may be an Obama supporter, but even a neutral observer would tell you an election, which all candidates agreed before-hand would not count, and which only contained one (major) candidate's name, is not only unfair, it is a farce.

I apologize for the block o'text, but I gotta call out misinformation when I see it. The above facts and statistics can be verified by the 2008 Michigan and Florida Wikipedia pages which have links to the original sources, and the U.S. Elections Project.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for a great post -- and absolutely accurate. Please forward your post to all media talking heads, as well as to Hillary's "support" email, the DNC, Howard Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, Lou Dobbs, Fox, etc..
All of those in the Obama tank gladly report that Florida and Michigan may count but ONLY in a way which does not CHANGE the OUTCOME of the nomination!!! Can you believe that garbage! Isn't the point of elections is to count all the votes as cast!! Isn't that what one would call a rigged election -- count only the votes which favor you -- just as they do in Zimbabwe! Obama is the U.S. version of Mugabe. Wish Obama would run for president in Africa, he seems to fit right in with their election "rules".

Anonymous said...

ATTN: LLOYD

Lloyd, I just read your comment and want to tell you that you are full of it. Election re-do's for both Michigan and Florida were put on the table -- Obama and his cohorts refused! That is the absolute TRUTH! In Michigan, Obama and his buddies in the legislature made sure to block a re-do. As for Florida, Obama Mugabe Hussein again REFUSED a primary re-do.

Solemn Writer said...

No one in the media will ask this question, so I will: 'Don't you think it's time for Senator Obama to pull out of the race before he continues to split the Party permanently?"

Thank you for your indepth information.

The DNC has a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing trying to pull the wool over the American citizens and their valid vote as they stand.

Anyone who pulls their name off the ballot and is running for the Presidency, needs to have a series of psychological testing performed.

Stupid, Rude, and Ignorant, and demeening to the Michigan voters, and theivery to the Florida voters, on top of deceitful.


http://solemnwriter.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

I received a survey in the mail a few days ago for the DNC. Of course, it asked for a contribution. I wrote in that I will contribute once Florida & Michigan are counted. I mean, really, how dare they expect any money when they can't get a primary right and we face being stuck with a candidate like Obama. When they wise up, count Florida and Michigan, and Hillary becomes the nominee....Then they will get my money. And probably a good amount of it.

Obama is simply the liberal understudy of Nixon and "W." Do we really want that kind of leadership (again)?

Anonymous said...

The idea that Barack Obama could possibly be the Democratic nominee (and, according to reports, his minions could be taking over the leadership of the party) is as frightening as George W. Bush & his war-mongering minions.

Obama is a one-term US Senator, who was elected by defeating Alan Keyes. My cat could have defeated Alan Keyes. And the suspicious circumstances surrounding the sudden disappearance of Obama's other opponents in that race remind me of Rove.

In November of 2006, Obama is still claiming "I will serve out my full six year term." The month prior, his presidential campaign domain was established.

For fifteen long months, he was lauded as the Uniter, the Vision, the Change.

And what do we have now? Deep racial division. The same tired Brzezinski worldview, with some scary religious overtones.

And dirty politics as usual.

We all must rail against the DNC (and its manipulation of the rules to suit Obama), and the current stock of Obama-adoring commentators, and get the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan counted. As they stand.

The party is not going to win the general election with Illinois, Idaho and Alaska. There are no caucuses in November.

And the office of the President of the United States should not be an entry-level job.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining this matter. Unfair to Hillary! Who is Obama beholding to? Unfair to America. We need the best leader right now and she wears a pant suit. Yes, I'm of the school that experience is important and Obama lacks experience and ethics. I'm thinking twice about more donations to the Dems Party if they don't address this issue fairly!
Where do we voice an opinion to the them?
Jennifer-Sacramento, CA

MDR said...

This is the main number.You can call and ask for Deans office or the Finance Committee or anywhere you want to register your complaint.

202-863-8000

The direct number for issues relating to contributions is:
877-336-7200)

Anonymous said...

ATTN: LLOYD

Lloyd, I have just one comment to your long post and I hope that you give an answer:

Lloyd: "Third, Florida: Tainted, but not as flawed as Michigan. Overall turn-out was lower than average, but not terribly. Neither candidate campaigned."

Why did Barack Obama run T.V. ads in Florida? Isn't that campaigning? Why would he do so if he knew that FL was out of the race?

lloyd said...

RE: ATTN: LLOYD 1 and 2--

Thanks for re-hashing 2 common, easily debunked Clinton Camp myths.

1. Please kindly provide evidence that Obama is responsible for blocking re-do efforts. The decisions were both made by the states' Dem. Parties on the basis of it being too costly and it being impossible to determine who had already voted in the Republican Primary, among other reasons of impracticality. Non of this has any bearing on the validity of the elections except to say that they WEREN'T valid -- because they were trying to figure out a way to have a redo.

2. Obama did not run T.V. ads in Florida. He ran a national television ad on CNN and MSNBC. The campaign asked to eliminate Florida from the national buy, but were told by the cable companies they couldn't. They verified with SC Dem Chairwoman Carol Fowler that the national ad did not violate the DNC pledge.

Again, neither of these issues has any impact on the validity of the elections themselves. A compromise is needed, simple as that.

The MI and FL 2008 Dem Primary Wikipedia pages provide sources that verify these facts.

Natashia09 said...

Your statements on the Florida/Michigan situation are more rooted in truth and fairness than anything I’ve read to date. I live in Florida. I’m from Michigan. A vast majority of people in Florida are from the northern states of MI, WI, PA, IA, IN, IL, OH, NJ, and NY. The most truthful argument Obama makes with concern to how or if delegates in Florida are counted, is that he had an “unfair advantage” because no one in Florida knew him—he didn’t have the name recognition of Hillary Clinton. Given some thought, there are many First Ladies’ whose names I don’t know or have never heard much about. But there are names we all remember well. The First Ladies, who are remembered, are remembered because they took stands on issues, they were proactive; they did things to be remembered for. The same goes for Senators across the Country--some are household names, others have never been heard of. What sets them apart?

Obama himself, using his own argument, shows us he would make the most inept President to ever run this country. He’s telling us he's done not one single thing in his career that stood out, or that mattered enough to be recognized by millions of voters. If he had, his name would be recognized, wouldn't it?

Florida is not an isolated peninsula of people living without television, the internet, or newspapers. Florida is a melting pot of men and women, classes, colors, educations and religions from many regions of this country. We have the same access to information as the rest of the country.

We admire Obamas truthful argument that he didn’t have name recognition—he didn’t. Who’d ever heard of him? He’s absolutely right! In making the strongest argument for why he lost the Florida’s Primary, he makes the weakest argument for why our votes should be ignored or shared with him. Is it Florida’s fault that the shortcomings in Obamas career as a public servant gave him Brand X generic status? If he wanted the Presidency of the United States so much, maybe he should’ve tried a little harder to make memorable achievements

Florida voters voted on merit. We voted for a strong leader, and this time we want the rest of the country and the world to know it. We want the rest of the country and the world to know our votes must be counted. For Obama not to want this for us is the precise reason no one has ever heard of him—he isn’t taking a stand for the people.

To exert the courage and honor it will take for Obama to stop fighting us and let our voices be heard, will show us he isn’t just another political bag of hot air, and will give Obama name brand recognition throughout this country and the world in a way that only great leaders can achieve.

We showed up to vote with the largest turn out in Florida’s Primary history, and we showed up to vote for who we believe is the best candidate for our Country.

This is Barack Obamas chance to make a name for himself. Show your integrity Obama. Stand up for us and let our votes be counted in the way they were intended. Show us that you have what memorable leaders are made of. Show us and show the world that you believe in what American stands for. Don’t just tell us. show us.

Solemn Writer said...

All I know is that I would be in a law suit if I were the Presidential candidate myself and my votes were not being counted as valid. But I'm not and I'm not a Senator or Attorney and I can only assume that the Senator and Former President know what they are doing.

My gut tells me that the DNC is stalling for some reason, but not a good one. This is where 'politics' gets a bad name.

Amy in Corvallis said...

It hasn't been Obama who has blocked an agreement. It was State-evel elected officials in both states.

The truth that the Clinton supporters do not want to hear is that even with the delegates seated 'as is' (despite the fact that these were NOT fair elections, it's ridiculous to claim that they were!) - Obama will still have enough delegates to win the nomination. So long as you give him the 31 MI delegates who came from the 'uncommited' vote and who have already pledged to support him.

The ONLY way for the math to work for Clinton is for her to obliterate the notion that Obama had any support in Michigan - a claim that is blatantly false. You simply cannot tell me that its fair to only count her votes in MI and count zero for Obama. That is a Solviet-style election.

Oh, and remember, that so-called Popular vote lead is based on IGNORING the voters in FOUR states. They happen to be caucus states, so they get no say in who is the nominee?!?

What kind of democracy is that?

Obama is winning this with one hand tied behind his back.

The truth seems to be that there is no possible fair way in your minds that Obama can possibly win this. That no rules count and the only fair contest is one in which Clinton wins.

I'm a 36-yr-old white woman. I'm proud to be a mother of two, MBA, and owner of a small corporation. My acheivements in life are my own and have nothing to do with Sen. Clinton. I do not need her to win to validate my hopes and dreams.

I voted for Obama because he'll be a better President. He picks competence over cronyism. He'll be better at keeping us out of war with Iran, better on the economy and better on the environment. These are the issues that are most important to me and to the future of my children. What could be more feminist than that?

Anonymous said...

Ms. MBA, you are so sadly mistaken. If you are so concerned about the future of your children perhaps you might want to consider exactly who it is you're willing to put in the White House. We know so little about this man and what we have found out over the past 60 days I find quite alarming. I will say this on your behalf...your comments were given in a more than decent manner which is most unusual for an Obama supporter.
I am a Florida voter approaching my 60th Birthday and I also have my own business. Not that this information makes a bit of difference, my dear. We're all Americans and regardless of our education or social status, we all deserve to have our votes counted. The people of Michigan and Florida had nothing to do with the decisions made my a few politicians. If your candidate is the person he claims to be, why is he so willing to turn his back on the people of these states. Why is it so hard to understand that we voted for the candidate of our choice just as you did? How can you and your candidate, who claims to be of such exemplary morals, use this absurd excuse to hijack the votes of so many. He does not deserve votes he did not receive.

Anonymous said...

"If your candidate is the person he claims to be, why is he so willing to turn his back on the people of these states."

He isn't. He is actively trying to reach a reasonable compromise from a very unclear and difficult situation. It is Clinton who insists on seating them only her way.

It is Clinton who is turning her back on fair electoral process and on the people who believed the DNC and SHE herself when she said their votes "wouldn't count for anything"--thus they stayed home or only voted down-ticket. Those people are the real ones getting disenfranchised.

The delegates obviously need to be seated. A compromise is the only fair way.

Solemn Writer said...

I don't thin the DNC, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and especially not the American Citizens who voted think that there was anything unfair about the elections. Oh no, in fact that is just the point. The election was completely legitimate and should stand as is, and everyone knows about it but the Obama camp and his Delegates don't want to OWN UP. AND THAT IS ALL, PERIOD.

No the only thing that went wrong was the DNC and their making everyone adhere to 'THEIR' schedule. Like I said at my blog site, 'Who died and made the DNC, God?'

Oh no, Obama's Camp and his supporters in the DNC know exactly what kind of 'treason' they are getting away with.

If I were Senator Clinton, I'd be taking this to the Supreme Court.

The Obama camp likes 'Chicago Politics', believe me, a whole lot of us don't, and don't want it in the White House.

I'm not going to be bamboozled. Whomever he is the 'figure head' for knew to get him into a race with a woman that was winning, because they knew that that would be his best chance. Believe me, they knew exactly what they were doing from day one. Pulling his name of the Michigan ballot, oh no, not the gallant DNC man you think he is. Oh know, he knew he could get them (the DNC) to pull this crap later on his behalf.

I'm planning on making that phone call now.

Seat the Delegates as they stand in Michigan and Florida, or AMERICA IS NO LONGER THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE, BUT THE DNC AND I WILL LEAVE IT!

WRITE-IN SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IN THE NOVEMBER BALLOT !

Anonymous said...

will ANYBODY that supports clinton please respond to this -

1) you all are making such a huge deal about MI and FL, yet i have not seen any of you bring up the fact that it was known, before the voting, that the votes would not count.

2) I heard a couple people say that Obama opposed a recount, and that he is not trustworthy because of that. CLINTON ALSO OPPOSED THE RECOUNT.

3) The DNC can't let the FL and MI legislators just get away with moving up their primary dates - they were warned by the DNC, yet they ignored them. If there are no consequences for a state acting above the DNC this year, then we're going to be dealing with this every four years. The worst thing is that, as it turns out, they would have gotten more attention if they didn't move up their dates.

4) you're saying that Obama is tearing apart the party, but he's the one playing by the rules. Hillary is going against the DNC by changing her mind about rules that she previous agreed upon.

5) the delegates from FL and MI will still leave obama with a lead

6) Instead of listening to somebody like the guy that made the original post and praising him for how much sense he makes, try looking for FACTS. anybody can spin any issue enough to have it make sense.

7) Almost all of the pro-clinton people here have not made any attempt to justify their beliefs, which would not be so bad if they weren't also completely fabricating the stances and words of others

Anonymous said...

"No the only thing that went wrong was the DNC and their making everyone adhere to 'THEIR' schedule. Like I said at my blog site, 'Who died and made the DNC, God?"
Oh no, Obama's Camp and his supporters in the DNC know exactly what kind of 'treason' they are getting away with."

well, for one, the DNC is what decides who the nominee will be, and they've been setting the dates for the primaries for quite some time now.

How is clinton's game not so obvious to you? before the primary, she followed the rules, and now, after things aren't going as planned for her, she is trying to change the rules. Do you think that clinton committed treason when she originally negated the value of FL and MI?

And when exactly was clinton winning? she was winning for a little while, but then people started to vote, and that changed the situation, and yes, even if you include FL and MI, she is still not winning.

MDR said...

"she is trying to change the rules."

Maybe Rosa Parks should have followed the rules and sat in the back of the bus. Is that what you think she should have done? Followed the rules?

MDR said...

"she is trying to change the rules. Do you think that clinton committed treason when she originally negated the value of FL and MI?"

First try and understand this. "the rules" are none of your business. they are DNC rules and they are what they are and they amounted to nothing more than a parking violation. the DNC stupidly overreacted and tried to keep them from the moving the primary up so they went overboard with a stupid threat that they now regret. They could have banned the 5 or 6 party leaders who were responsible from the convention or fined them. You dont ban the votes of 3 million people and turn the entire electoral process upside down over a parking violation. It was a stupid decision, they know it and you keep talking about rules like its the rules that matter. The reason this country even exists is because in 1776 a bunch of men got together and decided to break "the rules" when it was clear the rules were stupid and unfair.If you had been around then you probably would have been a Tory.

Anonymous said...

yet another person sees what they want to and ignores all else.

so i guess rosa parks originally loved segregation, but then when it started to affect her too much, she decided to fight against it.

its not that im against "the rules," im just against people (specifically, politicians) who are fine with the rules until they inconvenience them.

not to mention that making the comparison of this situation to two events where people risked their lives to gain freedom is despicable ; try to actually learn something and to think for yourself rather than just reiterating what you've been told a million times before, because such horrible analogies shows your lack of knowledge. Its just like how politicians are always using bad stories and analogies - they want to sound good to everybody, so instead of actually explaining themselves, they speak in terms that makes it seem like you're a bad person if you don't agree with them. What gets lost is how the story or analogy actually relates to the issue, but that's why politicians love people like MDR - they just say what they're told.

Anonymous said...

Hi Marc,
This is fabulous stuff. Do you know how much money Count the Votes Cast has raised so far?

Solemn Writer said...

The reason I feel that the 'rules' are my business, MDR, is because I am an American citizen, and they are affecting the way this Presidential election is going.

I do believe that Senator Clinton didn't 'rock the boat' earlier is do to two reasons: She does support 'Party Politics', (I don't, I vote for the individual candidate.), and I believe that she was so busy with her own campaign, that it was put on the back burner. She actually had a campaign schedule in Michigan.

I also think that any 'rules by the DNC' are my business because their actions are seriously affecting the candidate of my support. I believe that I feel that these rules are as much my business as they are yours.

It seems to me that the 'DNC rules', that are not suppose to be 'any of my business' are affecting seriously, the one man, one vote of the American citizen. I merely feel, as many Floridians feel that their vote should count the way it was cast, and the delegates be seated accordingly, without parceling out percentages, whether earned or not.

Also, it was the DNC rules that the courts stated should be abided by, so, I guess maybe that is why I felt that it was the 'rules' that matter. Everyone keeps saying that the States 'broke' the rules.

Also, as you so eloquently put it in your comment: "The reason this country even exists is because in 1776 a bunch of men got together and decided to break "the rules" when it was clear the rules were stupid and unfair." I agree, I think that the DNC rules are not 'worthy' of being kept, and I don't know which of us would have been the Tory. Maybe you?

Anonymous said...

I don't think both sides being unable to campaign is fair. While it might have ended up that the results may have changed, Obama also could have done better. While I don't dispute that he knew he was going to lose, that doesn't mean that Obama was going to lose if both Obama and Clinton were able to campaign.

I personally think he would have lost Michigan, however, he would NOT have lost by 20 points if they both got to campaign, or even 15 points. He would have lost by 5 or 10. Pretty much every state where either candidate has tried has seen the candidate who was behind close the gap after they got to campaign. It's ridiculous that the states don't count at all, but it's almost as ridiculous to give them to the leader by the original margin.

You can say that "Oh, well, if you want to prove it, then he should have authorized a recount". But look, he's a politician. He knew it wasn't going to count. Why give up a free advantage? Yes, he lied, and he took the easy way out that ensures he wins, but from his point of view, the ends justify the means. If ANY politician had the nomination locked up because of a technicality, and you wanted to ask them to give up the nomination because they won a technicality, they would tell you to take a hike. And really, can you blame them?

Just because Obama didn't want to do the right thing and hold a reelection doesn't mean that you should screw him over by not letting him get the margin that he wouldn't want. My suggestion is to take all of the poll numbers in Michigan over the last 4 months, average them out, and assign both popular vote totals and delegates that way. The "let Michigan count as 1/2 vote" thing ends up being approximately accurate as well.

In terms of being fair to the candidates (and not the rules, etc.), Clinton should get more delegates from Michigan than Obama, but not the 55-40 margin that she won the election by. The election was not fair simply because both candidates were not able to campaign. It is NOT an equal disadvantage to both candidates: this inability to campaign very likely hurt Obama significantly more than Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Tom you just proved that Obama isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Even if he thought he was going to win Iowa but 75%, last time I checked it takes more than one state to win the nomination. Who ever in his team thought this up was stuipd? Logically to me it made more since leaving his name and finding out for sure where he stood so he knew how much campigan he had to do. I wouldn't be suprised if Michigan and Florida both alienated him if he becomes the nominee.

ILoveLA said...

Stealing votes seems to be the norm for Obama. Witness the bullying and other tactics to manipulate the Texas caucus among other caucuses. The DNC has handled this situation dreadfully. When it became clear there were two strong Democratic candidates, they should have moved swiftly to recognize both FL and MI votes as they stood. Of course they couldn't do that, because Dean and the other elite heads of the insiders club of Washington want Obama to be the nominee.

And now BO supporters are blogging about Puerto Rico, complaining THEIR votes shouldn't count! Amazing! They know BO will not win there and so they want to prevent THOSE votes from counting.

Hillary Clinton is the true nominee at this point. And I will never believe otherwise. Just as I will never believe George W. Bush was actually ELECTED POTUS over Al Gore in 2000.

MDR said...

"It hasn't been Obama who has blocked an agreement. It was State-evel elected officials in both states."

No Amy it has been Obama. The DNC has been trying to resolve this for months and because they have to be neutral they were trying to get a resolution that both sides would agree to. Obama's side would NOT agree to having the delegates seated as per the results of the election. This is Mr. Voices Must Be Heard, Every Vote Must Count, talking. He has a history of throwing what he pretends are principles under the bus if it interferes with his political ambition.

MDR said...

"This is fabulous stuff. Do you know how much money Count the Votes Cast has raised so far"

I dont know. I will probably find out this week. But the more they raise, the wider the exposure will be for the ad and TV commercial I have done for them. By the way there are pro Clinton super delegates who are part of their PAC who will be signing the ad. They are taking donations at their web site.www.countthevotescast.org.

I think the ad is posted on their site and the commericial will be up this week.

MDR said...

"I also think that any 'rules by the DNC' are my business because their actions are seriously affecting the candidate of my support."

It isnt the rules that are the problem it is the punishment, that was my point about the rules being no one;s business but the DNC. When has anyone sat down and read their by laws? The answer is never.

It was the knee jerk overreaction of threatening to disenfranchise the delegates in the hopes that such a severe sanction would keep them from doing it that was the problem. they could have threatened other sanctions. Hefty fines, suspending the party leaders for a year, a lot of things but not to ban the delegates.The rule is besides the point.It was the threatened punishment that undermines the entire process and was a total overreaction,punishing the wrong people, including all the Florida and Michigan voters all Clinton voters and the entire country if the wrong person goes out as the candidate. Its the punishment that needs to be undone, not the rule.

Boris the Bewildered said...

Dean & Donna purposefully took these states out of the competition so that Hillary wouldn't open a lead that B0 couldn't catch up to.
IA, NH,SC also changed their dates - no punishment for them.
It was Republicans who changed the date in both states.
In Florida, the bill contained provisions on paper trail for electronic voting. To oppose the change of date would have meant giving up on paper trail. In Florida.

Solemn Writer said...

I believe that Senator Clinton is the soundest candidate, mentally, physically, spiritually, educationally, public servant experienced. I believe that her global recognition is the best of the candidates as a President. I believe that there are many in the world that would like to see Senator Obama, as a lark, as someone different, but I also believe those same people would cheer Senator Clinton. I believe that Senator McCain's global recognition is not beneficial to America. I believe that Senator Clinton is as strong with military strategy, because I know where she is on that issue. I believe she will serve well as Commander in Chief. I don't feel as safe with the other two candidates.

Solemn Writer said...

Hear, hear! Exactly. This is what I have noticed about the BO campaign. Principles under the bus when it doesn't suit his gain and copy catting and 'oops' I made a mistake, but it's ok because I'm young, and cute, and everyone loves me, but I know I have to 'act' humble and 'act' like I'm for 'the people', but I'm going to be for anyone who gets me higher and more powerful, and white wash everything, and basically another 'W' Bush.

I'm sorry, I'm 59 and this Senator just reads 'yuppie' all over him. It's a generation thing, and I don't think he really understands what our generation is talking about when it comes to his orations.

Senator Clinton speaks more to me about what it was really all about, and she moved to take part in it.

I don't think Senator Obama has the goods, I think he is a 'follower' or the beneficiary of the leaders that had the goods. I think Senator Clinton has the goods of her generation that assisted those in helping BO supporters.

She has motivated me and those like me and my age. We know where she has been. We know what she is going through. We are amazed and won't let her fall. She is truly a leader that keeps on getting raked where a man wouldn't. She is accused of being an antagonist to the Party, and yet, I feel it is Senator Obama who is the antagonist, yet the media has thoroughly labeled Senator Clinton as being an 'enemy maker'. It truly is just biased, sexist journalism. I don't see her as an antagonist at all, and no where near any man running for office.

I believe they have met someone that really knows her stuff, and right, she's got the goods to break the last ceiling and they are doing everything they can to prevent it.

The women of the world want a different agenda. This country needs a female President, and deserves one. Senator Clinton will be an outstanding world leader. You won't have to pry her from the mirror once she gets in office. I think we have seen enough of that with the male ego.

gerard n. said...

someone should write a letter to:

1. NAACP

2. Rev Wright

3. NOW - National Organization for Women

and any other activists, rights groups etc urging them to speak up for all votes to count and all delegates to be seated at the convention.

Natashia09 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Natashia09 said...

RE: Anonymous. will ANYBODY that supports clinton please respond to this -

Step out of the line of sheep, put the TV clicker down and research information outside of the mainstream news media, you will then find Marc Rubin's comments more in line with the facts you're looking for. His articles are very comprehensive and engaging if you can look beyong the talking heads for your information base.

Anonymous said...

re:RE: Anonymous. will ANYBODY that supports clinton please respond to this -

im well aware of the biased media and how ridiculous every one of the talking heads are. What i find completely absurd though is that you can advocate one specific person so adamantly yet assume that people with different opinions just watch CNN nonstop.

And really, why wont anybody respond to the questions that are being raised about hillary? Solemn writer is the only one to even come close. When most of you decide to just go on about media bias and disenfranchisement (both are topics that necessitate discussion, as they are not ends in themselves, especially in this situation) then it just makes your arguement look really week, and it doesn't help any when you're saying the same exact things that Hillary is.

And once again, mdr responds only to the few words that they want to with purely subjective comments

Anonymous said...

making this even worse is that everybody just most of you just believe every single thing to come out of clinton's mouth. Im not saying that im not extremely skeptical of everything that obama says, but at least his views have been consistent, even dating back to the days when he was a community organizer. Clinton has changed her stance several times, and changes it to whatever she knows that people want to here, and that doesn't convey much faith in her actually believing in what she is saying.

And how does anybody support her manipulation of the popular vote? First of all, the primaries weren't based on popular vote for a reason. Second, the election in november won't be based on popular vote. Third, the caucuses are part of the primary process, and no other candidate has ever so adamantly said that they should not count, and i would be glad to consider her arguement with that if it wasnt so obvious that she was just saying that to try and support herself - if she was winning because of the caucuses, she would have no problem with them. Before the voting started, everybody assumed that she would be the nominee, and she therefore was fine with the process. Then when people started to vote and it was clear that she was losing, she just placed blame on any outlet that she possibly could.

She is losing because she is refusing to focus on the issues, and instead she is just interpolating people into believing that she has obstacles that she alone faces, which is not true. She knows that playing dirty, mudslinging politics is the only way that she can get people to vote for her, because if she would just focus on the issues, she would not win.

Natashia09 said...

RE: Anonymous:
I’ve never heard Hillary Clinton say she’s faces things alone. I personally have only heard her say we're all in this together.

Concerning the mainstream media, I again don’t hear you saying anything that didn’t come right off CNN or MSN or twistedfacts.com. It’s imperative that people gather facts and do research on a candidate from many sources and form an educated opinion using their own personal construct of ideas along with the data they gathered. When this happens, you know you've done your best to form a valid opinion. Imperial evidence is king, but most of us don’t have access to these candidates. So we have to depend on our own research. It takes time and effort. And we have to take this responsibility seriously if we want to be taken seriously when we say something. When we hear something being said we have to ask ourselves questions like, who owns the station we’re listening to? Who are the companies advertising the products being advertised on the channel we’re listening to or website we’re reading from? Who is paying to give us the information and what is their interest? Who is paying the person to say or write the things we’re listening toor reading? Extreme care and caution must be used in letting this mainstream media interpret events. They spin the facts out of observed events to the point that they have us believing whatever they’re being paid to make us believe. Repetition is a power and valuable tool—it’s how you learned your multiplication tables and the alphabet. However, it can be a dangerous tool if it’s used to manipulate. We can't stop the machine, but we can question it. Did you ever wonder how Hitler gained so much power? He controlled the media.

To address your comment on advocating this specific blog writer—did you research Marc Rubin/mdr before you began commenting on this blog? I did. This is why I'm here. I also noticed you didn't directly address my first comment. Why? I’d hate to think it’s because the media hasn't given you a solid argument to refute the observations I wrote about. Lastly, did you watch any of the debates between the candidates, then turn off the television before the heads could come on and spin everything you'd just spent 90minutes observing first hand?

Anonymous said...

so, once again, there is a response that in no way addresses any of the questions that i had asked, or any of the other consistent questions about clinton that have been asked several times in the comments section. Yet you expected me to react so much to your comment, but there isn't anything to respond to, and you didn't ask any kind of question.

and i didn't address your "comment" because it is irrelevant, all that i am focusing on is what he has written in this blog, and on the comments on this post. You opting to say that the media has brainwashed me into saying everything i've said doesn't help your arguement either. You didn't even try to respond to any of the actual statements that i made, and that is asides the fact that ive heard everything that you have said on one of the media outlets also, yet i'm still trying to get you to explain yourself, because that would show that you might actually know what you're talking about.

everything you wrote about the media is just common sense - yes, i'm well aware of how the media can brainwash people without them even knowing it, or that they will "spin" facts, and that you have to do research and etc. And yes, i watched the debates, though i don't believe every single thing that clinton (or obama) says.

im well aware of media bias, i watch a pathetic amount of cnn, msnbc and fox news on a regular basis and it is obvious that they their intent is adjunct to actually focusing on issues. However, i watch them to both get a better grasp of how the media construes what the politicians say and to aid in deducing the political intent behind the nominee's words (by political intent, i mean the fabrications to gain trust). If you have any amount of logic and you watch the three different network's views on any single topic from time to time, it gradually becomes easier to see through to their actual intent.

What im most confused about is how everybody on here is just buying Clinton's crying about how the media hates her so much. The media just incites controversy constantly because that's what gains them ratings, and this has both benefited and hurt the two candidates on plenty of occasions. Like what do any of you think of the media making such a huge deal about the 10 delegates Hillary won in West Virginia, yet hardly saying anything about the 20+ superdelegates that obama gained in a few days? that is just one example, but it shows the media promoting the underdog just so that they can get plenty of air time in talking about hillary's "big win". That is just one example, and i can give plenty of examples of when it has worked the other way around, but i think that it would be redundant.

Clinton is the one that i see using the media to her advantage the most. Like, after iowa, there was the whole ordeal about how, every time you turned on the tv there was so much about obama - it made people start to freak out every time that they saw anything about obama, whether it be positive or negative. But he was talked about as much as she was, though her campaign saying that the media is ALWAYS talking about him made her supporters keep an ear out. I'm not saying that obama has never used the media to his advantage, i've just seen it much more with her.





So now i'm just wondering if anybody will actually respond to what i said, or if they'll point out one single thing that i said and incorporate it into what has already been said in about 30 of the comments

Anonymous said...

and i forgot to mention the ludicrousness of the hitler comment. Yes, i've wondered about that, and i've researched it. He did use the media to help to brainwash people, though that was just one small facet of what he did to come to power.

At least the other people on here that i disagree with dont treat their every idea like each statement is some profound secret that they have to bestow upon the lucky public - that's the same mentality that an elementary school student oftentimes has at some point.

Natashia09 said...

Re: Anonymous:

I didn’t really expect a reaction from you, but I would have listened had you had one. It’s ok not to agree with someone. But please, don’t just throw a bunch of mainstream repetition back at me looking for an intelligent argument. There’s very little I find thought provoking or intelligent about mainstream media, which is why I don’t watch it. I can’t listen to those TV lunatics; it’s too much fighting, too much yelling, too much spinning. And I can’t offer you detailed facts and statistics to refute what you’re saying because it’s not what I have to offer, I don’t have all that information. But the author of this blog is providing a thorough discourse for those of us who care to read it. I merely offered how I felt about this situation in my comments because I’m as angry about this as the next person. I’m sure you have some very provocative insights; I was just trying to flush them out into the open. I can’t answer questions about if Hillary hedged on this or Obama flopped on that. It just doesn’t make any sense to me to keep going over the same stuff—it’s a merry-go-round ride going nowhere. They’ve both had a long ride and have both said or done things that have been beaten into the ground by the mainstream media. This is why I try to find other sources of information—anything where people aren’t screaming to get their points across. And regardless, if we’re left, right, up, or down, civility is the key to discussions like this and you have the right to say whatever you want. Rock On and Have a Safe & Happy Memorial Weekend!!

Solemn Writer said...

Will go back and catch something I must have missed and research mdr as soon as I get over my bronchitis. You all stay healthy. It's 1:14 am here. These are really good comments on this post. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

dozens of comments but not a single response or rebuttal to lloyd's questions. no rebuttal but someone did manage to throw in "mugabe hussein." nice work clintonites!

mdr said...

Someone left a comment that no one has addressed Lloyd's concerns. I imagine its becuse Lloyd is so factually challenged that they didnt really need commenting. What Lloyd and other Obama supporters do is what psychiatrists call projection. They take whats true about Obama that are painful and are in deep denial about and project them onto clinton.

Lets take just some of Lloyd's comments.

"Hillary. As noted by others in these comments, she and her advisors are the ones that PUSHED for the stripping of the delegates".

First,prove it. This is not Obama time. We dont believe something just because you say it. No one is taking your word for it. Prove that Clinton "pushed for it".Because the decsion to strip the delegates was a DNC decison based on DNC rules and it was used a a threat BEFORE THE FACT to try and get them not to do it. Then the dnc was stuck with their threat. Clinton had no say in what the DNC threatened to do much less pushed for it. Try and give one peice of logic as to why Clinton would "push" to have two states she won in two landslides, not to count. And you wonder why Clinton supporters refer to Obama suppoprters as "drinking the Kool Aid"? And if you are trying to twist and Obamasize the fact that Ickes who is a member of campaign, is also a member of the Rules committee as your "proof" that would be pathetic.

"She didn't start her "civil-rights" campaign and pretend to care about the voters until she discovered the primary wasn't as locked up in her favor as she thought it was. Suddenly she wants to participate. Hypocritical, political pandering"

Clinton was caring about civil rights when she was 20 years old going door to door registering African Americans to vote in the 1960's before she ever asked anyone for a single vote. She has done more for civil rights in one day that Obama has in his entire life or ever will.

As for your twisted and distorted view of facts, why shouldnt she make an issue of their being seated when the 70 delegates she netted has become important to the nomination? She earned them, she won them, and they are part of the democratic process.It is only logic and common sense, something Obama supporters show they have none of, which would motivate her to want to get duly elected delegats seated when they have become crucial to the nominating process.

It is Obama and people who make statements like yours who are the rank hypocrites. tis is the projection Im talking about. It is Obama who has said BEFORE Florida and Michigan mattered, "Every vote must count. Voices must be heard".
Yes they must be heard as long as they are saying what Obama wants them to say. But when they arent he tries to shut them up and stop them from being heard. "Voices must be heard" got thrown under the bus pretty fast. Who is the hypocrite? Its Obama and his supporters. Now you can clearly see what psychologists call projection.

"First, the vote results' certification only means that the reported vote result is accurate. It says nothing about whether the vote itself was fair.

Lloyd this is why people arent responding to you.And why this will be the last point of yours that I'll address.Because your points are so off the wall, so illogical, and make so little sense ( except to Obama supporters I assume) I didnt think they needed answering so I will make this the last one.

The fact that the vote was accurate speaks for itself and is what matters. As far as fair, if it wassnt fair ( which everyone knows it was) Obama would have filed an objection. He didnt. And the Attorney general of the state of Michigan and/or the Justice Dept would have made an issue of it. It was as fair as fair could be and if it wasnt Obama and Axelrod would have been whinning so loud it would have sounded like sirens going off. It was not only fair, it was conducted EXACTLY as Obama wanted it to be conducted. HE was the one who wanted his name represented by "uncommitted" and the Democratic party in Michigan arranged to have it well publicized,and so did the news media and every single person who went to the polls that day knew that "ucnommitted" reperesented Obama and Edwards which is why it got 40% of the vote. The only issue was how to apportion the 40% of the vote "uncommitted" received since Edwards was part of it and I gave my formula on how to do it and its even overly generous to Obama.The election results were accurate as you point out, Clinton recieved 56% of the vote and based on Edwards past performance of 14% that would give Obama 26%. As an Obama supporter I know that fair and accurate gives you heartburn but that election was accurate and fair.

"Second, the people were told their votes wouldn't be counted."

So thats why a million people showed up to vote? Because they were told it wouldnt count? And you wonder why clinton supporters refer to Obama supporters as "drinking the Kool Aid"?

Another Obama supporter made the claim that the turnout in Florida was below average because people thought it wouldnt count. It was the biggest turnout for a primary in Florida's history.

Numbers dont lie. the delgate count is distorted and Obama recieved 650 delegates getting landlsided by clinton in the 13 biggest states in the country that he wouldnt have under a winner take all system.

Clinton will be the choice of the people with more votes than Obama at the end of the primaries. If super delegats subvert the process and dont give her the nomination when she is clearly the choice of the majority of Democratic voters, the Democratic party is finished. Obama would lose in a landslide to McCain, becaue Clinton voters which are more than half the party will never vote for him and will never support him and that is reality, not the world through Obama colored glasses. That is another fact that Obama supporters will just have to face. Clinton will be the choice and will of the people and if super delegates ignore it the Democrats go down to defeat in November.

lloyd said...

"Prove that Clinton 'pushed for it'"

You're right on this one point. Good call, and I apologize for including this in my post--to my knowledge, Clinton herself did not push for the DNC decision. I was generalizing information I read on another blog and neglected to fact-check that one statement.

Her supporters and advisors on the committee, however, did--including (as you mentioned) high-profile advisor and campaign spokesperson Harlold Ickes. As did nearly everyone else on the committee.

Point being, and not negated by my factual error, that Clinton was well aware, as was everyone else, including MI and FL, of the consequences of their moving their primaries forward. She did nothing, and in fact defended the DNC and supported their ruling... that is until it became politically advantageous for her to flip flop.

You then twist my "civil rights" comment into some distorted argument about Clinton's civil rights record and ignore the obvious fact that I was referencing her high-and-mighty posturing about seating MI and FL delegates as being equivalent to granting blacks and women suffrage or lethal election disputes in Zimbabwe.

"She has done more for civil rights in one day that Obama has in his entire life or ever will."

You want to provide and cite some factual evidence for THAT statement??


"The fact that the vote was accurate speaks for itself and is what matters. As far as fair, if it wassnt fair ( which everyone knows it was) Obama would have filed an objection."

Again, the issue is the fairness of the election, not the accuracy of the reported result, which I have no problem with. It's simply irrelevant when the results represent an election which in and of itself was unfair. There was no reason for Obama to file an objection: he, as well as everyone else, and agreed upon by the DNC and both campaigns, thought it wouldn't count.

You insist over and over everyone knows the election was fair, (obviously if everyone knew it was fair we wouldn't be having this argument) yet you ignore all the evidence I provide regarding the election's fairness.

Its hard to argue with you when you harp on one or two insignificant points I make, ignoring context and the rest of the evidence I provide, then spend the rest of your post making unsubstantiated statements with no factual backing, calling me names, and repeating yourself.


"it was conducted EXACTLY as Obama wanted it to be conducted"

Again, please provide some factual evidence to your seemingly endless knowledge of Obama's motivations. I'm pretty sure Obama would have liked to campaign in these states, you know, like in a FAIR election.


"every single person who went to the polls that day knew that 'ucnommitted' reperesented Obama and Edwards"

The stats from the exit polls I cited in my original post blatantly discredit this statement. Clinton's victory was greatly inflated by virtue of being the only major name on the ballot. Anyone who can't see that is blind or willfully ignoring the facts.


"'Second, the people were told their votes wouldn't be counted.'
So thats why a million people showed up to vote? Because they were told it wouldnt count?"

It is why a million+ more people didn't show up to vote, or voted Republican, or voted only down-ticket.


"Another Obama supporter made the claim that the turnout in Florida was below average because people thought it wouldnt count. It was the biggest turnout for a primary in Florida's history."

True, but it was below average relative to other states in this election. Michigan's was even lower (as I pointed out, and you ignored). Furthermore, Democratic turnout was well below Republican turnout in both states, something seen almost nowhere else.

"Numbers dont lie. the delgate count is distorted and Obama recieved 650 delegates getting landlsided by clinton in the 13 biggest states in the country that he wouldnt have under a winner take all system."

Apparently, your numbers lie. Right, the 13 biggest states in the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_U.S._states_by_population) , places he got "landslided" like Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Texas. Give me a break.

And sorry, it isn't a winner-take-all system, so such speculation is irrelevant. The campaigns would have been run much differently if that was the case. It would have been an entirely different election. You can't just say "oh, the system if unfair, lets decide the election this way" just because your candidate is losing.

If Clinton is "clearly the choice of the majority of Democratic voters," please explain to me why Obama has more pledged delegates, more superdelegates, more votes, more states won, more donors, and more money raised?

And that's true even if you unfairly count MI and FL 100% as they voted (counting all states and awarding Obama your oh-so-generous percentage of the MI uncommitted).
___

On a somewhat related note for anyone who is interested:

For an interesting (albeit hypothetical) projection on a Michigan Clinton-Obama contest, check out this fascinating breakdown at fivethirtyeight.com (one of the most accurate pollsters/predictors this election):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
2008/05/michigan-what-
would-have-happened.html

lloyd said...

And a new post at fivethirtyeight -- a breakdown of Michigan based on the exit poll.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/
05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

(Make sure to copy both parts and delete any extra spaces to account for the line-break.)

Anonymous said...

Can someone answer this for me, it's a really important question.

1.) If Hillary backed the punishment before why does she all of the sudden change her mind?

2.) Myself and a lot of other people did not go out to vote in Michigan because I knew my vote wouldn't count. Now all of the sudden it counts? That is not fair to me or anyone else who did not go out to vote because we knew our votes didn't count. What should be done about this?

3.) Obama was not even on the ticket in Michigan.

4.) None of the candidates campaigned on those states, and Hillary cheated by keeping her name on both state ballots.

So cna someone clear up those topics for me please.

Thank You.

Marc Rubin said...

"Can someone answer this for me, it's a really important question.

1.) If Hillary backed the punishment before why does she all of the sudden change her mind?"

This is why it seems to so many people that Obama and his supporters have no principles.

First it wouldnt matter whether she backed it or not it is an outrage based on the constitution and pure democratic principles to have such an incredbily stupid sanction as punishing 3 million people and their votes over a stupid scheduling conflict. The fact that you even see the issue as Clinton vs. Obama and what YOU want because of the outcome you want shows that Obama and his supporters have no principles at all, and do not have a clue as to what is right which is one more thing that disqualifies him for the job he wants.

Even Arlen Spector has said the DNC rules might be unconstitutional and they are stupid at best.

As for Clinton,given the fact that the delegates could now make a difference since she netted 70 in both states why shouldnt she revisit it?

Either way the popular votes count in each state since the delegates are the only thing that is a DNC issue - the popular vote isnt. she is going to have the popular vote at the end. If super delegates do not honor the will of the people the convention is going to be 1968 all over again only it will take place INSIDE the convention hall.

SolemnWriter said...

Response to Anon: Can someone answer this for me, it's a really important question.

1.) If Hillary backed the punishment before why does she all of the sudden change her mind?

Response:
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Did She or didn't she? Does it matter?
As I sit here and listen to the Clinton vs Obama participants in discussion on how the DNC should, shouldn't, and how to seat the delegates at convention, I am amazed at the lack of respect and logic for the American vote, and what it means.

The Obama camp states that even Senator Clinton stated that the Florida and the Michigan votes would not count because they broke the rules. They wonder why she never-the-less left her name on the Michigan ballot.

Well, people, I don't know about you, but if I were a smart candidate, and my opponent was running for the President of the United States and was removing his name from the ballot, I think I'd say to myself, just let him think that the American voter vote won't count.

Was Senator Clinton going to ruffle the feathers of the DNC in March? I don't think so. Should every person running for the President of the United States have his name on a ballot for the voters, I would think so. No matter what the DNC says.

Is Senator Hillary Clinton to take the blame for the lack of smarts and respect for the American voters' votes by leaving her name on the ballot and earning them? That is what the Obama camp wants. The Obama camp has to learn that there is a penalty for pulling your name off the ballot when you are running for the President of the United States of America. That's the bottom line.

Seat the delegates as the voter voted, now.

2.) Myself and a lot of other people did not go out to vote in Michigan because I knew my vote wouldn't count. Now all of the sudden it counts? That is not fair to me or anyone else who did not go out to vote because we knew our votes didn't count. What should be done about this?

Response:
There's where your education and lack of fortitude failed you in believing in a flawed system called the DNC. Your vote has always counted, including the write-in vote that you could have used, if you would have just voted. That's your responsibility, and no one else's. There is nothing 'unfair' about that. What you could have, should have done, in order to 'do something about this', is go and vote when your state's primary states their 'election day'. Your supporting a candidate that is trying to bamboozle you from the get-go and you're not getting it still. HE didn't want you to go to the polls and get your vote counted. Why? Because he did not have the support or his 'machine' in place and he was going to lose. Don't you see that? He knew from the very start what his maniplulation could do. Is that fair? YOU keep things fair by going to VOTE on the day stipulated as Election Day. You don't listen to ANYONE else. It's YOUR vote. You can write-in your candidate, BUT YOUR CANDIDATE DIDN'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT, HE WAS USING ALL OF YOU.

3.) Obama was not even on the ticket in Michigan.

Response:
THAT'S HIS OWN FAULT AND NO ONE, NO ONE ELSE'S. If he can't keep his name on the ballot, he doesn't have the character to be a good President. Please, truly believe me.

4.) None of the candidates campaigned on those states, and Hillary cheated by keeping her name on both state ballots.


Response:
Keeping your name on a Presidential ballot along with many, many others candidate is most definitely NOT CHEATING. Where is your mind? She was following centuries of democratic process. She was doing what she is suppose to do.

What you are finally seeing is the American voter letting America know that they see what is going on and what the DNC got itself into and how the Obama camp has utilized that to his own advantage at the expense of the disenfrisement of the American voters' ballot and how it counts, one man-one vote for the candidate of choice.

5.) So cna (can)someone clear up those topics for me please.

Response: If this doesn't do it, there is absolutely no hope. Really, really, what you are seeing now is the Obama camp panicking that what is truly correct, right, and what should be done, is actually going to happen. And it should, and every American worth their salt should be fighting for seating of the delegates as earned. Obama pulled his name, he did not earn the vote, his supporters did not use their rights of citizens to go to the polls and vote for him. It's your fault, not Senator Clinton and the people that voted for her, or anyone else on the ballot, and for those Obama supporter that wrote in his name at the time of Elections.


Thank You.

Your are welcome.