Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Kerry, Clinton v. Obama

Florida

I think its very strange that progressives are suddenly so intent on following the rules.  Florida voters were disenfranchized when the Republican controlled legislature changed the primary date.  Florida Democrats have been working ever since to try and resolve this, but Florida voters were disenfranchized again the national party made its decision to not seat the Florida delegation.  Obama ran national ads that showed down here in Florida for two weeks before the primary.  While perhaps not technically a violation of the agreement not to campaign, it certainly violated the spirit of the agreement (which I don't agree with in the first place).  The national party has done a great disservice to the whole country but not allowing a campaign down here in Florida.  I also do believe that if Obama had won Florida, his supporters would be asking that the delegation be seated and would have made a compelling argument for that, based on what happened to Florida voters. Just switch around the names and then decide what your position is on Florida.

---

by: milosarah @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:32:44 PM CST

Uh, not so fast... a Dem moved the FL primary

When the hubbub over Florida's new presidential primary date began, the Florida Democratic Party was quick to blame the Republican-led state legislature for a change that violated national Dem Party rules and introduced the state party to a world of hurt. It turns out, however, that it was actually a Democratic state senator who introduced the original legislation that moved the primary date to Jan. 29. Hmmm.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:04:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting that

A lot of people don't realize that the Democrats started that mess.

---

by: scioto @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Clinton's doing after all then.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"It's come down to Florida."

so i guess we can just forget all those other primaries still on the slate, if you think FL is all that remains crucial?  what i think it is coming down to, for perhaps the first time ever, is ALL of the states having a say.  that is a good thing for making people feel that they have a voice.  be happy for it.  the process is not perfect, to be sure, but it is what it is.  i didn't hear anyone around here genuinely pushing to reform our candidate selection process until the process became problematic for their candidate to get the clear nom.  and clinton (or obama) is well within her rights to petition the rules committee.  and they are well within their rights to reject her petition.  i see nothing shady here.

As for the Iraq vote and Obama, I think it bares repeating what he said in 2006

I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices...We were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

His view on his Iraq war position is much more measured than the Obama Legend would lead us to believe.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:48:39 PM CST

Obama's anti-war cred

OK, if I grant you that, then the tally is:

Clinton: Voted for Iraq
Obama: Spoke against Iraq, may or may not have voted for Iraq.

Obama wins.  Still.  

And that's before I bring up Kyl/Lieberman, PATRIOT ACT, flag burning, howling about pixellated titties in video games, locking everyone out of her health care debacle when she had a Dem Senate + Dem House + Dem President who was her husband, and her years of "experience" where she's quick to take credit for her husband's successes (during which her contribution was flying to Kosovo with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow, for example) but curiously somehow the rest of her Clinton Admin years of experience (DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, 1996 Telco Act, 175% increase in arrests of potheads, directing the DEA to raid medical marijuana states, shall I continue) doesn't count.

Or how about saying the Dem frontrunner would be a worse C-in-C than the GOP nominee?  How's that for party unity?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:12:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so you are saying

that you don't prefer clinton for president? ;)

ot, but you'll be interested: washington aclu & travel writer rick steves have produced an infomercial about decriminalizing marijuana.  i saw it in preview a few weeks ago, and although i initially laughed at the stilted infomercial style, i think it is quite good for its purpose: getting teh conversation started.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:21:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I'll vote Nader before Clinton

I've had it.  I'm done with voting Republican-Lite just because the Republican is so awful.  I'm tired of two wings of the Corporate Party.  I'm finished with backroom machinations that subvert the democratic will of the people.

Why shouldn't I?  So the election is thrown to McCain.  So what?  So we go to hell in a handbasket quickly on the Straight Talk Express instead of the Slow Train of Triangulation.

We've had two stolen elections, we endorse torture, billions go missing, the Executive ignores the checks and balances of the Legislative (which are few because the Legislative keeps rolling over for the Executive), the people are spied on without warrants, and so much more, and yet nobody hits the streets, nobody riots, nobody holds anyone accountable.

Screw it.  Maybe a President McCain, a 100-year war, a police state, and a 6-3 Roberts SCOTUS will wake us up.  Maybe things haven't gotten bad enough yet, quickly enough.

As far as I'm concerned, after the last month of Hillary trashing the Dem party, she's Lieberman to me ("What, most Dems want Lamont?  Screw them, I'll run anyway and benefit from my Republican support."  Isn't that what Hillary accomplished in Texas with her Limbot support?)

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:42:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

seriously?

That's taking on a Dennis Perrin level of pessimism there Russ; I do love you both.

For me, moving in a negative direction isn't progress. It's its antithesis. I'd love to experience civil-marriage with my husband. That's a big reason why I'm fighting the 6-3 Roberts SCOTUS. I probably don't have 40 years to wait for the reversal of a decision that would block that, or worse, experience a ruling that makes our lovemaking illegal (e.g. a reversal of Lawrence vs. Texas).

How bad do you see things having to get before Congress would impeach a justice? I don't see them doing that over LGBT rights or torture. Having sex with my husband ruled illegal isn't something I'm willing to endorse a journey toward.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:09:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But see, both McCain and Clinton would be a negative direction

It's just that the McCain negative would move faster.  Do you really think Hillary will would make any serious changes to the system?  No, it'll be business as usual, more lobbying, more backroom crony deals, more pardons of connected friends, more partisan bickering, more triangulation and capitulation to the right.

OK, perhaps President Hillary doesn't give us a neanderthal sixth SCOTUS judge.  That just keeps the status quo of Roe and Lawrence.  I doubt she's going to do anything radical, like repeal DOMA, DADT, or Schedule I marijuana, cuz she'll be always protecting her right-flank from the Hillary haters in the GOP and courting those "moderates" she needed to win.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:30:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Make your vote count

A third party vote does nothing but make a statement.  You can make a louder statement here or on your radio show.  It is very little bang for your voting buck.

There is a huge difference between Clinton or Obama and McCain.  A McCain presidency would propel this country even further to the precipice, if it hasn't already gone over the edge.

People made arguments similar to yours in 2000 and voted for Nader.  I firmly believe if those votes would have gone for Gore, almost 4000 of our citizens would not have died in Iraq, that country would not have suffered the devastation that we facilitated, and Gore probably would have taken the presidential daily briefly seriously and may have prevented 9/11.  I'm not even going to take the time to list the other tragedies of the last 8 years that could have been averted.

I think the strategy promoted at DailyKos - more and better Democrats, is more likely to get us to the goals you listed.  The process is painful - the red district next to mine replaced convict Tom Noe with Democrat Zach Space in the last election.  His votes on many things have been a disappointment, but on a lot of things his votes are better than the Republicans.  We just have to keep chipping away.  I don't think we can do that by allowing Republican control.

---

by: scioto @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe I misunderstood

I thought you were considering not voting for Clinton if she made it to the general.  Reading further down I don't think that's what you were saying.  Never mind.

---

by: scioto @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama as corporate as the next

Blinded like the rest by the Obama whatever, a quick google brought me right to this Boston Globe article from last summer...before it was time to spin and cover the tracks.  Obama is as corporate as the next national candidate.  Who are you kidding? and btw I'm still looking for a link to the Clinton/Fl/MI conspiracy she's supposedly spearheading and responsible for rather than the DNC who is actually calling the shots and making the rules.

http://www.boston.com/news/nat...
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 17:12:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good Point, Karen

You're right.  Sure, Obama's just as corporate as Clinton.  Whatever.  So, if they're equal in that respect, you're telling me that I should vote for the Corporatist that voted for the Iraq War, for an Iran war, and for the PATRIOT ACT, who demogogued on flag burning and video game titties, is awash in lobbyist money, and runs her campaign as if she's running for McCain's VP spot.

I think I'll take the Corporatist who wouldn't give me 36 years straight of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.  At least then if we get the exact same result, I can least say it's got a different name.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:59:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disillusionment?

It's because a significant chunk of the Democratic Party apparently thinks it's a fine idea to nominate the totally-unqualified Sen. Obama. If we want to elect Sen. McCain and the GOP, we should go right ahead and nominate Sen. Obama who will then lose to Sen. McCain. If we want to beat Sen. McCain and the GOP, we should nominate Sen. Clinton.

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:55:00 PM CST

all the polls i've ever seen say the opposite

obama attracts a larger crowd--his margin against mccain is much wider than clinton's, in a general election.  

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:15:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

polls this far out

are notoriously meaningless.  don't forget that bush the 1st famously jumped up over 20 points in just a few weeks before the election.  polls aren't a valid tool to use for candidate selection.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:29:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And Pro-Obama Polls are Misleading

The Bradley Effect still exists in the country.  The polls before the primaries have proven it.  If polls vis-a-vis Obama were accurate indicators of the actual vote, the nomination would be his.  Sad, yet true.

---

by: tony2 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:17:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

besides the bradley effect,

many people simply aren't making up their minds until they get into the voting booth.  how do you poll that?  ya can't.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:23:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, then, forget about the black guy

Might as well not even try.  White voters are lying to pollsters, so we Democrats ought not nominate a black guy.  We should run the candidate that the racists will like, prinicples be damned.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:02:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So if Obama v. McCain polls mean nothing...

...then by what criteria do you suppose Clinton has an easier time beating McCain?

Could it be Clinton's famously high "negatives", which will bring out a disillusioned GOP in droves to vote against Hillary, as Rush Limbaugh knows all too well, which is why he lobbied Texas repugs to cross over and vote for Hillary?

Could it be her identical to McCain stance on the Iraquagmire?  Or her identical to McCain stance on Kyl/Lieberman?  Or her identical to McCain stance on the PATRIOT ACT?

Could it be that she has more "experience" than Obama, except that her "experience" was being first lady of Arkansas and first lady of America, while Obama was actually legislating in Illinois?  Certainly that "experience" card by the one-term carpetbagging NY senator with no military record will play well against a three-term AZ senator who is a war hero.

Could it be that she will ride to victory on that wave of Latinos, blue collar workers, and white women over 60? Who needs excited new young voters and disillusioned African-American votes, anyway?

Wait, don't tell me.  I know why Hillary does better against McCain.  Richard Nixon told me it's part of her "strategy".

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my assumption is that

whoever is the nominee, obama or clinton, most dems will rally behind them.  it has nothing to do with polls, and everything to do with wanting the gop out of the white house.  people are seeing the bigger picture.

i'm not going to debate you on the details of either candidate, because there is so much fury flying off of your post, i fear we can't have a civil debate.  you may be absolutely correct about clinton and obama, but i'm no interested in slamfests.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:25:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fury? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Every poll taken shows that if Obama wins, more Clinton supporters will rally behind him than vice versa.  And every poll taken shows that if Clinton wins, more Repugs will rally behind McCain.

Too many people are overlooking this as Clinton v. Obama.  It's not.  It's "old school" v. "new school".  It's 20th Century v. 21st Century.  It's triangulation v. populism.  It's Democrats v. Republican-Lite.

The biggest problem in this country is that the system is broken.  An entire generation now is poised to become lifelong Democrats because finally, someone spoke to their hopes and dreams, someone told them that "we" can change Washington (instead of "I" am best qualified), someone convinced them that their exuberance and hard work and majority of votes would matter this time.

My youngest brother is 25.  He has yet to see a presidential election where shenanigans weren't in play that disenfranchised many and disillusioned even more.  I fear that his generation, finally engaged in politics, voting overwhelmingly for Obama, will have suffered one disillusionment too many if Clinton back-rooms and arm-twists her way to the nomination despite the will of the people.

You're right.  I'm furious.  I'm furious that here we are, so close to real change, finally given an inspiring leader (especially after holding our noses for John Kerry), and Hillary Clinton is so eager to play Rovian politics and fund attack commercials for John W. McCain.  This country needs real change, not part five of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton Chronicles.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:56:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

did the soapbox street preacher

ever win any converts by screaming at passers by about armageddon?  just askin.

the fact is that half of the voting population has thus far chosen clinton.  she didn't twist those arms, she earned those votes just as obama has earned his.  your approach (whiny, entitled) turns off those people and YOU NEED THOSE PEOPLE.  if you have a case to make that you actually want people to pay attention to, i suggest you ratchet down the spittle factor by a lot and start laying out well-documented evidence to back up your claims.  otherwise, don't be surprised when people toss pennies at you in pity.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:09:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Uh, I did make a case...

• Vote for Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq.
  
• Vote for Kyl/Lieberman.
  
• Vote for PATRIOT ACT.
  
• Demogoguing on flag burning.
  
• Had a chance to fix healthcare, but locked everyone out the process, resulting in spectacular failure, despite a willing Dem House, Dem Senate, and a husband as president.
  
• Can't make up the pledged delegate count.
  
• Wants votes from FL & MI primaries that were agreed to not count and doesn't care whether beating "Uncommitted" or opponents who didn't campaign.
  
• Has on five separate occasions accused a fellow Democrat of being less qualified than the Republican opponent.
  
• Dipped into Rove's playbook with a 3AM ad.
  
• Campaigned by using a stretched, darkened photo of her African-American opponent.
  
• So naive (or complicit) as to be fooled by the lies of the past two presidents.
  
• Less than half of the voters have picked Clinton.  That would be interesting, if popular vote decided the nomination.

But please, throw some more patronization at me.  It reminds me so much of the candidate I'm fighting against.  Whiny and entitled, indeed.  Who is it that's whining about FL & MI?  Who is it that's whining about being picked on by the big bad press?  Who is it that, were she not a part of the Clinton/Lieberman party, would've been asked to drop out by now, or would have dropped out by now for the good of the party, save for the feeling she's entitled to the nomination (and never seemed to complain about the press coverage when they called her "inevitable" and when she'd get the lion's share of questions and response time and the center podium at most of the early debates)?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:25:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tired of being insulted

I'm sorry, but I'm really really tired of being personally attacked and insulted by Senator Clinton and her supporters simply because I favor another candidate. The sneering contempt that Senator Clinton and her supporters have for anyone who dares challenge her Divine Right to the nomination is extremely tiresome. Her "the sky will open up" speech angered and insulted me more than any democratic politician has in my lifetime.

I disagree with you on the choice of candidate. I see two Senators with a roughly equal record, one with experience in state government, the other with a few years more experience in the Senate. I find Obama extremely charismatic, believe him to be more electable, and I feel he represents me better.

You clearly disagree. That doesn't mean you're a moron. It doesn't mean you are mentally defective. It doesn't mean you are ignorant and have to be educated. And it doesn't believe you are evil and intent on destroying the Democratic Party.

Please do those of us who are supporters of Obama the courtesy of understanding that we are not mentally defective, ignorant or evil either. We simply have looked at the facts and come to a different conclusion than you have. That's the basis of democracy.  

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:42:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

woah, kathygnome!

i didn't see Holly calling you a moron etc.  she was expressing an opinion rather dryly, i thought.  take a chill pill!  you're right that there are people that are abusive to supporters of the rival candidate.  but they can be found on BOTH sides.  and Holly, in that comment, wasn't one of them.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:48:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think...

she means that she perceives Hillary's campaign as calling her stupid for selecting Obama over her.... If that is the case, then kathygnome is taking politics way too personally.  Persons decisions about who to vote for are often because they are ignorant and need to be educated... that education of voters is what elections are about, persuading people.

---

by: tony2 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:20:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I care about the Democratic party...

...more than I care about Hillary or Barack. Hillary clearly doesn't. If her shenanigans work out in November, I'll vote for her out of party loyalty. But oh if they don't, she'll have to top the $36 million she spent on her last Senate campaign.

---

by: janinedm @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:15:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rules

And Obama wants super delegates to vote the same as pledged delegates rendering their existence and purpose, established under rules, superfluous...  It is also in the rules that the DNC can choose to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates if they wish (and if the contest was not close, there is no question but that they would).  Both candidates are trying to work the rules to their advantage.  Obama does not have a halo and it is bullshit like this suggesting he is a saint to Hillary's evil-doer that makes me want to wretch.  

---

by: tony2 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:14:30 PM CST

I agree with Rules

So let's follow them.  However, there are rules, and then there are appearances and ethics.

Yes, the DNC, right this minute, could seat Florida, where Hillary won a "this doesn't count and nobody campaigned here" election, and could seat Michigan, where Hillary posted a 15-point win over "Uncommitted", since none of the other frontrunners were on the ballot.  And then she'd still be way behind in the delegate count to Obama.

And she could, theoretically, go out to the rest of the remaining states and win all of them by at least a 67%-33% margin (like, say, in 40% African-American Mississippi), and she might be able to barely close the gap and tie Obama.

And sure, Obama has no right to require the superdelegates to follow the will of the voters.  It is a fucked-up system, where an unelected body is allowed to overrule the will of the people, to in essence say, "there, there, silly voters with your 'Obamamania', we know what's best for you", rendering the votes of the people superfluous.

Yes, absolutely, Hillary Clinton can win by following the rules.  She can be installed to her rightful nomination by following the rules that are in place, by lobbying an unelected body to install her, by making a mockery out of elections in two states, and by not receiving a majority of the vote.  By all the standards established by George W. Bush, she would be most certainly following all the rules.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:28:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect,

to Radical, your editorial screed:
" Hillary is saying we should ignore the rules regarding how the DNC schedules primaries for the states, seat those delegates, to set up the chance to throw the decision to an unelected body to choose who should be the nominee, hoping the superdelegates give us President Clinton II."  is unsubstaniated.  Can you quote the source of this action from a non blog anti Hillary source, say a Clinton press release or an AP lead?  Thought so, not.

As pointed out, the DNC is following the rules and each candiate is trying to bend those rules to their advantage.  Guess you aren't a sports fan or you would realize how the really brillant coaches USE the rules to their advantage to WIN.  Nothing like see Pat Riley eeking out field goal points and field positon in the last seconds of the game to come up with a Laker win.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:42:35 PM CST

I love "with all due respect"

That's always been a phrase that makes me laugh.  For example, I could say, "Dr. King, with all due respect..." and I'd be saying the rest with 300 kilotons of respect.

Then I could say, "Gov. Bush, with all due respect..." and what follows might scrimp up .6 micrograms of respect.

Anyway, my source?  It's called "mathematics".  Hillary Clinton cannot catch Barack Obama in democratically-chosen pledged delegates, barring sweeps of the rest of the contests with a 67%-33% margin.  Ain't a-gonna happen.

So, therefore, the only possible way she can catch and overtake Obama requires a mathematical improbability, plus seating delegates whose states broke the rules (that SHE agreed to, by the way, when that position suited her; see also "Sybil Clinton"), plus arm-twisting enough superdelegates (see: unelected body).

Thus, the very fact that she continues to run implies my editorial screed.  She wants to ignore the rules re: FL & MI and have the nomination chosen against the democratic will of the people.

Now, is that "bending the rules to her advantage"?  Sure, just like Belichick videotaping offensive signals from the sidelines.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 17:40:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"the very fact that she continues to run "

the very fact that you expect one of two people in a dead tie to just drop out demonstrates that you have lost all sense of perspective.  i can just as easily demand that obama drop out, because there is no way he can get the delegates he needs without "arm twisting" super delegates.  but i won't say that, because 1) i believe they both should continue to run until one outright loses, one decides to stop and/or they strike a deal, and 2) i don't believe the SDs are just wimps that the strongest arm wrestler can make cry UNCLE!  the fact that many have not declared themselves yet tells me that they are not all prone to the evil machinations you're so sure clinton is applying but that obama is completely immune to (cue heavenly choir).

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 17:50:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

respect

and as for "with all due respect", it is disappointing that you cannot accept someone's attempt to be decent to you while disagreeing with you.  what a slap in the face.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 17:53:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

except she immediately says

your editorial screed which kind of detracts from the due respect comment.

I agree with most of what Russ has said, as well as a lot of what you've said.  When this is all reduced to two sides, we're all going to be on the same one.  I appreciate that you've made posts trying to keep the level civil.  One of the dangers of this type of communication medium is that things can elevate rather easily.

I think the tragedy of the last 8 years is making this election almost a death struggle.  We are desperate, and the discourse sometimes shows it.

Okay, group hug everybody.

---

by: scioto @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 13:00:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Election contests between Democrats and Republicans are treacherous things.

On the one hand you have voters, in this case its GLBT folk who are desperately sick to death of bigotry, discrimination and violence. On the other hand you have politicians desperate for votes they can exchange for money and power. When those two groups intersect it's usually disastrous, as in the elections of LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2, all of whom proved to be obstinate enemies of our agenda for equality. If there's no real choice becasue teh two parties are substantivley the same then people end up electing one of their enemies. If we elect either of the Bush Stout candidates - Clinton or McClain - we'll condemn ourselves to four more years of war, economic chaos and bigotry.

Obama is not all that different from Clinton and McCain. If they're Bush Stout he's definitely Bush Lite and we ignore that to our peril. Like Billary Clinton, he's a Democrat, a political hustler in a right centrist party who'll say anything to get elected.

As Gore Vidal said says "We have one party - we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican." A vote for the Democrats or Republicans is a vote for a party that gutted ENDA, dropped the hate crimes bill and refuses to repeal Billarys DOMA and DADT. They did that so the Republicans couldn't claim they were GLBT friendly. Billary and Obama didn't offer a hint of protest when all that was going on.  

Like Clinton and McCain he openly, arrogantly and unashamedly panders to gay bashing christian bigots. However Obama's gay basher bedfellows  like Mary Mary, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin  and Bush's 'spirit' advisor are chump change compared to Billarys. Her admirers include her Senatorial bible class littermates Santorum of Pennsylvania and Brownback of Kansas. Pat Robertson admires her 'tacking to the right' and Faux News owner Rupert Murdoch gave her a $100,000 'donation' for services rendered.

Obama was the FIRST presidential candidate to support the NAFTA Peru extension bill.  Look at his list of donors above and his stand makes perfect sense. The AFL-CIO, all Peruvian unions and most environmental and anti-poverty organizations oppose NAFTA because it's used to pauperize workers, bust unions and is an environmental disaster. Obama, Clinton and most Republicans support NAFTA. They have to if they want corporate money.

In spite of all his hype about the war one thing remains crystal clear, neither he, Clinton or the Republicans can or will end the war. A victory by the Iraqis will end it, just like the war in Vietnam was ended. Obama would spread the war to Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons. That's simply retarded even for some who supports the resource wars including the oil piracy in Iraq. Obama and Clinton say they won't end the war until 2013 at the earliest, and McCain of course want to fight for a century or two. He' determined to make some one pay for his treatment by the Vietnamese, forgetting of course, that they suffered terribly during that war.

Like Clinton and McCain, Obama is a handpuppet for the HMO, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Don't get sick if one of them wins. The National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO condemns Obama, saying "Obama has chosen to give more customers and more public funds to the for-profit insurance corporations. It's an expensive gift and one that allows them to continue meddling in medical decision-making while raking in obscene blood-money profits."

The problem is that if enough people are desperate or foolish and vote for him he might win. That would be as disastrous as when Clinton (DADT and DOMA) or Bush 2 won.  With Democrats like these who needs Republicans.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:40:55 PM CST

All politics are local

If you think any one President will magically change the world, you're always going to be disappointed.  Good change takes time and dedication.  If you want change you will have to work for it - probably for the rest of life.  Electing a left leaning centrist President (Clinton or Obama) instead of a right wing suck up (McCain) is just one small step forward, after years of the GOP strangle hold.

It's time to get out and start helping your local progressive candidates.  
If you local Democratic party sucks, it's time to become a member and change things.

Flaming each other on a blog will get you nowhere and is exactly what the other side wants this election year.

---

by: uptown @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 17:27:52 PM CST

It's the JUDGES, stupid!

Supreme Court and court of appeals nominations are very important indeed. I have been saying this ever since Reagan, though some of his appointees didn't turn out the way he wanted them to be.

Right now there are the votes to repeal a wide range of things affecting ordinary white men. Two recent decisions:
1. you cannot sue medical device manufacturers
2. you cannot sue for age discrimination
And a third affecting women, blacks, etc
3. any wage/salary discrimination action must be brought within 180 days of the hire.
These decisions have overturned other recent SCOTUS decisions, including an affirmation 2 years ago of a principle enunciated about 20 years ago. Stare decisus means nothing to them.

All three cases were decided by the Roberts Court with Alito - the two justices chosen to replace S.Day O'Connor and Rehnquist. Admittedly there was no effect from replacing Rehnquist with an equally conservative guy, but O'Connor was an important moderate-ish swing voter. We need to be able to put in a liberal or moderate replacement to any of the following vacancies: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy. (The other four are moderate or liberal). And did you know, all five of the conservatives are Catholic, and at least two are either Opus Dei or otherwise traditionalist (pre-Vatican II) in affiliation/belief. These are folks who are by nature authoritarian and not democratic.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:32:04 PM CST

And it's the moderate and liberal judges who are retiring soon !!!!

Support Clinton, support Obama, I don't care which.  Are they bad on the war, on big capital, on GLBT?  Whatever.  Who cares.  At least they will not appoint another Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts to the Supreme Court.  Clinton and Obama may not be the solution for America and they may not be great friends of ours, but at least they are not the major enemies that Republicans are.  Maybe some of you want to burn everything and let America regenerate itself.  Well, you know what?  It wouldn't happen in my lifetime, and I am just a little bit selfish on that account.  And anyway, how will we 'regenerate'?  Along better lines, of course, like the rest of the world, like the former Soviet Union, like Zimbabwe, like Iran, like Venezuela, like all the great populist models we have.
Not for me.
Anyone who does not vote Democratic in November, whoever the candidate is, either is a perfect idiot or has become so embittered that s/he has lost all sense of proportion.

---

by: Tomistocles @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:11:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Solomon Approach

Why couldn't they just take the King Solomon approach and evenly split the delegates from both Florida and Michigan.  That would virtually guarantee that the pledged delegate count difference would stay roughly where it's at now and it would allow the rest of the states yet to vote the opportunity to legitimately decide the nominee.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:13:37 PM CST

Because that solves nothing

"Splitting" the delegates evenly is just a new and trickier way of disenfrachising Florida.

Incidentally, the DNC playing hardball with two large swing states (both Florida and Michigan were close in 2004) may not be in the long term best interest of anyone.

---

by: Beth @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:34:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Florida

Don't hyperventilate on me Beth.  It was just a suggestion.  I really don't see how it would be "disenfranchising" Florida.  At least they'd be able to participate in the convention, which is more than what they'd be able to do as it stands now.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:06:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hyperventilate?

How did I "hyperventilate" in my prior response?  I just calmly pointed out that your "plan" doesn't actually solve anything.  Implying that I'm a hysterical woman simply because I disagree with you is just an ad hominem attack.

As for how is it "disenfranchising" Florida, you still wouldn't be allowing the state to express a preference for President.  Splitting the delegates evenly doesn't reflect the will of the people, either in terms of the previous primary, or current polls, or some future "do-over" primary.  In fact, that's the whole point of proposals to split the delegates evenly - it's a meaningless gesture that has no real effect on anything.

How do you think you'd feel if your state had a solid preference for a Presidential candidate in November, but people outside your state decided to split your state's electoral votes evenly, with no regard for actual vote totals?  Would you still feel your vote had counted?

---

by: Beth @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:59:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry Beth.

I didn't mean to imply you're "a hysterical woman".

You still haven't mentioned how you'd solve the problem.  

If it's for the national Democratic party to pay for a whole new primary for Florida and Michigan, I couldn't disagree more.  That would be making every other state pay for Florida's and Michigan's choice of having their primaries before Feb. 1st.  If anything, the state Democratic parties should foot the bill.  They knew the rules up front and should suffer the consequences.  If the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan are feeling "disenfranchised", I'd suggest they blame their respective governors, legislators, and state parties; not the national party for setting rules that 48 other states and assorted territories found they could live with.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:31:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]