Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Campaign Pushes on Florida-Michigan

Following hard on comments made yesterday by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) calling for the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan and raising the possibility of taking that fight to the convention, her top campaign advisers held a conference call this morning in a continued attempt to make the case.

"Most important to Mrs. Clinton is that the views of the voters of the Michigan primary and Florida primary be respected and be reflected in terms of the allocation of delegates," said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the New York senator. "Both delegations should be seated, all delegates should be seated and all delegates should have a full vote each."

That hard-line stance is consistent with the longstanding argument made by the Clinton campaign that despite the fact that none of the candidates campaigned actively in Florida and Michigan (and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was not even on the ballot in the Wolverine State), the results of the two votes -- each of which Clinton won by a wide margin -- be included in both the overall pledged delegate count and the popular vote tabulations.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, in an interview with National Public Radio on Wednesday, seemed to offer an olive branch on the matter. Here's what Axelrod had to say:

"We are open to compromise. We are willing to go more than half way. We're willing to work to make sure that we can achieve a compromise. And I guess the question is: is Senator Clinton's campaign willing to do the same?"

The answer to that question, as of today, is no, according to Ickes. "We are not negotiating along those lines," Ickes said. "Our view is the full delegation with full votes each."

Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton strategist, went one step further -- insisting that Axelrod's comments were a sign that "the Rubicon has been crossed by the Obama campaign" about the need to recognize the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Much of this back and forth is rightly seen as positioning by the two campaigns in advance of the May 31 meeting of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is expected to produce a ruling about what to do about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates at the party's convention in Denver and August.

(Ickes said the chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee have been in contact with each of the campaigns in advance of the May 31 meeting but would not give any hint as to the nature of those conversations.)

For Clinton to have any sort of case to make to the remaining undecided superdelegates, she must find a way to count Florida and Michigan -- both in pledged delegates and the popular vote. (For what it's worth, that best case scenario is not likely.)

Remember that Clinton now cannot overtake Obama in terms of pledged delegates. To win the nomination, she must convince superdelegates to overturn the results of the full primary process.

That is a two-step process.

First, show that while Obama leads among pledged delegates it is a narrow edge and argue that when Florida and Michigan are included in the popular vote count, she leads. In essence: the entire nomination fight to date has been a draw.

Second, the Clinton campaign must go to superdelegates and argue that since the nomination process has produced a draw, it is up to them to make an independent decision about which of the two candidates would be stronger in a general election against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Wolfson sought to make the latter point on the call this morning, pointing out new Quinnipiac polling that shows Clinton running stronger than Obama against McCain in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"If a Democrat is losing Florida and Ohio, it becomes very difficult to get to 270 [electoral votes]," said Wolfson. "This is a case we continue to make to superdelegates"

There are no signs yet that the argument, which the Clinton campaign has been making for much of the last two months, is working when it comes to persuading uncommitted superdelegates. That could change between now and whenever the nomination is decided, but it seems unlikely.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 22, 2008; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why Clinton (Still) Runs
Next: FixCam: Campaign Jingles!

Comments

Jews not voting for Obama because of his Muslim sounding name is an example of Jews attacking other cultures and religions.

Posted by: James | May 25, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It is such a shame that the Democratic party is in such shambles!
Look, I am a Hillary supporter and I feel that if the DNC does not seat Michigan and Florida, then the DNC is siding with Obama. As I already feel so negatively toward Obama, considering that he is a sexist, racist, elitist (somebody who does not care for the White, working class), I will completely give up on the DNC AND NOT VOTE AT ALL in the GE.
AND YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS, GROW UP! Obama will never win against McCain without the Hillary DEOMCRATS SUPPORTING HIM!! IN MY CASE, IT'S TOO LATE. Mr Obama supports and defends people who are anti-White, anti-middle class, and anti-American. His wife is an unpatriotic, nasty person who is even more racist and anti-American than her husband.

Obama will never get my vote and I have been a voting Democrat for over thirty years, never missing an election and never swaying outside of party lines.

Wake up, Obama supporters! Obama can't win against McCain PERIOD!

ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO "PUT UP" WITH ANOTHER FOURS YEARS OF REPUBLICAN RULE BECAUSE THE DNC is so corrupt, it is going to lose the election for the Democratic Party.
P.S.(The Obama supporters out there that think we Hillary supporters will warm up to Obama if he gets the Nomination are deluding themselves. You are extremely wrong. We Hillary supporters, whether Hillary supports Obama if he gets the nomination, will never vote for Obama.

So who wins?

Posted by: rob | May 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton 2012

I'm more electable. I lost 11 straight contests due to poor planning and complacency. Come on superdelegates. Double down on me. The sure shot. [point and wink]

Hillary Clinton taking pipe dreams to a whole new level.

Solutions for gamblers

Posted by: UncleRemus | May 23, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse


So whats the rule when neither candidate can reach the number of delegates in the primary ? There is no rule !!

The superdelegates , if they are smart will put Hillary Clinton over the 'tainted' number of 2,026 and nominate her. Thats fair. This is what Obama wants. Play by the rules. So superdelegates, its a fact Hillary won the key swing states, she has the popular vote in Florida and Michigan for sure, she carries the demographics more than Obama, etc., Conclusion, Hillary Clinton should be the nominee even under the " rule " because the superdelegates are the wild cards. They can do whatever they feel is best for the party in order to win the White House. Hillary Clinton is the stronger and more secure candidate to win the White House than Obama is. Thats the reconciliation...if not ,if I was Hillary...open those convention doors wide open baby !!

Posted by: Gus C | May 23, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton 2012

Ok, you didn't give me the majority of the pledge delegates. But, deep down you want me. You just don't know it yet.


Hillary Clinton. Taking stalking to a whole new level.

Solutions for spurned candidates

Posted by: UncleRemus | May 23, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

"How can Obama consider himself a legitimate candidate if EVERY state doesn't participate in his selection?

He should be a man and say, why don't we just do a re-vote? What is he afraid of?"

The bigger question is why Hillary only wants 37 states to count. Looking at popular vote totals disenfranchises all the states that held caucuses.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 23, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Why Have you and the women in journalism sold out? Why is the media deciding this election.

This is wrong! Wake up and do whats right for your country!!!!!!

Expose Obama! for what he is! Expose the Obama's Cheating in the caucuses! Yor letting the country down.

Posted by: Take it to the Convention in AUG | May 22, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

We also need Clinton in the race simply because of Obama's list of friends, supporters, spiritual mentors and advisors.
And as far as winning over the Jews? Obama's list of friends and campaign advisors reads more like a whose who list of anti semites:
1. Reverend Wright
2. Rev. Michael Pfleger
3. Louis Farrakhan
4. Obama campaign's national co-chairman, retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak.
5. Rashid Khalidi
6. Hatem El-Hady
An absolute Whose Who list of anti semites. Gee, I wonder why the DNC does not want to count the Florida votes. Could it be because the huge disparity of Jewish votes not received for Obama from Florida would raise a red flag no one could miss?

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

We also need Clinton in the race simply because of Obama's list of friends, supporters, spiritual mentors and advisors.
And as far as winning over the Jews? Obama's list of friends and campaign advisors reads more like a whose who list of anti semites:
1. Reverend Wright
2. Rev. Michael Pfleger
3. Louis Farrakhan
4. Obama campaign's national co-chairman, retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak.
5. Rashid Khalidi
6. Hatem El-Hady
An absolute Whose Who list of anti semites. Gee, I wonder why the DNC does not want to count the Florida votes. Could it be because the huge disparity of Jewish votes not received for Obama from Florida would raise a red flag no one could miss?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

A black man? Yes. But not That black man! Sorry not this man his wife is to polarizing her unlikeable demeanor.
The unappetiziing thought of President " Bershell"
The More inspirational quest by Hillary Clinton to become the country frist Women president.
not The Obamas are dirty cheating in cauces.

Posted by: Take it to the Convention in AUG | May 22, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

And another example of how Obama cannot keep an eye on who is real victim just as Bill Cosby pointed out in the article I posted before this one. This comment does not concern race relations or societal ills, this one concerns his inability to handle economic issues:

From Barack Obama's stump speech:

"The top mortgage lenders spend $185 million lobbying Congress, and we wonder why Washington looked the other way when they were tricking families into buying homes they couldn't afford."

Tricking families? If Obama wants to defend the little guy, let him defend the guy who is still renting because he did NOT commit fraud on his mortgage application.
What is even more absurd is that during the Katrina thing and even now the money is so tight to get people into housing, food, medical and rebuilds as FEMA has yelled for years that it did not have the money. The Katrina people were righteously screwed by a hurricane that they had no control over.
And yet, miraculously, our government can come up with the necessary funds to bail out fraud committing home buyers? And Obama believes this is what should be done?
Let me see- we don't have the money to bail out innocent people who end up homeless due to circumstances beyond their control but we do have the money to bail out homeowners who should actually be in the can?
Because the last time I checked it was a FELONY to lie on a mortgage document and provide false documentation.
Too absurd for words. I have no problem coughing up the tax money for FEMA. But why should I work my azz off to pay taxes that will go to bail out lying homeowners? What about all the people who rent still, and did not commit fraud to buy a house? Should they have to pay to bail these people out?
Obama has an enormous screw loose.
As far as regulating mortgage lending companies- okay good idea obviously. But for Obama to act like the home buyers were innocent sheep to the slaughter is a slap in the face to every person in the US paying taxes to pay his salary in the Senate and to bail out all these people.
Any ding dong can check loan companies, mortgage terms, real estate markets. For God's sake, they can go on bankrate.com and use their calculator for free to see what their ARM is going to be. Don't tell me they did not know they could not afford their loans.

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 22, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH


Please look back on earlier posts concerning the constitutional questions, which there are.


We have had extensive discussions on this board.


To be brief, a political party does have a right to exclude based on political views, however the right to exclude on a basis which has a constitutional protection should fail.


For instance, a party can not exclude based on race or religion.


The contention is that a party can not exclude based on equal protection either - this would fall under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment - the idea is choosing one state over another favors citizens of one state over citizens of another.


Follow?


In addition, there are other parts, such as taxpayer funds are utilized in primaries, subjecting them to constitutional protections.


In addition, if a State were to Cooperate with a private plan of a political party - the states' actions would be bound by the constitution even if the party were not bound.


However, the contention is that the political party is bound as well because citizens of various states must be treated equally, and a party can not favor the citizens of one state over another.


Check out the previous posts.


I

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should remain in the race. The only reason it is even being debated is because with Obama's track record it is just a given that he will lose Florida and Michigan and the DNC wants Obama as it's candidate.
But this Bill Cosby article from this paper here is a good reason why Obama who has followed this mindset for the last twenty years will lose Florida and Michigan and why he should lose Florida and Michigan:

Bill Cosby on Rev. Wright

Rev. Wright epitomizes the thoughts and actions
that have prevented and
continue to prevent black America from moving ahead
and achieving their potential as a people. He suggests that this United
States of America made up of sons and daughters of immigrants (I'm talking
of the millions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation immigrants in this country) of
every race, creed, color, and religion each and everyone of them who had
nothing to do with slavery, some how owe something to a group of people who
have never been slaves? Its amazing. It seems everyone is to blame for the
shambles black society is in with its violence, drugs, high school drop out
rates, misogyny, and a host of other real and virulent problems, except for the
very people who engage in such behavior. Enough. As a society, culture or people, they should look
within themselves and fix their problems. When did this man become the spokesman for the 'black church'? And of course his church is different, but that doesn't mean his message and philosophy is
acceptable, or productive or non-offensive or not-racist or indicative or our greater cultural behaviors, values and norms Americans. And yes, the link between this man and Obama
really does matter. At a very minimum, it provides insight into the political and philosophical strain that Obama adheres to.
Comment by Bill Cosby - April 28, 2008 at ion/#comment-110573> 1:57 pm - Link - The Wall
Street Journal

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

None of that BS matters. There was a vote and the results counted. We voted on many things including changing the state constitution regarding property tax. Just because there was something on the ballot that didn't count and someone chose to cast a vote doesn't matter. The primary was in a sense, not on our ballot. How can something count that was not really there? Many people did not go to the polls because there was nothing on the ballot that they had an interest in and we all knew the primary vote didn't count. So the vote did count as far as what was actually on the ballot and votes cast in the primary accounted for nothing it was just still on the ballot but didn't mean anything and everybody knew it.

++++++++++
Intriguing Lawsuit filed today

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the Democratic National Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a lawsuit filed Thursday claims.
The suit, filed by Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and other prominent Democrats in Fort Lauderdale, claims the federal Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights-era law that requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise black voters, prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

''If you're going to change the method of the selection of delegates that requires [Justice Department] preclearance,'' Geller said.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 8:31 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The Crazy John McCain Song.

Listen to The Crazy John McCain Song or download it for FREE at http"//www.johnmccainusa.com/

THE CRAZY JOHN MCCAIN SONG

Lyrics by J.J. Spoons & Willie G. Smith
Music by Doc. "Skippy" McGhee

A Product of the Heartland.
Witten in Beautiful Akron, Ohio USA.
Recorded at Little Shack Studio, Okahumpka, Florida.
Mixed at Tall Tree Productions, Clarion, Pennsylvania.
Remixed at Big River Records, Joplin, Missouri.

Posted by: The Crazy John McCain Song | May 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Intriguing Lawsuit filed today

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the Democratic National Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a lawsuit filed Thursday claims.
The suit, filed by Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and other prominent Democrats in Fort Lauderdale, claims the federal Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights-era law that requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise black voters, prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

''If you're going to change the method of the selection of delegates that requires [Justice Department] preclearance,'' Geller said.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

How can Obama consider himself a legitimate candidate if EVERY state doesn't participate in his selection?

He should be a man and say, why don't we just do a re-vote? What is he afraid of?

Do we really want someone with such little integrity to be our president?

Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Why bother, have you ever seen her in person? She is psychotic. her most recent behavior make he look like she isn't even fit to be president much lees represent our country on the world stage. She is F**KING nuts. No kidding, if you get a chance go to one of her rallies she is a F**KING nuts as she is a lier. I am not kidding, I just saw her.

+++++++++++
"Most important to Mrs. Clinton is that the views of the voters of the Michigan primary and Florida primary be respected and be reflected in terms of the allocation of delegates" -- THEN WHY DIDN'T SHE ARGUE FOR THIS LAST FALL? WHEN WILL _ANY_ JOURNALIST CHALLENGE THE LAUGHABLE HYPOCRISY OF THIS CANDIDATE?

Posted by: Disgusted Again | May 22, 2008 2:01 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Her exact words were, "they don't matter". You are listening to a Clinton. Lies drip from their tongues like honey. Don' be so easily fooled by these charlatans smarten up.

++++++++++
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. It doesn't matter to a voter how it happened. What matters is that our votes count and the only one supporting us and our right to vote is Clinton. Yes we will take it out on Obama because he is a product of DNC corruption. He has an opportunity to allow full representation of our votes and he is not taking it! This speaks loud and clear about who he is.

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

As a member of the Armed services for over 21 years, I served to uphold the constitution and the rights of all Americans. There comes a time when one wonders was your service to this country all for nothing. When men and women of our great country sacrifice years away from our families and the loss good friends for the values we hold dear - honor, integrity, equality, selfless service and loyalty it saddens me to know that these are not the same values held by some of our politicians. When we (America's Armed Services) agree on a principle we stick to it, we do not change our beliefs when it is becomes convenient and self serving, we stick to our principles - because that it what America expects form its service members.
DNC, if it a representative of those who serve this nation, then the DNC needs to stick to the principles which it has established - do not waiver. Prove to those of us whom have bleed, died, and served for a belief that is America that principles do matter. The Democratic Party will prevail this fall, but at what cost are we willing to pay?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"DNC has its way they will select eight Vice Presidents just to win these tiny states. US constitution is a big problem for them. Remember, they believe in proportional representation of delegates rather than winner-takes-all democratic approach. They still believe in these dinosaur rules just to please different political tribes."

The proportional approach makes a lot more sense for a primary than winner take all. If the idea is to choose the best candidate, why give a person a ton of delegates for a narrow win? If two people have similar electability in a similar state, they should get a similar number of delegates.

I wouldn't complain about getting rid of caucuses. It's nonsense for Clinton to say they shouldn't count for this election cycle, but she does make valid arguments for the future.

Superdelegates either need to be 100% of the process (like in the 60's with state primaries used to gauge electability, but having no official value) or need to be reduced down to 100 so that they can potentially impact razor close races. There's no reason that they should be able to impact a race where one person has 150 more delegates than the other. I know its a cute title to give to people and up to now, they haven't been important, but this year shows that they can affect the outcome of a race.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

tHERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS GUY

OBAMA mONEY!
MONEY I WANT MONEY!
SHOW ME THE MONEY !
SHOW ME THE MONEY! "

SHOW ME THE MONEY$$$$" !

YES HEAR HE IS Omoney FOR PRESIDENT.

WHO ? THE GUY WITH THE MONEY,

OH HE'S GOT MY MONEY IN NOV.

Posted by: Take it to the Convention in AUG | May 22, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 5:20 PM

Just another "GD America" crowd.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Thank God, Clinton voters are really peaceful and they do care about America."

Oh yeah, they prove how "peaceful" they are and "how they care about America" when they support their Candidate's attempt to steal the nomination by propping up her absurd attempts to "cook the books" so to speak, and when they pounce on lies and extraneous nonsense in their pathetic attempts to discredit the presumptive Democratic Nominee Barack Obama. Apart from the obvious GOP Trolls that post (usually vile, racist drivel), there is a growing "crack pot" contingent of Hillary acolytes whose strange logic in their posts do nothing to legitimize Mrs. Clinton's contention that she has an honest shot at the Nomination.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with Obama testifying at a trial....if he's guilty, get him out of here and lets move on. I don't know any more about Obama than the rest of us reading the press.......Hillary on the other hand, we got a truck load of crap to sift through.

If Obama was involved with Rezko, they he should face as much scrutiny as possible. Hillary just doesn't ever have to face scrutinty for her dealings. So, her strategy of scandal/drama/law-bending just goes on and on and on.

Finally she will have to testify after the election. Finally, she'll be on the stand and might actually have to answer a question fully!!

Not that she won't lie, I mean, misspeak, I mean she ...'...may not fully convey the facts as she once knew them to be...'

Posted by: twotraps | May 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Rezko wants Obama to testify aginst fraud land deal in Chicago. Rezko wants it just before November election.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Jimmy......pass that Clinton-Kool-Aid over here, its over darling. Your girl Hillary is going to jail.

Posted by: twotraps | May 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

....in case you're not bored enough to look it up....Its the Clintons going to court for....what else....CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD. Oh I know its not real news that a major political figure and presidential candidate has to testify in a trial for fraud..after the election of course. But its just good fun. I wonder when the media will have the guts to finally start reporting on it.

Posted by: twotraps | May 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse


Obama Camp would like to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan votes. You know, why?

Obama can not win Florida and Michigan against Clinton. Even if he spends 5-1 in these two states, he will lose in May. He will lose in June. He will lose in July. He will lose in August. He will lose in September. He will lose in October. Of course, he will lose BIG TIME in November.

This nation is very lucky that DNC did not disenfranchise South Carolina and Alabama. If their votes were not counted, Obama voters would riot all over the nation. Thank God, Clinton voters are really peaceful and they do care about America.

Posted by: Jimmy | May 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

GOOGLE THIS IF YOU'RE BORED...
LA County court case BC 304174. A real gem.

See you jail darling, its over. We are tired of drama after drama...people on her own staff voted to keep MI and FL out of it last year....where does it end? Where is out of bounds? We all know she is going to force the DNC to make an exception for her yet we all stand around and do nothing?!! Its exactly what she expects us to do, so she will drive on and get her way. What a sham.

Posted by: twotraps | May 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

You also talk about making Obama pay, what about any of this is Obama's fault?

simple jnoel. The votersin Michigan and Fla wanted a revote to settle the dispute once and for all, his campaign opposed it. How do i know that. Mich and Fla AA state representaives and O supporters on CNN bragged how it was in their candidate's best political interest to not have a revote andof course that was themost impt factor for state reps to consider. O was told that the voters in those 2 states would not be paying for the revote and when he demanded a Firehouse location type of revote the HC campaign said fine lets do it. Axelrod also made sure to drag his feet in responding to the 2 legislatures' self imposed deadlines and make sure that it couldneve be done. jnoel you may approve of yourcampaign's New Poltics,but the manner your campaign has handled this speaks volumes aout their "New Politics" and I can assure you wth a large number of HC supporters I have spoke with, it deligitimizes O's nomination and motivates te to oppose him in the fall. That may help be the catalyst to your nomination, but I can assure you you will regret that decision by the fall. Even Paul Bagala has said that since you already claim the nomination it would have been the graceful and smart political strategy to have relented and seated the delegation, but we all know that O and Michelle wish to do everything possible to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the Clintons and their 18 million supporters.Had that been done 3 week ago as propoed itdubtfl theineitability argumet would have been made and the stampede to the nomination, the O campaign was fully aware of that. We get it jnoel.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 22, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary cheated in Michigan. Everyone else kept their word and took their names off the ballot. She didn't, and said "oh, it won't matter anyway." And now she acts like they've been disenfranchised. SHE WAS THE ONLY NAME ON THE BALLOT. That's democracy Soviet-style. She cheated.

Posted by: charlie | May 22, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. It doesn't matter to a voter how it happened. What matters is that our votes count and the only one supporting us and our right to vote is Clinton. Yes we will take it out on Obama because he is a product of DNC corruption. He has an opportunity to allow full representation of our votes and he is not taking it! This speaks loud and clear about who he is.

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM

You have the nerve to bring up corruption. Oh now, the DNC is corrupt. Wow, have you no shame?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.It doesn't matter to a voter how it happened.
Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM

Actually, I totally understand. I am a voter and it does matter how it happened. It doesn't matter who you voted for in the primary, or if you voted at all. Only the votes in the general election count. You can continue to trumpet Clinton and her false compassion. It doesn't change the facts that she approved of the sanctions given to Florida/Michigan. She also didn't raise as much as an eyebrow before she got beaten in Iowa and realized she had a serious delegate problem.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Team will say Puerto Rico is not even US state, it should not even be counted."
===============
Point of fact, PR does NOT get to vote in the general election and their popular vote is irrelevant and shouldn't counted toward either Obama's or Clinton's popular vote total. period.
===============

"Did you mention that Hillary even mentioned Karl Rove too. KARL ROVE - how desperate can you get!! And Hillary supporters keep attacking Obama as if he made up the rules. I am beginning to believe that these are Republicans writing this and trying to keep the Democrats fighting among themselves."

greg. I didn't bring up Rove in my post, but HRC mentioning that Pig's opinion of her "electability" was absurd and the stench of her desperation palpable.

As for Republicans posing as Hillary supporters, I estimate about 20% of the people posting rabid anti-Obama stuff are GOP Trolls...I don't blame them really with such a weak, OLD (old in age, old in ideology) candidate running for a largely discredited GOP, it must be painful having to think about getting the old McBush some traction this Nov.

(BTW use what you like from my previous post.)

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

lil writes
"What matters is that our votes count and the only one supporting us and our right to vote is Clinton."

What you don't understand is that you don't have a 'right' to vote in a primary. Each party gets to make up whatever rules it likes to select their nominees. If they decide to pick the candidate with the best astrological outlook that's their right. You have none.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

She is only fighting for this "sacred" right because she is losing. She had no problem agreeing to and supporting the rules last fall when she was "inevitable". But you (and most Clinton supporters) seem to have avoided that tiny nugget of truth. Probably because it destroys your entire agrument.

You also talk about making Obama pay, what about any of this is Obama's fault? And what support do you have that Florida/Michigan voters will not vote for him because their delegates didn't count?

So many questions, so few answers, politics as usual.

*************
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. It doesn't matter to a voter how it happened. What matters is that our votes count and the only one supporting us and our right to vote is Clinton. Yes we will take it out on Obama because he is a product of DNC corruption. He has an opportunity to allow full representation of our votes and he is not taking it! This speaks loud and clear about who he is.

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain leads Obama in two battlegrounds: polls

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080522/pl_afp/usvotestates_080522150227

LOSER! WELCOME TO REALITY OBAMA

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:40 PM

From your own article, which also fails to mention the margin of error. And McCain leads Obama by a whopping 4% in both states:

"Such polls are however only a snapshot of the race more than five months before Americans vote for their next president, and before the general election battle, most likely between McCain and Obama, has properly begun."

Basically stating, polling done now shows us practically nothing about November.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

She is fighting for our most sacred constitutional right.
Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:34 PM

She is only fighting for this "sacred" right because she is losing. She had no problem agreeing to and supporting the rules last fall when she was "inevitable". But you (and most Clinton supporters) seem to have avoided that tiny nugget of truth. Probably because it destroys your entire agrument.

You also talk about making Obama pay, what about any of this is Obama's fault? And what support do you have that Florida/Michigan voters will not vote for him because their delegates didn't count?

So many questions, so few answers, politics as usual.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

McCain leads Obama in two battlegrounds: polls

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080522/pl_afp/usvotestates_080522150227

LOSER! WELCOME TO REALITY OBAMA

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Here's the deal. Hillary Clinton is following the will of the primary voting Democrats in both Michigan and Florida. WE DEMAND FULL REPRESENTATION OF OUR VOTES JUST LIKE EVERY ONE ELSE. She is fighting for our most sacred constitutional right.

DNC rules be damned. Voters rights come first and must have full representation. If they attempt to cut my vote in half and all 2 million of us, there will be hell to pay! Welcome to our next project, to make sure Obama loses the election. We won't have to try that hard BTW.

Posted by: lil | May 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"Mrs. Clinton managed to win 55% of the vote, BUT 40% of those voting checked 'uncommitted'..."

FOLLOWING SEN. EDWARDS, UNCOMMITTED HEREBY RELEASES ALL OF ITS DELEGATES TO SENATOR OBAMA!

BTW anonymous, it was The Treasure of Sierra Madre, not Blazing Saddles.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

why are people still circulating the erroneous message that Obama prevented or in some way stopped the Michigan revote. He doesn't have that kind of power. It's up to the DNC to make the rules and it's up to the DNC to enforce them. this is just more of the Clinton spin, put out to discredit Obama

Posted by: bklvr | May 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

A couple of points:

The media appear to have swallowed whole the fatuous notion that voters in MI and FL will decide for whom to cast their presidential votes based on whether or not their Democratic party delegates were seated at the convention. Nobody ever questions this silly idea -- but it is truly a completely unsupported assertion. (Indeed, if that is the basis for their votes, they deserve to be "disenfranchised!")

The other puff of smoke here is relying on polls in May to predict what will happen in November. Please. There haven't been conventions, we don't know who their running mates are going to be, and any of a number of things can happen between now and the fall. I do know that Obama has shown himself to be a good campaigner, and his numbers have pretty consistently gone up once he's begun to campaign in a state.

He may lose, but nobody -- I mean nobody -- is in a position to know that now. (Certainly not Clinton supporters, who either can't see that she's already lost or are bent on twisting the rules, or the numbers, or both, to make it seem like she's won.)

Posted by: jac13 | May 22, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES should all be able to participate in this primary.
Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 2:24 PM

They were all able to particpate. Florida and Michigan had primaries, so your wish has been granted.

I think this "problem" has been blown way out of proportion (surprise!). Does everyone actually think this will have an impact on November?

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Rules, we don't need no stinking rules.

What movie was that from? Oh, I remember, Blazing Saddles. They said badges, we don't need no stupid badges.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

WoW,

I'm sure someone has mentioned this to you before, but there's no issue of constitutionality here.

The Democratic Party has the right to determine its nominee by whatever means it chooses (primaries, caucuses, magic 8-ball).

These are not federal elections.

Although, staunch Hillary supporter that you are, I'm sure you'd prefer a more strict constructionalist view in this process. after all, the Constitution of the United States only counted African-Americans as 3/5 of a person. Would be helpful for the Clinton's fuzzy math.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

You have no clue what is going to happen to Puerto Rico. Obama will lose Puerto Rico by 600,000 votes. Obama Team will say Puerto Rico is not even US state, it should not even be counted.

Montana is still hard to predict. Bill Clinton did pretty good in Montana.

Posted by: Bob | May 22, 2008 2:35 PM

I did not know PR had that many folks but anyway, if Obama lost by that much, they would count this as a loss. Maybe they should change the rules to their favor too.
Something like, it was too hot that day, or it rained that day and folks who support him only vote on cool sunny days. Yeah, that might work!!

Posted by: greg | May 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Just a reminder to all, Hillary signed off on Mich., and Fla., not counting. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/332
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/03/7428/
As little as four months ago, she was fine with them not counting. Now that she is being beaten, she is crying! She knew going into all of this that they wouldn't count, so they shouldn't. The real victims are the people of Mich. and Fla. The people of Fla. should be extremely mad at their republican law makers who pushed the primaries up. In Mich., both parties agreed to move the primary. The DNC told both states to move them back. They offered other viable solutions. The states said no. The people in Fla. and Mich. Should use their voting powers to get those people out of office. Back to Hillary ... she knew the rules ... SHE SIGNED OFF ON THEM ... now that she is losing, she can't change them!
If you really have a question about all this, ask yourself this. Would it have fair to change the rules of the Super Bowl when the Patriots were losing??? And for the record, I am a REDSKINS fan. I don't like the Patriots or Giants. I will support either candidate as long as the election is fair and they stick to the rules they agreed to.

Posted by: Mike P | May 22, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The entire affair is not only politically stupid but probably unconsitutional.


The selection of Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida was stupid as well.

I challenge the right of the party to make the selection which favors the citizens of one state over another.


The Obama campaign made what perhaps could be a fatal error by attempting to prevent a re-vote in Michigan - an attempt which was stupid considering the importance of Michigan in the fall.


The democratic party should be held far far away from the White House - after this episode it is clear that none of them should be allowed to run our country or care for our national security.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AJ | May 22, 2008 2:27 PM

If Hillary were to lose Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, what will be the Clinton campaign and supporters spin?

-----------------------------------------

You have no clue what is going to happen to Puerto Rico. Obama will lose Puerto Rico by 600,000 votes. Obama Team will say Puerto Rico is not even US state, it should not even be counted.

Montana is still hard to predict. Bill Clinton did pretty good in Montana.

Posted by: Bob | May 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The fact is she should had started this fight at the beginning. WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??

Here we are at the two minute warning and Hillary wants to change the rules. Damm, those Clintons hate to lose. Its disturbing.

Posted by: sher | May 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

How is the winner-take-all approach more democratic?

Wasn't it that approach that allowed George W. Bush to sneak one past us in 2000?

Posted by: JamesCH | May 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

True signs of desperation from the Clinton campaign. If I were a Hillary supporter I would feel ashamed of Hillary and her campaign.

Hillary's campaign is not even spending time talking about or heavily campaigning in Montana and South Dakota. Hillary's main concern is Florida and Michigan.

If Hillary were to lose Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, what will be the Clinton campaign and supporters spin?

Posted by: AJ | May 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

FL and MI will seat delegates in Denver. How their votes are counted is a different matter.

They were punished too harshly in the beginning by having their delegations stripped, but some measure of punishment should still be in place for violating the rules. It is likely that, somehow, their representation will be reduced, either by halving the delegations, or giving delegates 1/2 vote each. To me, that is both fair and reasonable.

Besides, I wouldn't shed too many tears over the plight of these two states. Had the DNC just stripped half their delegates from the beginning, nobody would care about FL or MI right now.

Because of this, they received exactly what they wanted from the beginning: a bigger voice in the nominating process.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse


AGAIN...the PEOPLE of Michigan and Florida did not set the rules. The PEOPLE are being disenfranchised not the party leaders. The PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES should all be able to participate in this primary.

I want a President of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE and by the PEOPLE!

I sick of hearing these stupid 'RULES" maniacs! If the rules are faulty, they should be changed.

To make it fundamentally fair, the entire Michigan and Florida primaries should be re-done. They can make an exception and do them both in August when both states are holding primary for other state elections.

Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

When a loser (Clinton) is still beating so called a winner (Obama) in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November. Also, refer to latest Quinnipiac Poll.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180

No one has seen single published poll results where Obama can do better in these big three states than Clinton. Democrats do know how to pick a loser!

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party, it will take following eight states just to recoup 68 Electoral College votes you just took off the table:
Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia.

DNC has its way they will select eight Vice Presidents just to win these tiny states. US constitution is a big problem for them. Remember, they believe in proportional representation of delegates rather than winner-takes-all democratic approach. They still believe in these dinosaur rules just to please different political tribes.

Democratic Party is guilty of losing presidential election every four years? This election will be no different than previous eight elections.

Posted by: Steve | May 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 2:11 PM

Good write. May I use this?

Did you mention that Hillary even mentioned Karl Rove too. KARL ROVE - how desperate can you get!! And Hillary supporters keep attacking Obama as if he made up the rules. I am beginning to believe that these are Republicans writing this and trying to keep the Democrats fighting among themselves.

Posted by: greg | May 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

She confuses Fighter for Stubborn. The fact is she should had started this fight at the beginning. DON'T YOU SEE THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS??? All this folks with the what ifs and attacks against Obama as if he made up the rules. I am getting use to McBush being our next President thanks to this stall tactic.

Posted by: Sher | May 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Here is the thing about FL & MI, when Mrs Clinton talks about counting the votes in those states it almost makes my head explode. She has even compared not seating the delegates from FL & MI States to the discounting of opposition votes in Zimbabwe! WTH? All the candidates agreed NOT to campaign in those States, because they broke DNC Rules. The candidate's names remained on the ballot in FL because there was no time to remove them. Mrs. Clinton with her name recognition, and her shameless pandering to the Jewish Lobby in NY (many Older Folks retire to FL from NY, and are Jewish) won FL...fair enough, I say give her the apportioned delegates and move on (maybe the DNC can punish the bone-head Democratic Politicians that helped push through the election move-up.)

Where is gets duplicitious, IMO, is MI where a Clinton supporter managed to stick her name on the ballot (Obama and Edwards pulled their names off), true Mrs. Clinton managed to win 55% of the vote, BUT 40% of those voting checked "uncommitted"...(Chris did you really write that Clinton won MI by a "vast margin?"); in an act of supreme gall, Clinton now claims ALL the MI delegates...Clinton Supporters defend THIS position. How is this fair, or moral, or serve Democracy? Wouldn't Clinton or her supporters be equally outraged if Obama had "won" these delegates, and despite DNC Rules, demanded that they now be counted? In addition, Clinton is now saying that she has won the popular vote, which is "true" ONLY if you count MI, FL, and EXCLUDE all the States that voted by caucus (including my own.) Again Clinton supporters, what if the shoe were on the other foot and Clinton had won the caucuses? I see Clinton's proxies on the talk shows arguing these dubious figures, and my jaw just drops; how can any rational person take any of these voodoo metrics serious?

Finally, much as made of her huge win over Obama in WV and KY as being proof of his problem with a certain class of white American, yet in Oregon, which, outside of the big city of Portland, is pretty working-class, and VERY white, Obama did well indeed with these types of white voters. Have the Clinton supporters ever wondered how ANY white person competing against Obama in WV and KY would have done? I would hazard a guess that if the opponent had been John Edwards-Obama instead of Clinton-Obama that the spread would have been equally huge; consider that nearly a quarter of the voters in WV and KY admitted that race was a factor in their votes (2 out of 10 in KY, and those were the ones who admitted it.) I would also like to ask WHY Hillary Clinton, wife of the "First Black President" hasn't come out and repudiated the racists who voted for her? She sure talks a good game about sexism, and the TV pundits who push it (while at the same time claiming the biggest voting base in electoral history...I guess that the media's endemic sexism and conspiracy to help Clinton lose wasn't THAT successful since Clinton has gotten a lot of votes, and it is a tight race...) But of the subtle undertone of racism that allowed her to win by huge margins in two states she says nothing...

I won't even get into the hypocrisy of her advisors such as Ickes, et.al who strongly supported dinging MI and FL as rogue states when it was assumed that Clinton would easily win the nom. The duplicity is almost laughable if it weren't so serious. Would Clinton, Ickes, and CO. be fighting hard to seat the MI & FL delegates if Obama had won those two States? How stupid do these people think we are? Mrs. Clinton, remember not all White Democrats are uneducated, or are blinded by your gender...clearly YOU can fool all of your dyed-in-wool followers all of the time...the rest of us? Never.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah well... Obama lost how many BIG states straight? How many has he lost in a landslide lately? Why didn't anyone tell HIM to withdraw?

I love how everyone blindly echoes the words of the pundits and the Obama campaign "desperate"... "kitchen sink" it is so old.

Too many people make it sound like she has been trounced the way Huckabee was. The reality is that VERY few votes separate them. There is a nearly 50-50 split in the party, and Saint Obama needs to recognize that he does NOT have the undying adoration of the other 50%-- the people he has criticized and demeaned for months.

The sad reality is the powers-that-be handpicked Mr Second Coming from the beginning and much of this race has been an expensive and agonizing farce that bears little resemblance to democracy. Ironic how we want to spread it everywhere and we can't even hold a "fair" election ourselves.

He has been acting like the winner LONG before millions of americans had the chance to vote. He's been nothing but arrogant about it and done nothing to repair the party divide. Good luck to him if he succeeds in waltzing across the finish line as planned, and he sure better hope he gets as much help in the GE as he has in the primary.

Funny really. 8 years ago we voted for the change candidate... the really idealistic one... the one who can't play well with others. Republican, Democrat it doesn't matter. It's electing the wrong person for the wrong reasons and it won't work any better this time around.

It isn't bitterness folks. MANY of us plan to vote for whichever party presents the better candidate. And if the Dems offer me Obama, then they lose my vote. And that of a lot of others who simply do not think Senator Obama has done much other than advance his own political career. Compare their senate records for heaven's sake. He's been far too busy running for the next office to bother with the one he's in. Nothing about his resume says he is ready or able to be President. ONLY that he wants it and very very much and will do whatever it takes to get it.

I'm not voting for another "uniter not divider" Sorry.

I'd hate to see the Democrats snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but that's what Obama really offers this fall.


Posted by: beth | May 22, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

This is absolutely deplorable.

Where were these people when Florida and Michigan decided to violate Party rules and move their elections up?

Where were they when the DNC punished them for that very same behavior?

Where were they when the Democratic candidates (inlcuding their candidate) signed off on the punishment?

This is self-serving behavior at its worst and this will undoubtedly hurt the Democrats chances in November.

These Hillary supporters are doing themselves, and their party, no favors by resorting to such absurd tactics.

Posted by: gthstonesman | May 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"I am so mystified by people who think it is perfectly acceptable to disenfrancise two states!!!"

If you count the votes in Fl & Mi, those who knew that the votes would not count will be disenfrancised.

Just how many would be disenfracised if Fl & MI aren't included?

Michigan** 01/15 - 328,309 55.2% **Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)
Florida 01/29 576,214 32.9% 870,986 49.8%

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: madhatter | May 22, 2008 1:54 PM

What the Barak Obamanistas and their propaganda arm--also known as the Main Stream Media--hasn't noticed, is that Obama's early victories in the democratic primaries were before Barack Obama was exposed as the white and America--hating camp follower and desciple of Nation of Islam leaders Louis Farrakhan and his teachings.

And what have we learned about Clinton during this time?

Look, its over. Why are we still kissing her butt? Turn off the mikes and the lights and maybe she will go away. She is not the only fighter by the way.

Posted by: sharon | May 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

madhatter:

Obama has been doing pretty well overall in later primaries and caucuses. As to your assumptions about "flyover" states, I asume that you will agree that MT and SD should count?

Clinton will lose those two states in June, and then try to count the popular vote in Puerto Rico in her electability argument.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Most important to Mrs. Clinton is that the views of the voters of the Michigan primary and Florida primary be respected and be reflected in terms of the allocation of delegates" -- THEN WHY DIDN'T SHE ARGUE FOR THIS LAST FALL? WHEN WILL _ANY_ JOURNALIST CHALLENGE THE LAUGHABLE HYPOCRISY OF THIS CANDIDATE?

Posted by: Disgusted Again | May 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Will somebody PLEASE blow the whistle on this nonsense about the primary outcome having anything to do with who wins the state in the general election? History shows this is simply not the case.

You know, I am really getting tired of the media mindlessly passing along the bogus theories cooked up by the Clinton campaign to try to deny the obvious: she lost under the existing rules, which her boy McAuliffe helped write, and which Ickes voted for, because her campaign made a series of tactical blunders and the voters weren't buying her message(s). The only way she can win now is to get the rules changed, and you media people have an obligation to call this what it is -- opportunism, hypocrisy, and outright dishonesty.

Posted by: jac13 | May 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I am sick to death of these Clinton a**holes. The fourth quarter is over, the fans are leaving the stadium, and the Clinton campaign is standing at half court arguing calls with the refs, as if the outcome is going to be reversed after the buzzer.

IT... IS... OVER!!!

Before you get mad at me, swallow your rage for just a minute, and really internalize what I'm communicating to you: It Is Over. It really is.

Repeat with me: It is over. It's done. No more. Over. Done. Bye bye. All done. Bye now. So long. See you later. Bye. It's done.

Posted by: Put Her Out of My Misery | May 22, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

When votes are cast and certified by the STATE then they owe to count.

There's no IFs and BUTs on that. That is what we call Democracy...

If Obama removed his name on the ballot maybe knowing that he'll lose then that was his shortcoming, not Hillary's.

Again there's no IFs and BUTs on that. That is what we call Democracy...

Posted by: The Wiser Voter | May 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

SO. YOU WANT A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT GO BY THE RULES. Sounds like Clinton is another Bush.

Posted by: Sher | May 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

To Susie:

I agree that Clinton should stay in the race to the end. I also think that the Rules Committee should find some way to seat Michigan and Florida delegates. But as I spelled out in my earlier posts, I do not think the MI results in particular are representative of the will of the MI voters.

If it is true that Clinton wants her delegates seated, but not the "uncommitted" ones, that is blatantly unfair. I voted uncommitted, knowing full well that my vote could go for Obama or Edwards, and the delegates would be free to endorse the nominee. But I doubt you will find a single MI voter who voted uncommitted who would not want their vote counted for Obama.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

What the Barak Obamanistas and their propaganda arm--also known as the Main Stream Media--hasn't noticed, is that Obama's early victories in the democratic primaries were before Barack Obama was exposed as the white and America--hating camp follower and desciple of Nation of Islam leaders Louis Farrakhan and his teachings. As long as the white Democratic Party voters believed that Barack Obama was a uniter and someone who was like Rev. Martin Luther King, he got their support and votes. When however he was exposed for the racist white and America--hater that he in fact was (and probably still is)--when his 20 year association with the likes of Jerimiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan came to light--he suddenly lost almost all the white working class votes in the later elections like Pa., Ohio, Ky, W.V., etc. White working class voters who make up the vast majority of Americas voters in both political party's know a con and a racist when they see one. While Barack Obama's glib tongue and the uniter, MLK, and JFK-image mantel he put on early fooled them, once he was exposed as the 20 year racist white and America--hater he was, they shifted their alligience to Hillary. The only places he's still winning are in the black, academia, and far-left liberal Socialist areas of the country. In middle working class and fly-over country areas of America Obama's MLK and uniter image is gone. I bet that a lot of white working class voters who voted for Obama in the early elections and the pre-Wright/Farrakhan expose, would love to get another chance to vote. Hillary would be a shoe-in.

Posted by: madhatter | May 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

It's a fair fight. Hillary should stay in as long as the nomination is not clinched and she has the money to do so.

Obama will eventually win. And Obama is scared of a fair fight. Let Hillary bring it on. Let her throw her best shot. She will still lose.

Then, Obama will resoundingly defeat John McCain (who is running as George W Bush's 3rd term) in the general election.

History is on Obama's side. McCain is yesterday. Obama is today -- and tomorrow.

Hillary has made this one of the most fantastic election cycles in US History. She is tough.

But Obama is the man of the hour. He is great for America. Ultimately, he will be great for the world.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

It's a fair fight. Hillary should stay in as long as the nomination is not clinched and she has the money to do so.

Obama will eventually win. And Obama is scared of a fair fight. Let Hillary bring it on. Let her throw her best shot. She will still lose.

Then, Obama will resoundingly defeat John McCain (who is running as George W Bush's 3rd term) in the general election.

History is on Obama's side. McCain is yesterday. Obama is today -- and tomorrow.

Hillary has made this one of the most fantastic election cycles in US History. She is tough.

But Obama is the man of the hour. He is great for America. Ultimately, he will be great for the world.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

One reason why Clinton appeals to middle-class/working-class women more than Obama does: Her advisers refer to her as "Mrs." rather than as "Ms." (as in, e.g., "'Most important to Mrs. Clinton is that the views of the voters of the Michigan primary and Florida primary be respected and be reflected in terms of the allocation of delegates,' said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the New York senator), while that's one bridge that Obama would never cross.
Who's the more feminist?

Posted by: Nookie Farley | May 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

POOR MARY HAMMOND. She keeps interjecting race into her comments. TELL IT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO WILL LISTEN MARY. You and your view are so ANTIQUATED. Hillary was stumped in Oregon and NC as well. Why do you keep harping on that? Are you bitter?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is not hurting her party. Not counting the votes of two states might hurt it. Stop babying Obama. He signed up for the big game. In her shoes, he'd be doing exactly the same thing. She is the superior candidate so it's worth watching this play out.

Posted by: Susie | May 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Seneca | May 22, 2008 1:37 PM

I wish the Clintons had never run in 2008. I, for one, have lost all respect for them.

It is just to bad you do not live in "Saddam Hussein Country" where only "Barack Hussein" can run with 92% of black votes.

Sorry, we live in the United States of America where "GD America" crowd can also vote.

Posted by: Gulf War Veteran | May 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

As for "disenfranchising" voters:

It was the GOP-controlled Michigan legislature that set the date for the primary, ignoring the stated penalties laid out by both the DNC and RNC. Whether they thought this would help Mitt Romney or hurt Clinton, I have no idea.

The Michigan Democratic Party could have withdrawn from the primary date and held a caucus at a later time, but they did not. I am equally clueless as to their motivations, but it is certain that there were more Clinton loyalists in that group than Obamaniacs, since he was not a leading candidate at the time.

Now please give me one reason why I shouldn't vote for Obama in November, when he had nothing to do with the rules or setting the date?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe they should seat the Florida delegation on the basis of the results and divide 50-50 the Michigan one. For this latter Hillary has got no point in asking anything, her behaviour there wasn't exactly fair.
The problem is that this stage of the race a logical solution would be good for Obama and meaningless for Clinton. So I assume that there won't be any agreement based on logic. Clinton should understand that bringing the fight to the convention will cancel her possibilities to get elected even in the case she manages to win in Denver.

Posted by: tino | May 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Many democratic voters DID NOT vote in FL and MI because they knew their delegates weren't going to count. My mother lives in Miami and I called her on primary day to see if she was going to vote. She said she wasn't because it wasn't going to count. I told her I had a feeling that Hillary would try to get the delegates counted in the end, which upset her greatly because she's an Obama supporter. So she ended up going to vote. But she has a lot of friends who are Obama supporters who didn't vote for the same reason she wasn't planning to. So it really infuriates me to hear the phony Clinton diatribe about how people would be disenfranchised if they don't count the delegates. People will be disenfranchised if they DO count them!

Given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, virtually everyone who isn't a Clinton supporter recognizes the gross unfairness of seating those delegates. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed and Obama was trying to get MI to count when Clinton's name wasn't on the ballot? She would be screaming like a banchee that he was trying to steal the election from her.

Finally, Hillary has 100% name recognition in the Democratic party, and is in the position of an incumbent candidate. In most of the contests against Obama, he starts out polling below her because people don't know much about him. Then when he goes in and starts campaigning his numbers go up (hers generally don't go up much since most people have already made up their minds about her). Even in contests that she ultimately won, his number still went up when he spent time campaigning there. The Clinton campaign knows that if FL and MI had been fully contested elections, she wouldn't have done nearly as well in FL and she might have lost MI.

I've had enough of political leaders who don't think the rules apply to them and who think the ends (amassing political power for themselves) justify the means, no matter how unethical.

Posted by: Carrie | May 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Let's just say that the nomination is a draw and the super delegates have to decide on other issues (I don't believe this, I believe that Obama out-did Clinton and should be the D-nominee). Do they want more of the red/blue divisiveness that has characterized American politics for the last 30 years? Do they want more of the Culture wars of the past? Do they want a candidate that will fire up the Republican base like no other? Or do they want to move forward, embrace all the new voters, the younger voters who are fed up with 'experienced' politicians mis-leading us into War, experienced politicians who have failed to solve the problems of the environment and health care.

If the nomination was a draw and the super delegates have to decide, their choice should be crystal clear. Vote for the future of the Democratic party, not the past.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How is it okay to disenfrancise the majority of voters in this nation who happened to vote for Obama by overturning their will to support Hillary instead? I've even read one account at Politico that says Hillary doesn't even want Obama to get the uncommitted delegates in Michigan--she just wants those pledged to her to count.

I wish the DNC were stronger. Letting Hillary make unfair, destructive arguments like these is dividing the party and hurting the nominee.

I wish the Clintons had never run in 2008. I, for one, have lost all respect for them.

Posted by: Seneca | May 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

This "change the rules to suit ME" is starting to smell very Bush/Cheney-like, don't you think?

Haven't we had enough of that kind of arrogance in the Oval Office? A person like Hillary Clinton, whose mind-set is demonstrably to change all the rules - and disavow their own pledges - just in order to augment their own power should frighten the beejesus out of the supers.

When our country is most desperately in need of unity, they'd side with the party's single most divisive and stubbornly Bush-like individual?

Hillary really should consider switching parties after this...except I don't think that, at this point, that they'd want her, either.

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So Clinton, now that she has lost the delegate race decides to change the rules. They both decided on Florida and Michigan, now she changes her mind. She is not a fighter, she is a manipulative creature willing to loose it all for the DEMs if she does not have her way. Obama has not complained about racism but Clinton has the nerve to use sexism and crying after Iowa so folks would fell sorry for the poor "woman". Then she blames the media for being far more tougher on her. And folks lile Mary Hammond | May 22, 2008 12:57 PM had the nerve to accuse Obama of being racist and bring up Rev.

And as for Kentucky, the Hillary would not win it in the general election anyway. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF SELFISH FOLKS AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT.

Posted by: Greg | May 22, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse


Obama has asked former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to begin vetting potential vice presidential picks, Democratic officials said Thursday. Johnson did the same job for Democratic nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052201533.html?hpid=topnews

Who is Jim Johnson? He is a big time loser who helped Kerry and Mondale. Furthermore, he is the biggest corrupted CEO in Washington. Tax payers lost billions because of Fannie Mae scandal. Read more.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4217

You think Obama is different. Think again.

Posted by: Obama Picked Loser To VP Selection | May 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I am a Michigan voter who voted for "uncommitted" in the primary because neither Obama nor Edwards was on the ballot.

Hillary SAID she would take her name off as well, but then she DIDN'T. That makes her either untrustworthy or incompetant.

(In Florida, all the candidates names were on the ballot because in their rules, you can't be on the GE ballot if you weren't on the primary ballot.)

But in BOTH states, Hillary had the big built-in advantage of name recognition, since there was no campaign.

She assumed in January that she wouldn't need the delegates and was content to win these votes just for the Momentum and Inevitability arguments. Now that she needs delegates, she wants them counted. That's not what she was saying when she was agreeing with the DNC back in January.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

As one commentator, Jeffrey Toobin, said, "You know who has trouble with white working class voters? Democrats!" For 30 years, they have been Reagan Democrats. After that length time, it would be best to call them what they are: Republicans.

The problem with the Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Wolfson quotes is that it is of a cloth with most coverage of an election. The reporters and pundits cover the last election, not the current one. Granted, it is difficult to picture a Democrat in the Presidency who does not win Pennsylvania. But Ohio and Florida are almost certainly going to be Red States in November, just like Kentucky and West Virginia.

This election is supposed to be about the future. Anyone who has lived in Florida knows it is not about the future. It is most definitely about the past. The more interesting polling would be looking at Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Minnesota. And if one wants to dream on, maybe even Virginia.

Posted by: Garrichie | May 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

ragindemo writes
"I am so mystified by people who think it is perfectly acceptable to disenfrancise two states!!! What happened to Howard Dean's "50 state strategy"?

The PEOPLE in the states don't make the rules, why should they be penalized?"

I don't think anybody thinks its perfectly acceptable to disenfranchise voters in two states. The real problem here is that 1) the Dem race is closer than anyone expected, so an easy solution to the MI/FL problem doesn't exist and 2) the Dems have been outmaneuvered - again - by the GOP. Note that the GOP also penalized these states - but only by half their delegates, instead of all. The Dems apparently wanted a sanction that would really sting - and it sure has. Problem is, its stung the wrong target. Now, Senator Clinton is desperate to find a way to win the nomination, so has rallied to the cause of the MI/FL voters. Unfortunately for her, the time during which she - or her surrogates (i.e. Ickes) - could have best fought for the plight of the MI/FL voters is long past. What is most sad about the move is not that its so transparent, but that she's chosen to air the party's dirty laundry in public, rather than working with the rules committee behind closed doors. Perhaps this, too, speaks to her motivation. Or maybe just to her class, or lack thereof.

Posted by: bsimon | May 22, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I am so mystified by people who think it is perfectly acceptable to disenfrancise two states!!! What happened to Howard Dean's "50 state strategy"?

The PEOPLE in the states don't make the rules, why should they be penalized?

If democrats don't count Michigan and Florida we should change our name to the "Obamacratic" party instead of "Democratic" party!!!

Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

If HRC wanted the nomination so badly she should have won more contests. At one point she has LOST 11 straight.
If She had won more contest we are not having this discussion.
Bottom Line --Obama beet her in the Rules that have been established at the beginning of the campaign.
So what does she want the party to do ?
Just give it to her because she says so?
Obama is about 65 Delegates away.
You cant use Michigan Obama was not even on the Ballot.
In Florida many folks did not bother to vote because they were told that it would not count.
Both parties agreed to the stipulation.
HRC needs to be ashamed of herself.
Its time for Annie Oakley to pick up her rifle and go home.

Posted by: Carprin | May 22, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Some may know this but the argument Clinton wants to spin about Florida votes counting because both were on the ballot doesn't hold water. What the fact is is, the ballot had a property tax initiative to change the state constitution one of the most important votes in years. With the hurricanes driving the insurance rates sky high and taxes tripling in just four years people turned out in force to vote. The problem is, they were older people and property owners and they made a primary vote even though it didn't count just because they were already there. In other words, Hillary got votes just by default. Young people who don't own homes or property, didn't bother to even go to the polls. They are a big part of what would have been Obamas voting base. He might as well not even have been on the ballot. The result is a falsehood and an illusion if you know the facts. Of course, Hillary never let a small thing like facts stand in the way.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, the media darling, has lost again now in Kentucky with an unheard of margin for a candidate who is supposed to have aleady locked up the nomination. This is a chilling reminder to the democrats that the presidential election outcome in november is a big worrisome and uncertain issue. If the women voters ditch the democrats in the presidential election along with the seniors and the latinos,Obama is in a tight corner. Loosing to McCain is a real possibility eventhough the Republicans donot deserve the presidency after the mess they have created during the last eight years. But democrats have outdone the Republicans in their insensitivity to people, the way they want to discard FL and MI votes and delegates and the way they pressured Hillary to give up her fights when she was actually winning in big numbers. The long line of insults including racism charge against Hillary, Bill and others as well as the insulting tone of Obama campaign against Hillary calls for proper accounting. There should be a convention fight over the FL and MI votes if the credentials committee does not resolve the issue fairly on a one vote for one voter basis. Anything less will be a sellout of all the votes Hillary received from real people.

Posted by: Nathan | May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary was not behind and the votes and delegates were in her favor she would be calling for an end to this and deny Senator Obama a chance for the delegates to be calculated in his favor. Who does she think she is to want the rules which her campaign chair initiated, changed to fit her? This is a perfect example that she does not feel that the rules apply to her. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. She has acted in a cold and calculating political matter and wants this to be a throwback to the backroom dealings of the past. This is a new day with voters with a different view. For those who still want to contribute and feed the racial issues, then that is a testament of their mindset. Barack Obama is unique and represents both the Black and White race. This is desparate attempt by HRC, that is being allowed to continue, in an effort to take over the entire sandbox.

Posted by: Brenda | May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is showing herself totally without honor. To agree to the rules of the game and then want to change them for personal benefit is despicable. Where was Clinton's outrage when the Nation Party made the scheduling rules.

Posted by: Disgusted Voter | May 22, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

How more transparent can a motive get?

Posted by: jr | May 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

One thing that seems clear is that her campaign is not concerned with the best interests of the democratic party. She keeps this up and there is the increasing chance that she will fatally impact the November outcome.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | May 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

think y'all have narrow tunnel vision. The question here is not why Hillary remains in the race or whether Obama is being conspired against, or whether whites are too racist to vote for him, or whether Obama turned on his old friend when his friend became inconvenient.It is not even whether Obama can be elected while spending his campaign dripping contempt for blue collar white voters.

The question here is this: How can Hillary lose while her party hoists itself on it's own pitard? Does the Democratic party condemn ALL racism or does it condemn only racism directed at blacks?

So far in the entire Wright/Obama debacle all the democrats have been able to do is scream that whites are racists for bringing the debacle to public debate and poor Obama.

But what is actually being brought to public debate and obviously is not going to go away on it's own is the extreme racism of Obama himself along with his known associates. Now the new pastor of Trinity (prayed for and hired this month by the congregation) is even MORE racist towards whites, Jews, etc. than Wright was. But when asked if he will continue with that church, Obama's reaction was "Of course".
If we couple that with Obama's contempt for blue collar whites, his cackling preacher's amusement at the idea of his own visit to Tripoli causing Obama's "votes from the Jews to dry up faster than a snowball in hell" we start to get an even more unpleasant picture of Obama. Especially after his stated reluctance to have Floridian voters count-Florida with it's huge Jewish voting block.

How is it that a political party that champions itself as an opponent of racism even runs such a guy on their platform? Unless of course democrats only oppose racism against blacks. This is the question it boils down to in many voters minds. Are Democrats only opposed to racism in whites and no one else?

Unless they get on the ball and make a shift toward Hillary, the Democrats may end up being the new "racism" party just because the message Democrats are sending to the American people with this candidate is so wrong.

And knowing this, you bet Clinton stays in the race. She just cannot lose while her party is falling on it's own sword.

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"[Sen Clinton's] top campaign advisers held a conference call this morning in a continued attempt to make the case."

To whom did they make the case? Were members of the rules committee on the conference call?

It would be interesting if a journalist could get Senator Clinton on the record regarding whether she thinks the results of a vote with one name on the ballot accurately reflects 'views of the voters'.

Posted by: bsimon | May 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Typical clinton maneuver. Rules are fine and firmly set until they decide to change them. She is the same one who vowed to the citizens of New York that she would serve as their senator and not run for another office. Pray these two deceitful, highly flawed human beings return to making money and leave us alone.

Posted by: djudge | May 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't say Hillary is "desperate and pathetic." Just desperate.

Posted by: Fugeddabowdid | May 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

If only she'd felt this way about FL and MI back when she had massive sway in the party and the rules committee was stacked with her supporters, who all voted to strip them of delegates. Too bad she didn't need back them then.

Posted by: aleks | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

HRC is desperate and pathetic.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: dab23 | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

HRC is desperate and pathetic.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: dab23 | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

how utterly noble of her. no self serving instinct there at all.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company