Clinton. Obama Spar Over Florida Delegates

Sen. Hillary Clinton pledged today to work to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates at the Democratic National Convention, thereby negating the penalties meted out by the Democratic National Committee.

It's true that the party's eventual nominee will essentially take over the operations of the DNC -- and the DNConvention, so the pledge carries weight.

Clinton acknowledged that not all DNC members would be happy with her pledge and she insisted that she was abiding by an earlier vow not to campaign in Florida.

But Florida Democrats will find out about her kindly disposition through the media, and through the Florida Democratic Party, whose chair, Karen Thurman, thanked Clinton "for her support and commitment to the Sunshine State." Thurman said the party intends to select 210 delegates and 31 alternates and predicts that turnout for next Tuesday's primary will set records.

Late today, Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, responded:

“No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama. When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero. Whether it is Barack Obama’s record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election. When he is the nominee, Barack Obama will campaign vigorously in Florida and Michigan to put them in the Democratic column in 2008.”

Comments

Nonsense---Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot and Clinton left hers and then he tries to persuade uncommitted votes. He is such a two-faced whiner.

Posted by kathryn | January 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Wow! The Clinton campaign is really shameless about selective rigging the election for their benefit, aren't they? I thought the the Nevada thing was a little obvious and out there, but I'm still shocked by this.

Posted by former Deaniac | January 25, 2008 5:08 PM

Well, all you can do is not vote for her in the fall. If I'm going to have a sleazebag in charge, I'd prefer it be a republican rather than a Clinton.

Posted by Rid | January 25, 2008 5:13 PM

What Ezra Klein said.

People really should be informed about what this is about. The Clintons are setting a fire in the foundations of the Democratic Party. It's incredibly reckless.

Posted by southpaw | January 25, 2008 5:16 PM

The Clintons are not setting fires. The DNC has absolutely obliterated the system of how we vote. To ultimately punish voters power via delegate distribution because the primaries etc. were condensed is absurd. Both parties should have an all or nothing delegate win via the results of the vote of the people; these "crock-causes" are an absolute sham as is forbidding candidates to campaign in a state. If Obama was such a uniter, why did he not began in his own backyard to have this system forbidden from the beginning. Give me a break--it is a ridiculous way to measure a democratic society--I got to give the Republicans credit on there system versus the Democrats on this one.

Posted by kathryn | January 25, 2008 5:31 PM

No-one wants to deny Michigan and Florida their due delegates - but the problem is not that they are from MI or FL, the problem is that they will be unfairly divided, because of the previous agreement. I think Obama and Edwards should jointly agree to seat the delegates, provided that their votes are split three ways, and that they MAY NOT re-allocate their support subsequently. In other words, FL and MI are there, but Clinton can't exploit them to gain an unfair advantage.

Posted by nickzi | January 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Mr. Obama's seems to be using anything positive Ms. Clinton states as if it's an attack on him. It's like he stands in the corner and then barks at her for pushing him into a corner. He can agree with her or disagree with her stand on Florida delegates one would think without casting her acts as aimed at hurting him. I'm not sure why his advisors are urging him to whine. He's always reacting to her, and painting her as out to get him, rather than focusing on his own positive message, which has been lost in this made-up scuffle. How can this help him win new voters? Or, what new voters would be attracted by such junior high school tactics. Where's the hope?

Posted by anna shane | January 25, 2008 5:42 PM

anna shane - how is the parallel universe in which you live? This is HRC, the racist, corrupt madam of the First Pervert's White House you know. So cut out the Saint Hillary act, please, and look at the facts on the table.

Posted by brianboru | January 25, 2008 5:44 PM

I wonder if this will affect the choice of any party official superdelegates (particularly the remaining undecideds from IA, NH, and SC).

Posted by PBS | January 25, 2008 5:57 PM

This is just petty reaction to the Obama campaign's national ad buy that ran in Florida. HRC will listen to the DNC...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 25, 2008 5:58 PM

Brianboru--Here are some facts for you. Hillary is not a racist, but I do believe if you look into how the whole MLK-LBJ situation occurrence you would discover citing truth turned into the intended racial attack that Obama wanted. Think about it--Here is a guy that is not even a BLACK man but a BIRACIAL man placing himself out to the USA as the first African-American Nominee--hogwash-He is the first BIRACIAL NOMINEE---but to play the race card was masterfully done and this is how he did it. He incited racial tensions via the use of the MLK message thereby invoking long withstanding race driven emotionalism. Then all the media jumped on Hillary's statement and conveniently left out what she was initially referencing by her example- which was words and action complement each other but it still takes legislation to "realise" the words. I could go on and on but I tell you that you probably would not look at this in depth as compared to surface, remarks driven by small people.

Posted by kathryn | January 25, 2008 6:03 PM

kathryn, you clearly do not understand the situation. First off, the Obama campaign did not try to persuade voters to vote uncommitted. Michigan Democratic Party leaders did.

Second, all or nothing delegate apportionment is actually further away from the concept of one person, one vote than proportional apportionment. It gives non-pluralities no impact.

Third, the DNC is in charge of its own nominating process. Remember, primaries and caucuses are subordinate to the party. If any state party disobeys the DNC, the DNC has full right to strip that state of delegates. That is exactly what Michigan and Florida did. This isn't about condensed primaries, it's about states not waiting their turn (February 5th at the earliest). If you want a longer description of why Florida and Michigan should not be allowed to hold early primaries, I'm perfectly willing.

Fourth, caucuses have benefits over primaries and vice versa. There is a definite benefit to having the Iowa caucuses go first and that is that viability rules serve a similar role to a run-off by eliminating less popular candidates (notice that Richardson, Biden, and Dodd got approx 2%, 1%, and 0% of the delegate count in Iowa respectively). Furthermore, caucus-goers tend to be more active more aware voters than primary goers, because there is significantly more of a time commitment to caucus than in primaries.

Fifth, no candidate was prohibited from participating in any states against their will. Hillary Clinton pledged not to participate in Michigan or Florida as well as Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd. So, she's only restrained by her own word. No sense whining about something that's your own doing.

Finally, anna shane, what the Obama campaign is pointing out is that Hillary Clinton seems to be going back on her word not to participate in Michigan and Florida. By seating Michigan's delegates especially and Florida's to an lesser extent, the DNC would be giving Clinton an advantage that was not in the rules before the race.

Posted by Meng Bomin | January 25, 2008 6:07 PM

brianboru - Like many Hillary-haters, you feel that you know everything there is to know about Hillary Clinton and go as far as demanding people to look at the facts.

I've noticed that like Obama, many of his supporters, cannot provide facts -- just catchy tag-lines. Barack Obama is playing the race card, not Hillary Clinton.

Here are some facts for you to consider:

1. In Nevada, a union endorsing Barack Obama unleashed a Spanish language ad that read "Hillary Clinton does not support our people." Barack Obama said he did not support organizations spending their own money on his campaign, but did not take a stand against the claim made in the ad.

2. The Obama Campaign sent out 3-4 page memos to the media with alleged quotes from the Clinton campaign that could be interpretted as racial. To give him credit, Barack did acknowledge and apologize for the memos at the Nevada debate.

3. Barack Obama's campaign is releasing television ads that will run on Cable Networks in Florida. David Plouffe, Obama's Campaign Manager, made the claim (as you can see above) that no campaigning occured in Florida -- clearly not true.

4. Barack Obama often talks about wanting to unify the nation -- Michigan and Florida are both states where the polls predicted that he would not do well - If he really wanted to unify the nation, he would be willing to seat the delegates at those states, as determined by the primary results, even if those results do not help him.

Posted by Joseph | January 25, 2008 6:08 PM

I'm from Michigan. I have voted Democratic my whole life and if Hillary is the nominee this year I will go door to door for her because she would be so much better for our country and the world than any of the Republican contenders.

HOWEVER, I can tell you that it is terribly unfair of Hillary's camp to say that delegates chosen in Michigan belong at the national convention. The plain and simple truth is that these delegates do not represent the will of the voters of Michigan.

Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballot because the national Party declared that Michigan's primary would not count (because the state Party broke national rules by voting too early).

Hillary managed to keep her name on the ballot, so we found ourselves in the absurd and embarrassing position of having a Michigan primary ballot that looked like it was rigged. And if Hillary pulls this off that's exactly what it's gonna feel like.

Posted by Paul Tinker | January 25, 2008 6:13 PM

Meng Bomin---I appreciate your view of the process which again I state Obama two faced and and a whiner. He placed a national ad which was shown in Florida which breaks their pledges and then stated the authority in SC saw nothing wrong with it-so it is okay to proceed. It was inappropriate to the pledge and yet again--no responsibility taken for breaking the pledge. The honorable thing to do would to not place the national ad in the first place rather than find a way to disregard it and then blame its placement in Florida on the advertising companies because Florida could not be excluded. Game players all the way--but truly what would anyone expect--it is politics!

Posted by kathryn | January 25, 2008 6:17 PM

Edwards and Obama did what the DNC asked. They played by the rules.

Last summer when i found out Hillary had conveniently missed the deadline to take her name off the Mich. ballot, leaving her the only candidate on the ballot, i suspected she'd pull something like this.

Note to Hillary supporters:

If you nominate this FILTH as the democratic nominee, you will not only have to run against the Republicans in the general election, you will have to run against people like ME who abhor the Clintons and their sleazy tactics, and will campaign vigorously against her. I have always voted democratic, even though i am a registered independent, and i will make it my life's work this fall to turn every democrat i know, against the Clintons. I'm sure they won't vote republican (neither will i) but i'll bet i can get alot of them to stay home.

Posted by julie.s. | January 25, 2008 6:20 PM

I don't think the states should have had their delegates stripped, but then again they did break the party rules. As far as Clinton goes, if she was really concerned about these states being represented in the nomination process she would have made this appeal long before Iowa.

Let's face facts, she was uncontested in Michigan and she's polling very well in Florida. Obama is ahead in the delegates that have been won, and he's polling well in South Carolina. This is about getting more delegates for herself, not about a legitimate concern over these voters being represented.

Posted by John | January 25, 2008 6:34 PM

Meng: true and well put.

This election is going to be about TRUST. Who's going to level with the American people.

Yet the Clintons are playing their old-style attack politics games, take no prisoners, win at any cost - and Bill whines when a respected SC Democratic leader calls it for what it is: Lee Atwater politics. Earth to Bill: Atwater was from SC. People there know those games when they see them, and you can't pull the wool over their eyes. Sleaze is sleaze.

We've had seven years of having a president rely on lies, spin, selective quotes and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to mislead American citizens. Why on EARTH would we vote for more of the same?

I support the following nominations:
1) Barack Obama for President
2) Bill Clinton for the Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role
3) Hillary Clinton for the Oscar for Best Actress (she certainly has shown herself to be a drama queen!)

Posted by Tom J | January 25, 2008 6:43 PM

I'm from Michigan - Sen. Carl Levin said our delegates will be counted and he encouraged those that supported candidates not on the ballot to vote uncommitted, they did. There was a big stealth campaign here - don't kid yourselves. Badly played. And Edwards and Obama simply didn't file the paperwork as write ins. What's up with the hissy fits?

Posted by Robert Murray | January 25, 2008 6:44 PM

Clinton is seeking to overturn decisions in order to count more in her favor - I find it flabbergasting that she would seek to secure those Michigan delegates when hers was the only name on the ballot - unthinkable that the party would actually reinstate the delegates - unthinkable and undemocratic.

Posted by Jay | January 25, 2008 6:44 PM

As a good Republican, I love how the Democrats rush to line up behind the most corrupt loser they can find. Satan may have invented Bush, but then God evened the score (and more) in Hillary! Four more years!

Posted by ejellison | January 25, 2008 6:53 PM

The Michigan AFL-CIO, which has not endorsed a candidate, said in a Friday release that Obama and Edwards may have made a tactical error by not competing in Michigan's primary.

"The organization has reminded its affiliates that it was the decision of the Obama and Edwards campaigns to remove themselves from Michigan's ballot. Both campaigns may now regret this decision," the union organization said.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/michigan/13065002.html

Posted by durendal | January 25, 2008 6:57 PM

Talking about HRC duplicity, wonder why the media is not picking up on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Will women still support HRC after seeing this?

Posted by Amazed | January 25, 2008 7:11 PM

Hey Marc, how come you're in a facebook group supporting Hillary? (It takes a campus: Harvard students for Hillary)

Posted by Crimson alum | January 25, 2008 7:16 PM

Crimson alum,

Interesting find. I don't think Marc has ever said if he supported any of the candidates, but I think we could all sense a pro-Hillary bias in his opinions, often comically so.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 7:24 PM

The party that lost two elections because of disenfranchised voters in Florida and Ohio goes out of its way to disenfranchise those voters just because they dared violate the perverse tradition of two lily white states being first in the notion. Iowa and NH get all that money to be the early goldfish bowl, all that money pumped into thier economy and all that attention paid to thier issues
And the crazies here are definding it. Now that those early dates have gone by the leash is off and People who against disenfranchising voters can be honest and revisit dumb positions.
Ioaw and NH have too much power in the process: disenfranchising two more states gives them preportionally more power.
Hurray for Hillary again!
By not campaigning there they send the wrong message: republicans are camped out down there and we stupidly ignore the state?
Go Hillary go.

Posted by Michael C. | January 25, 2008 8:00 PM

Michael C and Kathryn,

You seem to be big supporters of HRC. Curious to know your views on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

a) Does it weaken your support for HRC?

b)If not, is there any line that she could cross that you would consider unacceptable...or are you and HRC joined at the hip no matter what...?

Just wondering...

Posted by Amazed | January 25, 2008 8:10 PM

As a 35 year voting Florida Democrat, I will NOT be voting for ANY Democrat on Tuesday, January 29th because of the DNC sanctions.

My vote, and my delegates vote won't count toward the Presidential Election, or at the DNC convention, so why go through the motions?

Trust me when I say, it breaks my heart to have voted Democrat for 35 years and to be treated in this fashion, but the tagline used by these Democrats seeking the Presidential nod from their party of "CHANGE?"

I'm making a CHANGE alright. Come Wednesday morning I'm switching my party affliation to REPUBLICAN and I will continue to straight-line vote, just as I did as a Democrat for 35 years!

Posted by FloridaDemocrat | January 25, 2008 8:12 PM

however the rules are setup, it seems that barack obama is seeking to disenfranchise florida voters at the risk of going against the party's rules.

why is obama looking to silence the mouths' of voters? is he afraid of what he'll hear?

Posted by jose | January 25, 2008 8:35 PM

jose, you win tonight's prize for the most incoherent and ungrammatical post on a subject you know nothing about. For your prize, you have the opportunity to spend a day composing press releases with Mark Penn. You should find this a perfect match for your talents and ethical commitments.

Posted by sashaqz | January 25, 2008 8:43 PM

Dear Amazed:
I watched overwrought Lorna on youtube: don't you think its a little over the top?
Did you read the NYTimes endorsement today? I agreed with everthing it said: Hillary is my girl and Abortion is one of my most basic and constant concerns.
I don't think your guy can handle it.
and Lorna's kind of creepy in this tape.

Dear Sashaqz: you are a punctuation bigot: how dare you insult someone with a spanish name that his english usage isn't up to your standards!
Are you blogging from the border wall to keep anybody who doesn't have you elan and style and inflection out? that is the slimiest nastiest thing I have every seen on this site. Perhaps you should apologise?
it is perversely ironic and twisted that the topic here is disenfranchisement. As bill clinton would say: shame on you!

Posted by Michael C. | January 25, 2008 8:59 PM

Michael,

Let me ask you again, what part of integrity and honesty do you NOT understand? And if abortion issues matter to you, Obama has been as much, if not more, pro-choice than Clinton.

So again, why is lying, dishonest Hillary "your girl" ? Got it - birds of a feather flock together

How much does Hillary pay you per hour? Surely you can get a better job?

Posted by Amazed | January 25, 2008 9:13 PM

Jose: don't let this bizarre response from Sashaqz stop you: she knows exactly what you were saying and couldn't think of anything legitimate to say.

Posted by Michael C. | January 25, 2008 9:17 PM

Barack Obama has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. There is no one in Congress with a better pro-choice record than him. The fact that Hillary's campaign has painted him as "unwilling to take a stand for choice" just shows you how little respect she has for the intelligence of their own supporters.

The reason the DNC is not allowing delegates from Florida and Michigan to count is because those states moved their primaries ahead to a point earlier than the Convention was allowing. They and everyone else understood at the beginning that they would not be taking part in this contest. Hillary is willing to attempt to rewrite the rules in order to steal this election. Rather grotsque, when you think about all the lying and doubledealing she's done and she's not even in the White House yet. What does this portend for the next four years of politics?

Posted by Matt | January 25, 2008 9:20 PM

Ummmmmmmm ... any way you spin this, it is a shameless move for the Clintons.
These were the rules for MONTHS upon MONTHS. They were agreed upon because Michigan and Florida were trying to win undo influence, without ever running this by their own party. So the DNC had the guts to say I don't think so.
HRC has been fine with these rules for the entire year!!! Why flipflop now?!!?

Just like in Nevada, with those bogus lawsuits, why change them now? Simply because Obama is about to win in SC.

Fine. You know what, let me propose a new rule. If your name is Clinton, you automatically must win any election. Happy, HRC supporters? Is that what you want to hear? You people make me sick. You like a fixed game. And, news flash, the 90s weren't that great.

I am abandoning my party if she wins. If she is running against McCain, he'll totally have my support. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but at least he has some ethics. If HRC is running against anybody else, I'll stay home on election day.

Posted by Scott B | January 25, 2008 9:22 PM

Clinton is worried about losing the first Southern Primary state?? Is he kidding? Has he looked at the polls? Does this guy have no grasp on reality? She doesn't need to say this to win Florida, she'a already creaming him there. I can't take someone seriously who makes such a false statement like that.

Posted by arouet | January 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Michael C - since when did you know whether jose is white. black, hispanic or asian? In any case, if he posts on an English language blog, he ought to be up to basic grammar and syntax. As for your crude little smears, surely it's time for you to join Bill Clinton in the Abusers' Sanctuary. Or do you just watch the old pervert in action and get your kicks that way?

Posted by hillarious | January 25, 2008 9:30 PM

Hillarious, don't waste space on MichaelC - he is a wellknown Republican troll, who takes up space on a number of boards. His attempts at being aggressive are really quite childish and harmless. Just ignore the sad little thing, and it will soon slither off to another board.

Posted by sashaqz | January 25, 2008 9:34 PM

I've always prided myself on belonging to a party that took the high ground. Being above the pettiness and stupidity of Karl Rove. Supporting the Clintons is like swapping a sleazy corporate Republican with a sleazy corporate Democrat. What is the point? Both are completely inadequate.

Posted by Wendy | January 25, 2008 9:45 PM

Only one thing clear from this discussion: Republicans are going to beat divided democrats in November. I think Hillary will win the nomination, and lots of Obama supporters will be too demoralized to give her and her husband the help they need.

Posted by steve baker | January 25, 2008 9:48 PM

Obama is a dishonest person. In a devious conspiracy, he and Edwards took their names off Michigan primary. There was NO agreement to take all candidates' name off Michigan primary and that is why these two sleazballs' names are still on the ballot in Florida. If he is for change, he needs to stand up to DNC for a change. Yes, he knows he would lose big time in Michigan and Florida like the loser that he is.

Posted by Paul | January 25, 2008 9:48 PM

I'd like to ask Obama cult members a question. What kind of hope are you seeing from Obama? How would he unite the country? How would a Hispanic,an Asian, or a white kid see hope in Obama? What has he done convinces you that he is for change and he can change?

Posted by Paul | January 25, 2008 9:51 PM

I'd like to ask Obama cult members a question. What kind of hope are you seeing from Obama? How would he unite the country? How would a Hispanic,an Asian, or a white kid see hope in Obama? What has he done convinces you that he is for change and he can change?

Posted by Paul | January 25, 2008 9:52 PM

It just so happens that Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is endorsing Hillary on Tuesday, Here's another example of Washington at work. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. If she gets the nomination, Howard Dean can kiss his job good bye. The Clintons will put one of their mafia members in there.

I'd rather be an Obama cult member than one of the sleazes that works for the Clintons.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | January 25, 2008 9:57 PM

Paul, when you insult people, you would be wise not to expect them to reply to you. Try again, politely, and see.

Posted by nickzi | January 25, 2008 9:57 PM

This is a hoot! It really looks like HRC has accepted strategic guidance from Al ("selectively recount only those votes that count for me and disenfranchise all those military voters that probably go to Bush") Gore. Is there a less democratic party than the Democrat Party?

Keep it up - it real entertaining to watch from the sidelines. Please pass the popcorn!

Posted by in_awe | January 25, 2008 10:14 PM

This attempt by the Clintons to change the rules when things aren't going their way seems right out of Karl Rove's 2000 playbook. I have no doubt that she'd be a capable (yet bitterly divisive) president. But I'd rather have someone who seems to have a sense of honor and integrity. Everything that I've seen indicates that Obama is such a person.

Paul, calling people who admire a politician "cult members" of said politician makes the rest of us think that you're just not ready to sit at the grownups table of political discussion yet.

Posted by Doug | January 25, 2008 10:17 PM

sashaqz:
I am a 46 year old democrat who lives in the suburbs and teaches in the city. I grew up poor went to college late and became a teacher.
I am a democrat. My wife thinks my hatred for republicans is sometimes a bit pathological but i grew up hating nixon. Bill Clinton inspired me to believe in a system I didn't and I went to college: state school on loans.
I have never posted on any site ever except these three attached to atlantic and only in these past few weeks: I've been e-mailing andrew sullivan slightly longer about his hatred of hillary and bill.
I teach kids who are hispanic, bosnian muslim, african american, african and south american.
I wore a mc govern button in fifth grade and have never donated money to a single candidate, wore another button, worked for a candidate.
I was arrested twice in my teen age years in no nukes protests/demonstrations in NYC and I've raised money for NARAL in my early twenties.
I have never voted for a republican and never will.
THAT makes you a lying asshole who doesn't know what she thinks she knows.
I don't care what skin color jose has but I think people who say the things you said to jose about his usage of english are what's wrong with the right and a threat to our democracy.
You could have done the decent thing and realized you went too far and instead you make up crazy baseless shit and peddle it as if you know something. you are an embarrasment to yourself.

Posted by Michael c. | January 25, 2008 10:20 PM

MichaelC - you write fiction so quickly, you ought to try and publish it. Now, quit whining. I really don't see the point in hearing more from the Republitroll side of the debate. Say something interesting and honest, and I might respect you - keep ranting like this, and I shall simply ignore you.

Posted by sashaqz | January 25, 2008 10:23 PM

@MichaelC

For a supposed teacher, you have some strange ideas about punctuation yourself. Why should sashaqz have to deal with your nasty little rants? He/she was quite right to say that jose was totally offbase. Respect others, my friend, and you'll find they respect you.

Posted by pelicandebrief | January 25, 2008 10:27 PM

sashaqz pelicandebrief:
I give up: you're right: you know best. trying to talk with people who hate was a mistake.
If you are not prepared to accept what people say about themselves or thier positions why try to communicate at all?
your rancor is depressing.

Posted by Michael c. | January 25, 2008 10:42 PM

After hearing how Clinton and her staff left the Clinton, IA place in such a mess, it just feels like the same ole Clinton prank to me. You can't destroy someone's property and just walk away. They left behind damage amounting to $2500 and finally submitted a check for $1700. Where is the honesty and integrity, better yet, where is the shame. The guy who owns the place said that in four years he will refuse to let them hold another caucus in his place. It was the Clinton's, afterall, what did he expect?!!

Posted by Betty | January 25, 2008 10:50 PM

Now you know why this woman and her husband have never lost an election save one, 25 years ago in Arkansas, that they then captured next time around. Hillary and Bill are consummate professionals at the game of winning elections, and I admire them both for their skill.

Politics is about winning, people. Winning. Has been for 5000 years. When you win, you get to pass out the goodies. When you lose, you get to wonder what happened.

Grow up.

Posted by Ted | January 25, 2008 10:54 PM

I think Hill Billy Clinton missed smoking cigar in the White House.

Posted by Cheng | January 25, 2008 11:05 PM

MichaelC, my friend, it is a little late for you to play innocent. You got into someone else's discussion, went off at him/her, throwing around allegations like no tomorrow, and then you wonder why you get called on it. Learn from this for the future.

Posted by pelicandebrief | January 25, 2008 11:06 PM

Who said that this country cannot be governed by Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, etc. It is ridiculous to assume that Whites are some sort of "special" people whereas in reality they are not. I am concerned about young intern girls who might find themselves in the West wing giving some old Grey haired moron some blow job. Thank you George Bush you and your wife brought honor to that great house.

Posted by Joel Sacks | January 25, 2008 11:10 PM

The Clintons are Win at all Costs - even if they have to lie, cheat, distort, and even rape! Values that we can all pass onto our children.

Wake UP People. There is a better way - Vote OBAMA!

Posted by LS | January 25, 2008 11:11 PM

A DEMOCRATIC CALL TO CONSCIENCE ...

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

--Milan Kundera

In the 1960s, Mississippi sharecroppers facing nightsticks and police dogs stirred the conscience of a nation by wearing signs that said simply: "I am a man."

Later, Cesar Chavez's United Farmworkers Union, facing a television debate with a slick corporate spokesperson, offered up a poor woman who picked grapes to feed her family as their representative--and she wiped the floor with the growers' shill.

Truth, simple truth, can still win the field.

A party of change should not also be a party to corruption.

Government accountability starts with personal responsibiity.

Today, the Clinton machine is eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.

If you are tired of the Clintons' lying, race coding and defaming and distorting the record of some of the party's best and brightest, there is a solution.

We can take back the party ... by drawing on the direct action lessons community activists taught us in the 1960s and 1970s during the heyday of the civil rights movement.

All it will take is a zerox machine, a tape recorder, or a video set-up.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of Nation magazine Katha Pollitt's article on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt). Politely distribute it as a leaflet.

Take too, one of the original Washington Post stories on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm). Use this one as a leaflet as well; please be polite.

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ... And make sure you can play it loudly. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

Just for giggles, also take with you a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to" by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens'--and make a lot of copies of the chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.)

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Share these with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.

Ask them if they want the divisiveness, examples of disrepect for women, and union busting friendships (Wal-Mart, Marc Rich, you know the drill), that would surely come with another Clinton presidency.

Ask them if the country can afford such a spectacle as the economy tanks and young men and women are fighting and dying for our freedom many miles from our shores.

Once a lone voice from the back of the U.S. Senate chamber, that of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called out to remind a body that was about to rubber stamp Clarence Thomas' elevation to the Supreme Court about their responsibilities.

Anita Hill came forward and the rest was history. Unfortunately, that time it was too late to make a difference.

It was Moynihan who once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Take ... the ... party ... back!!!

---
Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General later called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior Janet Reno aides in a major national security and corruption scandal.

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 25, 2008 11:16 PM

BREAKING NEWS:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com
/washington/2008/01/tony.html?cid=986555
66#comments

Rezko co-defendant donated to Clinton supporter Rendell
Tony Rezko ... popped up prominently into the national political discussion only this week when during a heated exchange in a South Carolina Democratic debate Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of having been lawyer for the "slum landlord" Rezko. ...

But big as the country is, its politics is also a small world. So when former Philadelphia mayor and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell endorsed Clinton earlier this week, some folks wondered if Rezko had helped Rendell. Sure enough, the New York Times found that when Rendell was also head of the Democratic National Committee in 2000, Rezko delivered $15,000 to the national party.

Although there is no known direct Rezko donation to Rendell, a review of the governor''s campaign finance reports by The Times'' intrepid campaign finance expert Dan Morain does reveal a definite connection. Back in September of 2005 Rendell took $1,000 from Ali D. Ata of Lemont, Ill.

Now who, you might ask, is Ali D. Ata? He turns out to be a Rezko co-defendant in one of the federal indictments pending in Chicago. The government alleges that in February 2004, Ata, then executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, signed a letter that helped Rezko fraudulently obtain a multi-million dollar loan. ...

--Andrew Malcolm

Posted by MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | January 25, 2008 11:55 PM

I have voted for a democrat in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote (1984). However, if Hillary wins the nomination with sleazy tactics, then I will vote republican for the first time.

I know some people vow not to vote in the general election if deception prevails in the Democratic primaries. That seems too passive. I want my vote to count. If I can't vote for a democrat that I can trust, then I'd rather endure four more years of a republican administration. That may seem like a harsh decision, but in the long term we will have a better chance to elect a democratic president that we can believe in. Imagine how hard it will be to defeat an incumbant Hillary Clinton in 2012 if she wins in 2008. Imagine how disgusted the American people will be with the democratic party by 2016 after eight more years of the Clintons in the White House. If we don't elect a democrat with integrity now, then we may have to wait until 2020. With the republican protest vote strategy, we might have another chance for transformative change in 2012.

We need Obama, but if Hillary wins after cleaning up her campaign then she will have my support in November. If Hillary and Bill continue their dirty politics, then I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Posted by Morlin | January 26, 2008 12:11 AM

Ted (and others who see this as something admirable in the Clintons), let's break down what happened, in order:

1) Florida and Michigan set their primaries early after being warned by the Democratic party that they will face a severe penalty for doing so, since it would disrupt the party's plan for four representative states to shape the race before Super Tuesday. They were then stripped of their delegates.

2) All candidates INCLUDING CLINTON agree not to participate in the primaries of those states. All candidates EXCEPT CLINTON take their names off the ballots in those states.

3) Michigan primary happens with only Hillary's name on the ballot. Voters are told by the party & by the media that there is no point in voting, but some bother to anyway. Unsurprisingly, the only candidate on the ballot beats out "Uncommitted," but not by much.

4) Suddenly the Clinton campaign wants to reverse the very terms they agreed to, because it would give them an unfair advantage. [And lest anyone quip that life isn't fair , I'm equating fairness with the ability of voters to choose their candidate]

In short, this is a sneaky attempt at voter suppression which will most likely not succeed. If the Clintons were so interested in Michigan and Florida being represented, then they should have spoken up when it mattered. Now it only makes them look like vote suppressors.

So when you tell those of us who are outraged to "grow up" and that this is all about winning no matter what, then what we hear is that you don't actually care for Democracy at all, merely the acquisition of power.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 12:32 AM

Re-do is the only fair way. Just like grade school kickball, re-do.

If nominee has not been decided by June 3rd (last day of currently scheduled primaries) and Michigan and Florida still want to be re-enfranchised, then they must each schedule primary elections within x number of days (well before August convention), giving all remaining candidates ample time to campaign.

States screwed up, so they have to nullify early elections and pay for the re-do election, if they want it. DNC agrees to honor results and seat delegates determined at re-do elections.

Posted by converse | January 26, 2008 12:46 AM

I love you Martin Edwin Andersen -

I'm staying home if Mr. & Mrs. Clinton want to represent me as a democrat and a woman.

Obama 08

When was integrity too much to ask for in leader?

Journalism Major, University of Houston!! :-)

May 2008!!!

Posted by newvoter 2008 | January 26, 2008 1:16 AM

correction:

"when was integrity too much to ask for in

'A' leader?"

its late; but worth repeating! :-)

GO OBAMICANS

Posted by newvoter08 | January 26, 2008 1:24 AM

I'm an Independent and I have been following the democratic race in particular very closely. (And if it matters, I'm originally from Michigan and still care about that state.)

As a few have said, but to reiterate:

Florida and Michigan (probably to get more attention) moved up the date of their primaries.

The Republicans voiced protests, but ultimately gave into having theirs early. The Dems voted to unilaterally boycott those primaries in protest.

Clinton disregarded this and effectively crossed the strike line, putting her name on the ballots. Obama and Edwards showed solidarity with the party and did put their names on the ballots.

You know, I'm all for having a woman as a President; Gender should never be an issue in such things. But voting someone into office, who is divisive, mean, and manipulative - simply to look 'liberated'...

....well, this country and this office is far too important to do that.

Posted by wolf | January 26, 2008 2:05 AM

Man... All I have to say is this is all nuts. Really come on! I have been following this race for over a year now and the news of the FL and MI voters being stripped of their votes disapointed me. I don't understand why it is such a big deal to put IO and NH first. Regardless, it was very clear to all the canidates early on that MI and FL had been stripped of deligates. Somehow Clinton still managed to stay on the ballets, probably because she new the game and new she could use it later. This is speculation only. Edwards and Obama stayed unified with the party. Now, suddenly clinton is calling to seat the deligates. Come on! This is just like the deal in NV with the union. They all knew the rules well in advanced but as soon as things didn't go Senator Clinton's way she called foul. The sad thing is, for anyone who does not really follow the news daily they would easily misunderstand what is happening. Clinton is playing on this, she knows that most people are not that involved to understand. It is very sad indeed. I use to have a lot of respect for the clintons. I don't know anymore. I will probably still vote for her after she sneaks off with the primary but I won't have a smile on my face when I do.

Posted by Wes Shell | January 26, 2008 3:44 AM

I used to love the clinton's. When I learned about Obama, it was clear to me that he was better for the country. Now seeing what that Clinton's are doing I will certainly vote Republican if they win the nomination.

Posted by wes | January 26, 2008 4:52 AM

Obama Supporters

Everyone feels passionate about their candidate. However, some of these posts are sounding more like cyberbullying on MySpace.

Martin Andersen's reference about Rendell and Rezko maybe accurate, but Obama is also tied to Rezko. According to the LA Times article (1/23/08), Rezko has been a long time patron of Obama. Since 1995 Rezko and his business associates have donated $200,000+ to Obama's political campaigns. Integrity and hypocrisy are issues with both candidates.

Supposedly, Obama represents change and hope. Yet, his supporters fail to practice that optimism. Instead, we have a daily litany of cheap shots against the Clintons. This makes Obama look weak.

If he can't handle the political attacks by the Clintons, how can we entrust our lives to him when he's confronted with a pandemic or another 9/11? This campaign will seem like a cakewalk.

Obama will probably win the South Carolina primary. But, I hope it doesn't turn into a hate fest. Enjoy your win and move on graciously to the next primary.

Posted by EWard | January 26, 2008 5:30 AM

Someone made a comment about Obama supporters being "cult followers". The reason that notion is gaining some traction is this attitude about "if I don't get my nominee, I'm going to take my marbles and go home." Seems to me, most (not all) Hillary supporters, like myself, are Democrat first and Hillary second. Like myself, they say they'll support Hillary first but then vote for whoever wins the nomination.

I find it stunning that so many would subject this country to another 4 or 8 years of Republican rules because they're going to be in a snit if their guy doesn't win.

Those of you who think we'd be better off with a Repub, while we "cleanse" the party in order to get someone pure enough to suit you - just think about the Supreme Court, if nothing else. If an R gets to vote 1 or 2 more justices, that won't be over in 4 or 8 years!

Posted by vdeputy | January 26, 2008 7:47 AM

Vdeputy,

The Obama supporters value integrity and honesty, and this is something the Clintons lack.

If Hillary supporters are voting for her only because of policies, well Obama has pretty much the same policies, so why don't you support him instead, if you so badly want to win the GE?

And if you are going to give the 'experience' argument, tell me three important legislative bills that Hillary passed, that have her name on them? No vague stuff about how she was 'co-president' with Bill and 'helped' get SCHIP passed. The real stuff, like the Lugar-Obama bill.

Posted by Amazed | January 26, 2008 8:00 AM

I am pissed off that Obama does not join Clinton in asking to have our delegates restored. The voters had nothing to do with moving the primary yet we are the ones being stipped of our right to help choose the nominee. Foe this reason I have decided to vote for Clinton. Even if it doesn't count!

Posted by John | January 26, 2008 8:12 AM

The only candidate who is breaking the pledge is Obama. He's been advertising in FL for over a week.

Posted by JoeCHI | January 26, 2008 8:16 AM

John,

Clinton is not fighting for your rights, she is just trying to change the rules to her advantage, and you just happen to be someone who might benefit.

If she is elecetd, she will again do what benefits her, and to hell with your well-being...so if you want to have a knee-jerk reaction, go ahead.

Posted by Amazed | January 26, 2008 8:21 AM

Why is everyone making a big fuss about Obama and Rezko? The Clintons have more skeletons in their closets that if I was Hillary, I would have avoided going that route.

Rezko's money is nothing compared to Norman Hsu's and yet Hillary has the balls to call Obama out and Norman isn't the only person on Hillary's tainted list. Good lord..

Posted by ThomasL | January 26, 2008 8:37 AM

JoeCHI,

Correction - Obama has been advertising nationally, which includes Florida. The cable companies didn't have a "every-state-but-Florida" package.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 8:52 AM

Amazing-for a so-called Christian based Country how unforgiving a nation we are. Get a grip folks. Bill is not running for President---Hillary is. She is a skilled and qualified Democrat that even the totally biased Pundits and media even admit that she unites both the Republicans and Democrats to achieve legislative goals. To place a neophyte in the White House at this juncture in history is a very bad idea, Who do you people think will e guiding him---the good ol' boys of course' The only real change is a woman President and a former President's availability to be an Ambassador in foreign relations. start using your heads, nobody gives a crap about President Clinton's past sins or hers. As she said she has been fully vetted over the years as has Bill. As far as campaigning for his wife that is great just as the others. The difference is that they do not have his experiences and backgrounds and therefore are whining at the advantage. Why would anybody not utilize the resources available to them to win a competition. If this Obama fraud cannot cope with two seasoned politicians how would he absorb conflict from a ton of them domestically and globally---think about it he is demonstrating a racially charged and whiney campaign. He is weak and the USA dances around him and definitely uplifts his campaign and smears Clintons. As far as Rezko--get a grip people-Obama is as dirty as they come--and this will come to light in February. So, like the one blogger said--"Grow up"-- They both are politicians and it is bigger than any one candidate. Get a grip==Y'all have bought to much into the media to form your perceptions.This Country is in dire straits and some self denying Muslim background--Chicago based corruption --poliitician is not the answer. Geez--this guy puts himself out as black which is another lie--he is a biracial. Start dissecting Obama in an objective way instead of an emotionalism way and quit being persuaded by the totally biased CNN- etc, and you might just be a fair minded voter as opposed to a 'fairy tale' voter. LOL.

Posted by kathryn | January 26, 2008 9:17 AM

Obama is probably the most honest person running in this campaign - that is why the smears against him are so thin and lacking in substance.

Want some substance about how corrupt the Clintons are? Then try this on for size:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg too. The Clintons are already showing a lot of liberals just how dishonest they are. There is so much fodder that the Republicans will have against them that any lingering doubt will be shredded. I hope for the sake of the Democrats that they don't find this out too late by putting up the wrong candidate and losing the chance to have a democratic president.

Choosing Obama is not just using your heart, it's using your head as well - wake up people!

Posted by Jay | January 26, 2008 9:28 AM

PS. And while these Clinton hucksters are trying to raise doubts in your mind and tell you you are emotional and not objective - remember this:

Obama is drawing the more highly educated vote - trained to weigh facts and think about things critically. Hillary is drawing the less educated people, with lies, smears, double-talk and appealing to the basest stereotypes.

Now if you can't trust the judgment of the majority of the intellectual capital in your country - then god help you all.

Posted by Jay | January 26, 2008 9:34 AM

Jay--'the judgment of the majority of the intellectual capital in your country' POINT IN CASE--corruption, thieves and not uniters. lol

Posted by kathryn | January 26, 2008 9:44 AM

May I make a small suggestion to those who truly, truly abhor Senator Clinton:

If you understand this post, and if your religion doesn't forbid it, kill yourself. On your best day, all you're doing is using up oxygen. On your worst day, you pollute the planet worse than all the oil companies combined.

Posted by Camorrista | January 26, 2008 9:51 AM

Kathryn,

Hillary is definitely a uniter. She unites Republicans. At the moment the GOP is fractured and trying to figure out where they stand, but the one thing that every one of them agrees on is that they can't stand Hillary. Fair or not, that's the truth.

From the National Review:

I went to Barack Obama’s rally [in Columbia, South Carolina] on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.” He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat. […]

Watching Obama perform at the convention center Sunday night, it’s easy to understand why Bill Clinton is walking around with a look of red-faced frustration these days. Obama represents a mortal threat to his wife’s candidacy, and, given the identity politics that prevail in the Democratic Party, it will be hard to cut his legs out from under him without appearing racist. But there’s no doubt that some Republicans are hoping the Clintons will succeed. Running against the man on stage at the convention center would be a hard, hard campaign, requiring a very big boat.

The article is entitled, Why Republicans Fear Obama.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 9:55 AM

Two days ago, the Washington Post noted that the user blogs are pro-Obama overwhelmingly, and Hillary campaign has asked its workers to post messages on blogs countering the ordina