Clinton. Obama Spar Over Florida Delegates

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 ordinary folks' views against her. The repeated pro-Clinton posts have dramatically increased in many blogs immediately after Wash Post pointed out that Hillary is losing the blogosphere. That explains the kathryn, anna shane, and other postings.

Posted by truthteller | January 26, 2008 10:47 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 ordinary folks' views against her. The repeated pro-Clinton posts have dramatically increased in many blogs immediately after Wash Post pointed out that Hillary is losing the blogosphere. That explains the kathryn, anna shane, and other positings.

Posted by truthteller | January 26, 2008 10:47 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."

Go fuck yourself you demented freak.

Posted by mad6798j | January 26, 2008 10:56 AM

So now pro Hillary posts are all blamed on her campaign? Well I have news for you. Here is one HRC supporter unconnected with the campaign who says that the outrage over this issue is positively absurd and babyish. Doesnt anyone know how to play this game? She has clearly and without reservation been playing MI and FL this way, that is, stay on the ballot, get the votes, and seek to sit the delegates at the convention. I believe this is fully allowed under the party rules (the effort to seat the delegates at the convention) and only a fool, or someone who doesnt know how to play this game, would not try to take advantage of that. Kudos to her for being a little smarter than the others. At least someone in this race has an idea of how to play this game. And if you are outgamed here, adhering to stupid party rules instead of making sure people in MI and FL dont feel excluded and therefore reluctant to support a Dem candidate, I am underwhelmed in confidence that you know how to game the system in Washington and get things done.

Final word: the curse words, slurs and personal insults here by Obama supporters are truly revealing.

Posted by Jammer | January 26, 2008 11:41 AM

Jammer,

Understanding how to play the game is important, agreed. And the case of Florida delegates is a tough one for Obama.

But there are limits to what is acceptable. I think the clip below, shows that Clintons stepped beyond the line. Along with playing the game, a leader needs to have some integrity, no...?

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

If only 'playing the game' is of value, then lets get Cheney to run the country.

Posted by Amazed | January 26, 2008 12:01 PM

"I believe this is fully allowed under the party rules (the effort to seat the delegates at the convention) and only a fool, or someone who doesnt know how to play this game, would not try to take advantage of that. "

You are mistaken. It is not allowed under the current rules. The Clintons are attempting to change the rules to suit them.

To extend your game metaphor, it's like playing chess with someone who suddenly decides that they get to reuse the pieces they've lost, and then expects their opponent to honor such a ridiculous notion.

However, this is much more serious than a game. Ultimately, it's vote suppression on the part of the Clintons, as I explained earlier.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 12:17 PM

Oh and Jammer, perhaps you missed the Clinton supporter who told Obama supporters to commit suicide. Did you find that "truly revealing" as well? I think that trumps the occasional curse word.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 12:20 PM

Perhaps if Obama were REALLY confident about his appeal to ALL AMERICANS he wouldn't be so AFRAID of letting them ALL join in! This is true vote suppression and he knows it!

Really if you want the truth the only way you get it is to watch C-Span instead of read someone elses rendition or hear someone elses spin on what is being said or done! Even the long term black leaders are sickened by OBAMA! You don't leap frog your way to the White House it takes years of EXPERIENCE. This guy doesn't have what it takes! And he keeps proving it over and over again the more he and his supports whine!

THEY are voting by race and THEY are voting as if he is a rock star! Where is OPRAH now? Turns our her loyal fan club vanished! She heard the stampede away from her and she knew she had made a HUGE mistake putting this guy out there who simply doesn't have what it takes to lead a paperclip around a desk with a magnet!

Posted by UWBizKid | January 26, 2008 12:38 PM

Thanks UWBizKid! We're all just WOWED by your spectacular INSIGHT!

But seriously, the only way to have the voters of those states truly counted would be to redo the primary, but this time tell them that the votes are actually worth something and put all of the candidates back on the ballot. Anything else is valuing trickery over democracy.

Posted by Doug | January 26, 2008 12:45 PM

The main thrust of Clinton supporters here is a tacit agreement that, yes, the Clintons will do anything to win -- but that that's a good thing. She'll do whatever it takes, and the rest of us should "grow up" and "stop whining." What's deeply sad is that we're at one of those very rare potential turning points in history where we have the chance to renew our identity as Americans in a profound way. Winning at all costs throws this opportunity down the drain. I used to think if Hillary loses it'll be bittersweet, because it's not really all her fault that she's so divisive. But now I am furious with her. It is her fault. It takes such supreme arrogance to be so convinced that she should be president that she's willing to completely trash this moment of possibility for a new kind of future. I can't believe any of her supporters here actually believe this latest delegate stunt of hers is anything but her cynically changing the rules in the middle of the game. It's just that some of you actually appreciate her for playing this kind of dirty pool. Very sad.

Posted by Pete | January 26, 2008 1:19 PM

The Clinton's are the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans that is. They are going to split off the African American vote. If I were an African American and Hillary wins I'd just vote for the party of Lincoln. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Ghetto a Democrat, ghetto a Republican. Either way the Ghetto is always the same.

Posted by Mael | January 26, 2008 2:12 PM

"Really if you want the truth the only way you get it is to watch C-Span."

Really, hasn't anyone noticed that C-Span2 is constantly running airing Clinton events? Usually, I watch C-Span for the unspun political dialog, but now it seems that HRC has used her influence to make sure only her voice is heard in the Democratic Primary.

Every underhanded tactic the Clintons bring to bear on Obama is another vote for him in November. For whatever good the Clintons did back in the nineties, they now serve as a common enemy. It is increadably liberating for yellow dogs like myself to turn our backs on the Clintons and stop appologising for them.

Posted by UrbanHillbilly | January 26, 2008 2:41 PM

Unfortunately Obama won't have the luxury of complaining when it comes to Republicans if he were the nominee! Get used to it! They only hope he is nominated since it would be a slam dunk win for them!

People are acutely aware of the legacy of President Clinton. I mean mature people. They know he left a balanced budget, money in the bank (we call that a surplus rather than the multi-trillion dollar deficit). As for experience Obama pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton. She has worked for years in the defense of the poor, especially children, health care, women, equal rights, and a multitude of other causes.

No one who is right thinking is in agreement with the Obama faction which consists of predominantly young people who did not go through the era of "Reagan tricle down economics" the effects of raiding the Social Security Fund and moving it into the General Fund to make it look like there was less of a deficit. Until you can speak intelligently about these issues then you should probably start educating yourself.

As indicated you will not get the truth of what President Clinton is saying by sound bites from CNN or MSNBC or FOX! You can't get it from these typs of articles. You can however hear a full speech on C-Span and when you do you don't hear that rhetoric that everyone says they are saying.

Instead you hear about issues! When you listen to Obama you hear nothing about his "plan" you hear nothing frankly just a bunch of hype! Thats all fine and good, but you do actually have to be able to lead. Perhaps in 8 years he might have that ability, but he isn't proving that out right now. Neither he nor Oprah can buy an election and he daily continues to demonstrate that he is not worthy of this office. He can't weather a small storm let alone the hurricane that will hit him if the Republicans come at him!

Posted by UWBizKid | January 26, 2008 2:41 PM

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

Pretty much sums up the Clinton's mode of operation for over 30 years.

Posted by VaBlue | January 26, 2008 2:46 PM

kathryn,
The whiner is HRC, who cried and wept her way to a slim win in NH. Why the convenient amnesia?
It's funny how the Clintonites resemble their favorite candidate in character!

Posted by joseph pierre | January 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Joseph and Kathryn, excellent posts.

Well spotted regarding the Obamabots!! Sadly their vile attacks are understandable. When people can’t debate and win with actual facts then they revert to this, so typical. All mouth and no substance, much like the Candidate sadly. Obama is an empty suit and SUCH a whiner.... full stop. Perhaps in some years he might be qualified for another run, but not now, not with the state of the world today.

I viewed the you tube vid the Obamabots are on about, and am not shocked at all, yet another Chicago person supporting someone from their own state just like Oprah *grin* Talk about corrupt politicians? Chicago is full of them. Go to the Sun Times Chicago website search the archives on Obama, look in November and before and see all the connections with Rezko et al. All of which came out before Obama decided to run mind you…Rezko, by the way, helped Obama and Michelle work a very sweet deal on their expensive home, along with some land next door so no one would build next to them. And whilst Obama gave back the 60k he got directly from Rezko, he did not give back the 200k he got off Rezko friends and employees *smile* Also I noted that Daley supports Obama, yet another "great" and honest Chicago politician..........

Fact of the matter is that the Clintons are and have been the most investigated politicians, and after the many MILLIONS of our tax dollars Ken Starr and the Reich wing nutters spent on their “witch hunt” he came up with ZIPPO..........!!! Oh and whilst Clinton was in office the economy was grand and the budget was balanced. Remember the golden years. It’s the economy stupid and still is!!!!

I am Irish but was born in the USA and lived there for some 30 years before moving to the North of Ireland. I have family in both countries. I have dual citizenship and I always vote in US elections as I am registered in Florida. I am angry about what is taking place with the delegates. I hope Hillary can work some magic as The Evil Shrubs brother and their co-horts didn't count my postal vote last time round and so when Hillary wins I'd like Florida to count for her! Friends and family here in Ireland have been politically involved for many years working for Irish equality in the North and the Irish Peace Process. We would not be where we are today, but for Bill Clintons involvement and commitment to us. Bill Clinton has come here many times and I have had the pleasure of meeting him three times. The Clintons have been wonderful friends to the Irish people and have shown 100% support for those of us living in the North as we strive for equality. If any US politician understands the poor, the neglected, the disadvantaged, those struggling for equality and those who actually have been on the receiving end of racism, it’s the Clintons!! The Obama supporter who called the Clintons “racist” is as thick as two short planks!!! The Clintons have done so much for Black people and Irish people for MANY YEARS both before his being president and after... And, Since Bill left office he has done an Incredible amount of work in and for Africa and its people, more than Obama has done I can assure you of that. Lets not forget in Obamas last debate he stated himself that he moved to Chicago to help the poor people, which he states he did for 3 ½ years. Even if that is true, compare his 3 ½ years to the 30+ years the Clintons have worked helping the poor!! Calling the Clintons racists just shows how desperate some of these people actually are.

HILLARY 08

IRISH WOMEN FOR HILLARY

Posted by IRISH WOMEN FOR HILLARY | January 26, 2008 4:07 PM

For the last four years all I heard about was how awful the Republicans and President Bush were. Guess what folks, they are laughing at us. We are setting the tone for another Republican President by destroying the credibility of our candidates. They won't even have to mount much of a campaign against our nominee.

I know this is heresy, but maybe I want to elect a candidate that can play hardball politics. Is it fair? I'll let all of you be the judge of that.

If Obama is elected President, he is going to govern and make decisions that you hate. How about the judgment of bombing the hell out of a country or starting a war? The Republicans will have a field day capitalizing on our destructive ways.

Posted by EWard | January 26, 2008 4:11 PM

EWard -- That's the problem with settling for an "experienced" politician. You get someone who filters all their decisions through politics. So, no, I do NOT trust the Clintons to handle foreign crises, because they are not operating from a solid moral footing, or from a visionary sense of what is possible, or from organic diplomatic sensibilities. Obama, by the way, never talked about "bombing the hell" out of Pakistan. He was responding to a very specific question about a particular scenario in which we had actionable intelligence and Pakistan would not cooperate. Hillary has said similar things in the past, but, of course, true to form, because she has no grounding outside of her political sensibilities, she did everything she could to twist Obama's sensible answer against him. Note that just about every time Obama is criticized for saying something "naive, inexperienced, and politically inept," in time his comments are shown to be examples of his visionary leadership.

Posted by Pete | January 26, 2008 4:31 PM

Many many comments ago, someone calling himself 'Paul' said: "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?" Paul, listen. Your comment is utterly racist. If you done it on purpose: shame on you. If you dont understand why your comment is racist: I pity you.

Posted by FrankNL | January 26, 2008 5:38 PM

Many many comments ago, someone calling himself 'Paul' said: "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?" Paul, listen. Your comment is utterly racist. If you done it on purpose: shame on you. If you dont understand why your comment is racist: I pity you.

Posted by FrankNL | January 26, 2008 5:38 PM

Hillary is badly outmaneuvering this greenhorn amateur. She's running the smarter, tougher campaign, and the process liberals (and misogynists) can't stand it. I LOVE it! GO Hillary!! And do the right thing and kindly consider Barrack for your veep slot.

Posted by Muskie | January 26, 2008 6:07 PM

Pete

When I made the remark about bombing a country, I was not referencing any specific Obama comment. This is my point. As a President, Obama might have to make decisions that are morally repugnant to his followers. Every voter comes to the table with a different viewpoint about values. Despite her flaws, Hillary is qualified to be President.

Posted by EWard | January 26, 2008 6:45 PM

I don't disagree that Hillary is "qualified." I think the electorate has gotten into a rut when it comes to imagining what qualified means. As much as you may find this hard to believe -- and I've been following both the Clintons and Obama quite closely for years -- I truly believe Obama is profoundly more qualified to be the president we need right now. For one thing (and this addresses your last point) he has a deep history of communicating in a way that, if/when he makes "repugnant" decisions, he is much more likely to avoid the kind of hatred and rancor that Clinton can't seem to avoid. Plus, Hillary has a history of shutting out people with varying viewpoints when in a position of leadership, as opposed to Obama's innate predilection for inviting healthy debate at the beginning of the process.

Posted by Pete | January 26, 2008 6:57 PM

Pete

Congratulations on Obama's awesome win!

For many voters the Clintons will always be toxic material. There is no getting around that. However, that's why I admire them so much, they can take the hits and persevere. I can't think of anyone in recent memory that could handle this type of pressure and still be a viable candidate.

You stated that Obama is more qualified to be President. For those of us that are not his admirers, we see him differently. Until we can filter out the hope worship, the people on the outside can't hear his message. I'm looking forward to the next debate. I plan to turn off the set, the minute it ends to think about the candidates.

Posted by EWard | January 26, 2008 11:03 PM

Wow, I've never been here on the Atlantic blog before, very vicicous! Anyway all I have to say is I am white, female 59, a lawyer, worked before protections were in place for women in the workplace, oldest of 9 children, worked my way up on my own dime, to executive and general counsel for a 25 year career. My son is in Iraq in the Army, of course he loves Obama as do his fellow soldiers. I believe Hillary will continue the war machine on and on because it benefits the private no bid behemoth corporations that have ripped away not only the $2billion surplus we had in 2000 but spent through another $2billion to put us into this recession. Where did that money go - of course you know - the wealthiest of all. My son bleeds for their gold. That simple. I have a right to speak up for America and the youth of our country, I'm tired of OLD WHITE MEN making all the decisions but I do not want any woman becoming President because of her HUSBAND. I worked hard, very hard, but my husband never ever pushed me up and along, I would not have allowed it. Anyway the more serious questions for all of you on this blog is my intense curiousity about the 1990s which included many events a few listed below:

I will never ever forget

Mena Airport
Iran Contra
Lassiter
Missing WitnessGate
Filegate
Chinagate
Lewinskygate
Fostergate (thanks Hill for that one)
$2Billion missing from Housing
Sexgate
Drugs, especially cocaine

Do any of the Hillary supporters here have any reply to this very serious criminal matters? Do you research or remember? I truly would like to know. Do you believe these events never took place? Or do you believe that Hillary wasn't involved? Help me understand.

No one has moved me like John Kennedy until I discovered Obama. Now I'm from California so don't get too excited I won't speak on Florida or Michigan's situation but I do believe it is entrenched DNC insiders who made it so you can't count and now Hillary will try to make it count to win.

Posted by Kathleen | January 26, 2008 11:46 PM

Kathryn, what planet do you live on? To make the statement that Barack Obama is not Black because he is bi-racial is ludicrous. This is America! He is Black. And this is not a topic he should have to prove himself on. And pardon me for quoting you but yours was a "surface" comment, made by a "very small person".

Posted by Robin | January 27, 2008 5:52 AM

I have to laugh because people are talking about President Clinton and his Administration and not Hillary Clinton who was the one who had to suffer through being the target of many attacks by Republicans. I might add the FIRST First Lady who has been attacked for being SMART, INTELLIGENT AND ACTIVE. Seems SEXISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE USA.

The BLACK MAN HAD RIGHTS TO VOTE BEFORE ANY WOMAN!! All women continue to be burdened and blugened in the press and media and Obama because of his BLACKNESS IS GIVEN A FREE RIDE!! This is nonsense!!

Like I have said he can't withstand any attack machine on the Republican side and they are just waiting for him to run! They've attacked the Clintons since the early 1990's and the Clintons have withstood it. Obama can't handle one second. So he may think this onesided election where he got a mercy vote from a few sympathetic whites and a large black population as a bell weather as indicative he is 1000% wrong. He just isn't living in the rest of the country!

No one is about to vote in a MAN who lacks experience and keeps attacking a HIGHLY QUALIFIED WOMAN AND THE BEST PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD IN YEARS!THAT IS JUST PLAIN STUPID POLITICS!!

There will be NO HEALING OR COMING TOGETHER AND ONLY IDIOTS WILL THINK THAT 10% OF THE POPULATION CAN ELECT A PRESIDENT! That's no prejudice that is just plain common sense you do not vote based on racial pride you vote based on the best qualified and this guy just doesn't have what it takes! SC is proof he can't win outside his racial ties!

Posted by UWBizKid | January 27, 2008 12:16 PM

Just watch as the Clinton sleaze machine goes into overdrive attempting to change the rules at the last minute so that Hillary can win. While there are lots of good reasons to discuss the status of Florida’s and Michigan's delegates at the convention, that discussion should be taking place after the primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s reasons for bringing it up now are sickeningly obvious. As she has surely calculated, any on the eve of the Florida primary who oppose her would appear to be opposing Florida’s right to participate in the nomination process. A short-term win for Clinton, perhaps, but one that in the long term may be of little benefit to a campaign that is looking dirtier by the day.

Posted by Mark C. Eades | January 27, 2008 2:26 PM

Nice thoughts, EWard, and as you contemplate after the next debate, maybe keep in mind that mastering the network debate format may not be the most important skill a president needs. But I appreciate your open tone, which I admit is more open than mine to Hillary. Already we've seen her shift gears, tactics, message, and personalities many times in the last couple of months, which contributes not only to the win-at-all-cost impression she puts out, but also to the sense that she has no grounding except in politics. If she had just remained true to herself (whatever that is) I would have preferred Obama, but I would have been willing to embrace her in the end. Now she genuinely scares me. It's very hard for me to imagine her turning that around. What would do it? More tears? More calls for change and hope? (You notice she usurps Obama at every chance -- she's even been adding "Christian" to her speeches.) Look at what she's now trying to pull regarding Michigan and Florida. Look at Bill's race-baiting, comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. This (and all the rest, the Reagan ads, etc) are much more than demonstrating the qualities you admire: perseverance and bouncing back. It's such arrogance to feel so sure they should be president that they are willing to do anything no matter how destructive. As for Obama's qualifications, I won't get into his political experience, because I think he meets the bar. Where he excels is leadership. Whereas Clinton prides herself on having mastered the current political system, Obama has the vision, temperament, and ability to actually change it. I do think this is about more than looking at these two personalities in a vacuum. It has to do with the times we are in, our history, etc. Some of it is not Hillary's fault, but she needs to except it without throwing hand grenades. The best case scenario after Obama's win last night would be if Hillary pulls back (and pulls Bill back) and decides to run a straight campaign. Then let the people make an honest choice between "experience" and "change" (or vision). I'd be happy with that. But so far it looks like she's moving in the opposite direction, opting for more dirty pool. I'm happy Obama is showing he can strike a balance between fighting back while remaining dignified and uplifting. On the bright side, if he wins the nomination he'll be better prepared for the general thanks to the Clintons. I do not agree the GOP attack machine would be worse. No one is better than the Clintons.

Posted by Pete | January 27, 2008 4:19 PM

As a 22 year-old African-American I cannot wait until my Caucasian & Latino friends get to vote on Feb. 5th. It’s no secret that people like to support people who look like them but this is ridiculous. This man has no experience--would you let a 3rd-year med student do open-heart surgery on you…NO. This means political war and I have distanced myself from some of my family who blindly support Obama because he is black. My city (Memphis) does the same thing—I guess some people love mayors that do nothing as a city declines, but my Mom & Dad got a clue and moved to the county, outside of city limits. I am currently in grad school and I want all you Obama supporters to email me at bhubbar@yahoo.com after Feb. 5 so I can gloat.

Posted by Brandon H. | January 27, 2008 6:08 PM

Pete,
I wanted to respond to several comments in your post. It would be great if Hillary and Bill could run a straight campaign. However, judging from the events of the last 24 hours, I don't think they will.

Obama's win in South Carolina, and the endorsements of the Kennedy Clan, governors, etc. have changed the dynamics of the campaign. Reading the blogs and media reports, it feels like people are ganging up on the Clintons. Again, they can handle themselves.

Your remark about "the times we are in, our history" is interesting. Maybe, this will be the tipping point of the election, their miscalculation of Clinton fatigue and hardball politics.

The things that irritate you about the Clintons, I find appealing. You can tell a switch is turned on in President Clinton, when he's campaigning. It's fascinating. They both live for politics. I love President Clinton's line about campaigning against the Republicans, "It's like having plastic surgery in reverse."

For the last eight years, President Bush has been an agent of change. He was an unknown to this country. Although, Obama is a superstar in comparison, I'm not sure that I want to take that chance again.

Posted by EWard | January 27, 2008 8:08 PM

Believe me, I know. I voted twice for Bill and marveled at his skill (at least in the sense of "I'm glad he's on our side and I understand why he's so infuriating to the Republicans"). I never liked Hillary much, finding her patronizing and plastic, but never had much against her. Unfortunately, she "found her voice" and now is trying to sabotage someone who is leagues above her in terms of integrity and vision. I can see very superficial comparisons between Obama and Bush pre-2000, but I think we can all see O's curiosity, interest in diverse viewpoints, general humanism (and lack of absolutism) make him a radically different sort of fellow; plus, do we really want to set a precedent that once one politician abuses a sentiment (like Bush's "compassion") that sentiment is off-limits to other politicians? I don't agree one bit with all the posts I'm seeing that Obama offers no specific plans. It's just that the vision thing and his communicative abilities are highlighted because they are what makes him rise above his opponents whose plans are all pretty similar. So Obama wins in my book on both fronts: He has a better chance of passing his agenda (we're already seeing his ability to build coalitions with all kinds of politicians), and then there's the big picture thing, how we interact in the public sphere and present ourselves in the greater world. And I appreciate your dialogue, EWard.

Posted by Pete | January 27, 2008 9:14 PM

"Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."

I am a resident of Tampa Florida and am ashamed of what may very well be the most incompetent state Democratic Party in the country: the Florida Democratic Party. The present early state primary system lessens the influence of wealth, media conglomerates, and large state political machines. In small states grassroots support has a much greater impact on elections than in large states.

To be competitive in large state-wide contests requires a great deal of money. The discourse is mostly that of 30 second ads, because it is impossible to speak with as large a percentage of the population directly in the way you can in small states. Bringing large states up in the primary calendar would mean that presidential candidates would be even more dependent on large contributors than they are now. The likelihood of what Huckabee did in Iowa would be even less likely. As much as I disagree with Huckabee's positions, I am glad that outsiders can still upset big party boss favorites.

In early states local papers and media personalities can have as much if not more influence than the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or major tv network programs, . It must be really frustrating for the big media players, who are accustomed to greater influence in the national political scene, to have to endure playing a smaller role in the presidential primaries.

How unfortunate for large state political machines, used to commanding so much national attention normally, to watch small states have a chance at influencing who the next president is. How much time and attention would small state issues get, if the presidential candidates had all state primaries even closer together? As a resident of a large state, where the impact of every voter is proportionally less than in small states, I am overjoyed that the DNC has the sense to preserve that deference.

The horrible thing is that there so few understand the importance of the early small state primary system. It is a frightening thing for me to see a United States Senator actually sue the national party for having the integrity and wisdom to preserve the small state preference. I really had hoped the the Republican Party elders would have shown greater fortitude against this foolishness. I am amazed that the Florida Democratic Party machine is so stupid as to allow itself to aide and abet in the disenfranchisement of the voters of so important a state. That more are not outraged by what Florida Democratic Party did is at the heart of what is wrong with American politics; the mindless deference to wealth and established power.

Posted by Edwin | January 27, 2008 10:16 PM

I usually don't respond to blogs, but this is ridiculous! First, before anyone jumps down my throat--I have not decided on any candidate and am not affiliated with any party.

1) That being said, let's get a fuller picture of what happened. First, the DNC decided that it would have, as is tradition, have IA and NH start early and that it would give two other states, NV and SC the opportunity to have caucases/primaries before Super Tuesday. The idea, from what I understand, was that in the future, other states would get an opportunity to "go first". Everyone, including MI and FL, agreed to this. Then, as a way to get more attention for their primaries, MI and FL decided to break this rule. The DNC offered several compromises, but ultimately threatened these states with a loss of all of their delegates. After this threat, the states still decided to hold their primaries early.

Now I'm not saying that this was fair. In my opinion, the party system and conventions is outdated. Perhaps this will encourage all of you who ascribe to party lines to get involved early at the local and state level to change the system so that everyone gets a vote.

2) That being said, Hilary Clinton is clearly making a direct attempt to go back on her word. See the link here to see the agreement she signed with the DNC: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/31/letter_to_candidates.html

And yes, Obama has a national add that of course can not be pulled exclusively in Florida. But he did check with the DNC before running the ad, and got the ok. And I should point out that while HRC is not campaigning in FL, she does plan on being in Florida the night of the primaries, which seems a bit shady: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/clinton-to-stop-in-fla-on-primary-night/

3) As far as this being a great show that HRC can get down and dirty, hmmm. I leave that for readers to decide, but I would remind you that many of you may be upset about the Iraq War. That, in a clever "strategy" by Bush, had many Americans believe in WMDs. Certainly politically savvy, but not necessarily the best decision, as most Americans across party lines have come to agree. Sometimes a "do anything to get what you want" strategy does not always translate to what's good for the country.

4) Finally, regarding someone's comments that black men had the right to vote before any woman. Well, as an African American woman let me school you on that one. Yes, technically, you are right. However, anyone who has a basic understanding of history would agree that the law and the ability to exercise this right did not come until the civil rights movement. And as far as women's suffrage--most of the women campaigning at that time (not all, thank goodness) were campaigning for the vote of white women. To include black women (and many women spoke out against it) was seen as a liability to the movement, so black women were left out. So no, black men were not able to vote before "all" women had the chance.

Please, don't believe everything you hear. Looking around at different and primary sources of info will help you make better decisions when the precious right to vote!

Posted by sytgrl | January 28, 2008 3:57 AM

Two people followed the spirit of the agreement and one did not. The one who didn't is the win at all costs, all methods candidate. This is what people are sick of and why Clinton is the same old story. I am neither Dem or Rep but watch and vote for the country. To call someone a whiner for not living up to the sprit of an agreement is to call someone out on priciple. If you want lawyers running the place let the hair spliting begin again. It depends upon what the meaning of "is" is. Here we go again. "I did not have sex with that woman." "I did not campaign in Michigan."

Posted by Voter | January 28, 2008 12:12 PM

If there is ever a time that a Democrat should win the Presidency, this is the time. I really don't like Republicans or Democrats. I didn't like Clinton and I disliked Bush even more. But from the way these comments are flowing, I am almost sure a Republican has a really good shot at winning the Presidency next time just because the Democrats can't seem to stop bickering, and they were supposed to be the ones who were really satisfied with all the people they had running. If they don't win the Presidency this time, I think maybe they should consider dissolving the party.

Posted by marvin | January 28, 2008 9:03 PM

I keep hearing and reading about Barak Obama being the choice of people who apppreciate honor, integrity, and honesty. He has been called the most honest person in the campaign. And yet Obama's own autobiography was a work of fiction, full of half truths and outright lies.

Anyone who thinks that Barak Obama is an honest person who has any personal integrity or respect for honor has either deliberately decided to ignore the truth or they are delusional. Facts do not lie; Obama has and does.

Posted by Sidizen Kane | January 29, 2008 12:28 AM

Pete

I wanted to make several brief points. First, the Washington Post ran an article today about Obama. It was both complimentary and troubling. Obama's stage prescence is overwhelming and inspiring for the reporters covering him. They have never covered a candidate that draws such huge crowds and has the eloquence of MLK. On the other hand, Obama is hands off with the campaign reporters. He doesn't take many spontaneous questions from the media. One reason is that he doesn't need them to get his message out. However, it makes me suspicious that he is unavailable to answer the tough questions.

Finally, what is Obama's position on Iraq and how does he intend to handle it? Lastly, how does his position differ from Hillary?

Sytgrl

The Democratic Party gave the okay for candidates to conduct fundraisers in Florida. Hillary attended three such events in Florida today. Also, she is thanking her supporters, after the polls close in Florida.

Brandon

Your post was refreshing!

Posted by EWard | January 29, 2008 12:46 AM

Sidizen, come on now. Don't sound so butthurt. The republicans simply cannot win this election. In accordance the only two people worth voting for are Barrack and Edwards...I would very much like to see a multiracial man in the office because it will end a few dozen generations of "keeping the black man down" and it will also inspire hope to those who live in meager means to realize that just because you come from a certain ethnicity or background does not mean you cannot achieve. It would be a beautiful thing, I believe. Edwards is also a fine individual, but this time it's gotta go to Obama.

Posted by SDK | January 29, 2008 12:55 AM

I think that anyone who thinks Senator Obama will offer this nation any change is kidding them selves.
He speaks of status Quo but is backed by it. Kerry and Kennedy's.

He speaks of actions, yet he appeared to have snubbed, though denied.

He speaks of a united country but does not seek to have the delegats count in Michigan or Florida count or [voters]

He has done his neighbor the Clintons as badly as hes speaks of their offenses.

He has trespassed but is not charged. He behaves just as badly and is not judged with the same weight and measure.

He is eloquent trouble.. It is indeed change... much like Bush was change... becareful of what you ask for.

listen, watch, and seek truth...
Please do not vote on who make you feel warm and fuzzy but on who you think can do the job.

Posted by sos | January 29, 2008 8:27 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 10:10 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 10:27 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 11:11 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 11:15 PM

Bravo Hillary - those who think your trying to seat Florida's delegates are sore losers. Nearly 900,000 voted to send delegates to the national convention in support of Hillary. That is more people than have participated in any previous primary or caucus to date combined! They deserve to be counted -- screw Iowa and New Hampshire. Those states do not represent America. Every state should have the right to set their primary dates without concern for other states... of course a national primary would probably be best. So congratulations Hillary for the rout of Obama in the most representative election to date!

Posted by Nathaniel | January 29, 2008 11:33 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 11:37 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 29, 2008 11:44 PM

And one more note...regarding Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is not an icon of the Democratic party. He is a relic. As a legislator and advocate for the left, there is none better. However, he is not by any standard except wannabe TV talking heads a national leader. Even his own party rejected his bid for the presidency.

Memoris of John Kennedy evoke the promise that could have been had he lived. Bill Clinton's presidency was the realization of the promise. The strong economy across all socioeconomic lines was not a fluke. Competant pragmatic leadership is what Bill Clinton gave us -- not from the left but from the center where most Americans live.

Posted by Nathaniel | January 29, 2008 11:54 PM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 30, 2008 12:13 AM

EWard,

Yes, you are absolutely right. The link to the DNC letter states that candidates are allowed to continue fundraising efforts in FL, and I actually don't have a problem with her thanking her voters after the election is over. In addition, the fact that she attended fundraising events today is within the guidelines of the DNC's rules, and I'm sure the other candidates may have done the same thing if it were to their advantage.

The reason why I said that it seemed a little shady was if you decide to run a campaign under a party, then you should follow the rules outlined in spirit as well. But I guess that's not why I'm a politician!

Posted by sytgrl | January 30, 2008 1:16 AM

Kathryn, you are so right. Obama is a whiner. It is always poor me, you are picking on me.

Posted by Nicki | January 30, 2008 2:58 PM

There is something drastically wrong with the system when a committee such as the DNC can disenfranchise the voters in two important states.

Posted by Karol | January 30, 2008 3:07 PM

Hillary is nuts.

Posted by Carlo | January 30, 2008 3:10 PM

what a load of craptastic crap

obama when he thought he could win in fla pledged to seat the delegates now that he has lost
no dice

what a whinny jerk. Only his wins are importantant and the stupid sheep being led by the rightwing media are leading the Democratic party to 1972 all over again.

Nice job of making sure the Supreme Court is ruined for the rest of the century

Posted by Edna Dumpling | February 3, 2008 7:58 AM

Funny new politics of hope:

1. I voted in Florida's primary. So did another 1,737,196 democrats.

2. One candidate is arguing to DISENFRANCHISE ALL those votes in order to gain political advantage.

3. The other candidate is arguing to COUNT ALL those votes in order to gain political advantage.

4. Contrary to what is frequently stated, Obama was the only one that campaigned in Florida. Anyone who was watching TV in Florida in the week leading up to the primary saw Obama advertisments -- he was running National advertisments that he "couldn't control." Leading up to January 29th, there were several media reports of grassroots efforts to get the vote out (unaffiliated with the official campaigns). There is even a report of Obama giving an accidental press conference in Florida. (too lazy to find the links)

5. For those wanting some of the nitty-gritty of the politics that led to this mess, please take a moment to review:
http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/

6. As you might expect, many people down here feel disenfranchised. Not suprisingly, others seem to be getting over it rapidly. ;)

7. I am disappointed in Obama's, effort to take the side of DISENFRANCHISEMENT simply because it is in his political interest.

8. Please note that I am not arguing that Hillary, if faced with a loss here in Florida would be behaving differently -- one could hope she would have the integrity to do so. I doubt it. Reading the posts of many of the Obama admirers here, I am left with little doubt of their opinion of how Hillary would have chosen. `:)

9. But the fact remains that the Florida primary was an opportunity for Barack to live up to his own lofty rhetoric about a new, less divisive politics. He did not choose that path. Instead, Barack chose to follow the lead of George W. Bush in the 2000 election and fight against the principle that our votes should count. In doing so he follows Bush in DOING ANYTHING TO WIN regardless of the inequity. Precisely what he and his supporters are constantly accusing Hillary of. Not too inspiring.

10. There is still time for Senator Obama to stand up for what's right. I hope he does so. If he, or any other candidate, chooses to argue against counting this veteran's vote in the primary -- they will not receive it in the general election. What goes around, comes around. Hiding behind a flawed decision in order to gain political advantage and thereby disenfranchising the votes of 1,737,197 United States citizens is the act of a coward not a leader. If Senator Obama FIGHTS to ignore the will of the people of Florida now, what should we expect from him in the future?

Posted by swingstatevet | February 7, 2008 3:35 AM

Obama is a liar, manipulator and is the one who does not play fair. He advertised in Florida and LOST!! Too bad. Now he's crying that Hillary is unfair. The news media is doing everything it can, especially MSNBC, to help him and gloss over the fact that he offers nothing but fancy words. Where is the substance? How can this man fix our complex economic problems - which will certainly be a national security issue. What does he know about military conflict - he said he would bomb the Pakistan border region - yes, that would get us into a nuclear war with Pakistan and a wider war in the region. He is dangerously naive. He doesn't know what he is talking about half the time and Hillary, despite all the nasty personal junk stated above, is actually a nice woman, a professional person and someone who actually knows something unlike Mr. Obama who pretends to be all things to all people. He has slandered Hillary numerous times. She has helped our veterans and hs been a terrific senator in NY. One more thing, do any of you feel the same way about Queen Elizabeth of England whose husband is a famous philanderer? Is she FILTH? What rock did you people crawl out from under - what hatred-spewing garbage. This is not the way to comport oneself in a political debate. The country loses when this is allowed to take over - blind hatred.

Posted by JZ | February 10, 2008 9:39 AM

Go Irish Women for Hillary 08 - I loved your blog that reminds people of all of the good things that Bill and Hillary Clinton have done for the poor, the blacks and the disadvantaged. One other thing that deserves mention, Bill Clinton and Al Gore reduced the cost of government waste tremendously - only to have it bloated again by the Republicans. Obama says he lived as a child in Indonesia and went to a madrassa so he understands Muslim thinking. He says he lived in New York so he understands New York. He says he has family in Kenya - what has he done for the people of Kenya and what has he done for the blacks and poor in Chicago except enrich himself with money and land from Mr. Rezko and friends. He is a dirty politician who is all things to all people and I'm getting sick of him wagging that finger at everyone. I don't like how he has smeared Hillary Clinton by saying she agrees with Bush's torture policy....what trash can did he dig that out of? It is a blatant lie. That is a WAR CRIME and that is why Bush's Attorneys General won't take a stand on torture so Bush and Cheney don't get tried for war crimes. Mr. Obama has called Hillary disingenuous and dishonest at times. He has some nerve. I'm also sick of his "poor me, I'm a victim" here - he manipulated everyone to believe he was being the unfair target of racist attacks. He doesn't fool me, but God help all the poor suckers who believe what this guy is selling.

Posted by JZ | February 10, 2008 10:03 AM

Although there were no names other than Senator Clinton on the ballot, all candidate names (at the time) were on the Florida ballot. And although Sen. Obama's campaign claims to not have any position on the cable advertisements (if they were for the national audience, why were they on cable?? The nomination ads and debates have been on cable, thus the ads were for the primary election). I have relatives in Jacksonville, FL and they weren't too pleased with the state primary move up, but they were still going to vote. They were also fully aware of the dialogue/debate in SC from all parties. Now, the Obama camp wants another caucus/election; with the "momentum" shifting (with all the speeches and feel good vibes without an honest debate of the issues from both candidates, why rock the boat Obama's on--oh, I'm sure!) they are aware that the votes might change (a shame if so). The original votes are tallied (no chads!), so they should count.

As a former Edwards supporter (I appreciated his experience and plain honesty), I find that I'd rather vote for the person I do know regarding the issues and where they stand than the person who has not much to show/share with the American people when asked in a debate. Speeches are wonderful for motivation and inspiration, but will that same dialogue work in the Oval Office when facing a threatening economic downturn and threats overseas. I suppose Obama and his former Clinton advisers want the nomination to have a "reverse ticket", not as when Bush Sr. ran with young Quayle...

...this ticket would feature an elder VP for the Presidential trainee (or not since in the Super Tuesday debate [none since then Obama- why?!], he mentioned "cabinet position" as well).

Unbelieveable, and I say thee NAY to a new vote and let the original FL votes STAY and be counted.

Posted by WatchingandWaitinginTexas | February 13, 2008 1:13 AM

I agree with those who argue that the DNC must enforce its rules to avoid chaos in the future and who argue that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would not be fair to Obama who was not on the Michigan ballot and did not campaign in Florida. But I also agree that with those who argue that it would be good to find a way to let the voters in these states have their votes count for something real.

The best thing for both states would be to hold new primaries, but they're quite expensive. I made a proposal on my blog that Florida and Michigan set up websites to solicit donations from their voters to fund new primaries. Based on the number of people who voted, I estimate that the costs could be covered if all Democrats donated $5-10. Additionally, the Clinton and Obama campaigns could kick in $1,000,000 toward each state to get the ball rolling.

See http://logicalandtrue.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/a-solution-for-florida-and-michigan-delegates-conundrum/ for more details.

Posted by Roger Berlind | February 17, 2008 2:32 PM

What about enforcing the section of the DNC Charter that states that they will work to ensure that all voters have the opportunity to vote in elections? Where was the DNC when HB537 was gliding through the legislative process in Florida? Where they actively campaiging to stop this legislation? No. Read more here:
http://florida-delegates.com

Posted by Sharon | February 22, 2008 4:41 AM

What is this with Florida, again and again Florida? First W Bush "makes it" via election fraud and now HRC seems to gain unfair advantage by switching ground rules.

Posted by FrankH | February 24, 2008 9:40 AM

I was listening to POTUS 08 this afternoon and heard the DNC Minority Leader state how many people, not just Hillary Clinton, are fighting the legality of the penalty imposed on Florida and Michigan. Supposedly the Democrats were outnumbered by republicans (4 Dems vs. 24 Repubs.) on a vote, which whatever way they voted, would have caused them to violate one DNC Rule or the other effectively tying their hands.

Why should the people of Michigan and Florida be penalized for a situation in which they had no say, and no control?

From the very beginning Obama has been shoved down the throats of Americans, force fed by the media to a large number of Americans who don't know him, don't like him, are wary of his past associations, lack of judgement, and his flip-flopping on the issues when it becomes evident, that his current opinion fails to woo the people. The man can't make a decision and stand by it and he's proven that several times over.

I could no more denounce the Rev. Wright, than I could the black community...two weeks later, when his prospects for the nomination were diminishing...I denounce the Rev. Wright. Apparently he doesn't know me, and I guess I don't know him very well either. AFTER 20 YEARS...GIVE ME A BREAK. BTW...Where is the Rev. Wright? I'm sure Obama and his campaign have his mouth taped shut, and he's been pulled off of this tour.

He's backed off on his stance regarding weapons, talks with Iran, and any other number of topics. For God's Sake the man voted present 100 times rather than commit to a yes or no vote in the Senate. He's the most liberal senator currently in Office and his voting record...what little there is of it...shows that clearly.

Americans are morons...I'm beginning to hope another superpower comes in and takes us over - hell it can only make us smarter...because the dumbing of America has been a very successful strategy. In the meantime - I'll wait to see if the DNC does the right thing in regard to seating all the elected delegates in Michigan and Florida...Too bad for Obama about Michigan. No one asked him to remove his name from the ballot. He did so voluntarily. Probably so when he lost there, AND HE DID, he could contest the vote by saying his name wasn't even on the ballot. If the DNC doesn't do the right thing, they can kiss the White House goodbye in November...because I'd rather vote for someone whose background I am familiar with, and whose honor and integrity I do not question - than for someone, whose roots are much harder to trace, and what there is to trace does not provide confidence to thinking Americans.

Posted by Dorothy | May 28, 2008 2:44 PM

Clinton. Obama Spar Over Florida Delegates

Comments (143)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives