"... the column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished adds up to less than the attention devoted to, say, the Wyoming caucus, where a 2,066-vote Obama margin gave him a big enough delegate boost to virtually cancel out Hillary Clinton's 329,000-vote margin in the five March races. ..."

I have to add--WY, where less than 10,000 voted in total, like so many of those red states with caucuses Obama's so proud of.

He's been the best thing about the Village Voice for years and years, and is the go-to guy on Rudy too.

Where less than 8,900 people participated in those wonderful caucuses and netted Obama 5 delegates. Hillary won TX by over 100,000 votes and only netted 4 in the primary--and we all know how Hillary supporters were bullied during the "caucus".

The nerve of Alaskan and Wyomingite Democratic voters! Who told them their votes counted?</srcsm>
What was that about concern trolling democracy, gqmartinez?

OT: I had no idea residents of Wyoming called themselves Wyomingites. The full list of official state resident names is here (near the bottom of the page).

Debbie Wasserman Schulz interview with Newsweek, September 24, 2007:

NEWSWEEK: How did Florida Democrats arrive at the decision to stick with the January 29 primary date?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: The party leadership has been going through a pretty deliberative and communicative process over the last months, as well as, concurrently, the congressional delegation going through the same deliberations. We all came together in agreement that the only way to maximize Florida Democratic participation--3.4 million of them--in choosing who we believe should be the Democratic nominee was to make that selection on Jan. 29, and that any other option would disenfranchise our voters. Mail-in [voting] would require paying to vote [since voters would have to pay for postage], and was extremely expensive anyway. And a caucus would have been incredibly exclusive and internal, and the rank-and-file average voter would never have been able to participate. So there really was no viable option to maximize our Democratic voter participation. We also couldn't risk, given that we have a very important property-tax cut that's on the ballot that would devastate social services across the state and education funding as well, we couldn't risk not having enough Democratic voters show up at the polls and have that pass. There are also regional and municipal elections on the ballot.

How much internal dissent was there over the decision?

It really wasn't difficult. There were a few dissenters in the party leadership--quite honestly, the normal lead dissenter in the Democratic Party leadership in Florida [Jon Ausman, a DNC member from Tallahassee, who frequently disagrees with the party leadership]. But there was actually significant unity both in the elected and the party leadership. Three-quarters of executive committee members indicated their support and took two different votes. This is the most significant swing state in this election. It's incredibly important that we have our say and make sure that our votes are counted.

How much pressure did the DNC put on the state’s Democrats to change the primary date?

"They were quite insistent that the only option was to choose an alternative plan, and they, in our opinion, were totally unreasonable. They refused to really negotiate an acceptable alternative plan. A mail-in ballot done the proper way would cost $7 million, and they offered $800,000. We’re not Iowa or New Hampshire or a state where you can drive across in a matter of an hour. You can’t run, logistically, a caucus-style election in a state our size. We asked to sit down and have a reasonable discussion about how to maximize our voters’ participation. They were absolutely uninterested in sitting down and figuring that out with us. So based on everything I’ve said, it became clear that we should just stick to the Jan. 29 date so we make sure Florida voters are counted."

Doesn't sound like a gullible bunch of Democrats to me.

Jeremy Ring, September 26, 2007: I Wasn't Duped by Republicans

Buzz noted one conspicuous absence when Karen Thurman surrounded herself with Broward County Democrats Sunday to tout its Jan. 29 primary: state Sen. Jeremy Ring. No one invited the Broward state Senator who sponsored the original bill moving Florida's primary from March to January and undercut the Democrats' argument that the early primary was all the Republicans' fault.

"If you turn on the left wing liberal radio down in Broward, I am public enemy number one,'' said Ring, who acually campaigned in 2006 on the need for an early primary and makes no apologies for his leading the effort. "I hear that a lot, that I was duped by the Republicans. No one duped me."

Ring acknowledges he was surprised by the presidential boycott but says the move still ensures the presidential candidates will talk about critical Florida issues like a national catastrophic fund, Everglades funding and prescription drug access. History, he predicted, will show that Florida's move blew up "this awful presidential primary process."

The vote passed with bipartisan support: 118 to 0 in the House, 37 to 2 in the Senate. I find it hard to believe that state Democrats were so cowed into submission* that they felt they had no other choice but to vote for the bill.

*Yes, I know the bill was loaded with amendments, of which the primary date was one. Apparently, legislative "trains" were a trademark of Rep. Marco Rubio.

Is this what Obama's defense is? Implying we said that Wyoming and Alaska voters don't matter, when we really said that their votes counted for more than the Texas votes. And that it's just peachy that legislative games are sufficient to disenfranchise innocent voters? Wow!

Is this Hillary's rationale for continuing in the race? Ex post facto complaints about the relative importance of states and their voters that everyone understood going into the nomination process. Wow!

... and I don't believe I've ever heard someone call him/herself a "Massachusettsan."

Funny how often people from other states describe their identities like "Texan" and "Hoosier." What do we have... "Bay Stater"?

Here's another list, although I think some of the slang terms might be made up:)

massholes! ; >

>Is this Hillary’s rationale for continuing in the race? Ex post facto complaints about the relative importance of states and their voters that everyone understood going into the nomination process. Wow!

Look, the Obama campaign undoubtedly gamed the nominating process better than the Clinton campaign. And for Obama supporters, that's apparently all that matters. The problem is this isn't a game-it is about choosing the person holding the most powerful office on the planet. And the person most likely to beat McCain in November.

The Obama people figured out that they could get a lead in pledged delegates by winning Republican and GOP votes in small Red States. But it is pretty clear that the system wasn't actually designed to produce a Democratic nominee who lacks a majority of actual Democratic votes, nor a candidate for November who does well mainly in states the Dems will lose in the fall while doing poorly in states the Dems have to have to win.

I'm a game designer. It is how I make my living (such as it is). And thus I'm speaking professionally when I say that any complicarted set of rules can be broken by those seeking to exploit ambiguities and loopholes over the intent of the designer. In my field we call them "rules lawyers" and when they "break the system" we issue changes to the rules (errata) to force them back to playing according to our intent.

The Dem nominating process was a very poorly designed set of rules (probably because there was no single designer) and the Obama camp broke the system. Well, good for them, but it places the Super Delegates in the roll of the Designer: they can in effect say, "Sorry, it wasn't our intent that the system be gamed in that way so that we have a candidate a majority of actual Democrats rejected, and moreover who has the lesser chance in November.*" And just as I have the authority to issue such changes at any time to my own designs, the Supers have the authority to issue their own "errata" on the campaign by voting for Hillary over Obama. And it is hypocritical for the Obama camp to complain about that-it is, after all-in the rules (the same set of rules the Obama camp swears by) that they can do so.

*And please don't quote the current polls at me regarding November. Hillary's position is pretty much her floor-there is nothing she will be hit with she hasn't been hit with. But Obama, who has been mostly coddled by the press, will find that when his opponent is named McCain, the press is no longer his friend. And no, Obama hasn't weathered Pastor Wright-the GOP is salivating to unleash ads on that subject, once they are sure Obama has the nomination. Barring a complete GOP collapse-admittedly possible-Obama will lose OH,PA,FL, and MI in the fall, and thus the White House. Hillary still has a shot at all four in the fall.

If I'm not impressed by Democrats claiming they weren't duped by Republicans. Of course, they're going to say that. They always say that. What are they going to say, I walked into a Republican trap...AGAIN.

As for the delegate to vote issue, I know it's in vogue for Obama internet supporters (as opposed to real life Obama supporters) to be deliberately dense and not understand the point being made, but here's the problem with the Wyoming results - it's not that the state doesn't count, it's that it counted for more than its population warrants, making a person in Wyoming worth more than a person in Ohio. According to CNN, Hillary won Ohio by 228.781 votes, netting her 9 delegates. That's one delegate for every 25,420 votes she won over Obama. In Wyoming, according to CNN, 8,292 people participated. Obama won 2 more pledged delegates than Hillary. Giving him 75% of the vote, that means he won 2 delegates with 6219 votes, each delegate took only about 3,100 voters to earn. So it took 8 times as many voters in Ohio to win a delegate advantage as it did in Wyoming.

Setting aside which state is more important in the Fall, how can a voter in one state be worth eight times a voter in another state?

Look, the Obama campaign undoubtedly gamed the nominating process better than the Clinton campaign. And for Obama supporters, that’s apparently all that matters. The problem is this isn’t a game-it is about choosing the person holding the most powerful office on the planet. And the person most likely to beat McCain in November.

So your argument is that the consensus front runner, with the commanding lead, the unchallenged name recognition, the support of the party, the power of the husband as ex-POTUS, the vast money supply of Terry Mac and Sandy Weil's donor network, got out gamed by some chump with no resume and no qualifications from nowhere, and that makes her more qualified to lead the party to victory in November?

For those of use who were dreading what seemed like Hillary's inevitable clinching of the nomination exactly because we were sure her team of DLC retreads and corporate lobbyists would fuck up the general given half a chance, this is just one more absurdity piled on the tower.

campaigning. appealing to new voters. speaking eloquently. being right about the war. eschewing big corporate donors for ordinary citizens.

are there no standards? no morals? How is Burton-Marstetler supposed to make money in this new world?

1. It's too early to quit, she can win, it's a very close race.

2. I believe her advisers are telling her that Sen Obama can't win the general election, and I fear those advisers are in her oppo research team.

>So your argument is that the consensus front runner, with the commanding lead, the unchallenged name recognition, the support of the party, the power of the husband as ex-POTUS, the vast money supply of Terry Mac and Sandy Weil’s donor network, got out gamed by some chump with no resume and no qualifications from nowhere, and that makes her more qualified to lead the party to victory in November?

No, that clearly isn't my argument, that's your argument. Obama had the enormous advantage of a press corps on his side, an advantage that will vanish the instant his opponent isn't named Hillary but St. John. (BTD is wrong there-the press will murder Obama in the fall. Hillary has been through it-Obama has made clear he has no idea what is going to hit him.)

Meanwhile Clinton is going to end up with a virtual tie if not the lead in the number of people who voted for her (you can ignore the voters of FL and MI only if you don't mind them returning the favor in November), and undoubtedly a majority of actual Democrats. And unlike Obama, Hillary has shown the ability to win in states that will actually decide the election.

The Supers exist exactly to correct the sort of situation the Obama campaign has created. Will they do their job? Beats me-but if they don't, say hello to President McCain. (Barring a complete GOP collapse in which any Dem would win. Possible-but I hate to bet the next four years on it.)

As for Obama being right about the war-please. When it cost him nothing he said the war was a bad idea. In 2004 he said he might have voted as Clinton did, and then that his position was basically the same as W's. Then in the Senate he has hardly been a leader on the issue, and his plans for Iraq are no different than Hillary's (except for his warming up to Blackwater).

Finally, I'll be nice (though the GOP won't be) and put aside whether Obama would still be in the race at all if Pastor Wright had been on the table in Iowa.

Here he seems unsure of himself, testy, and gets accused of practicing Clintonian politics with respect of his criticism of McCain. The press is going to eat him alive if and when he defeats the dreaded Hillary.

BDBlue: I saw that video and it reminds me that not only does he have problems with people who question him (e.g., debates, press), but he's a true political virgin who'll be put in the cross hairs of the most savvy and ruthless political operation out there: the GOP (greatly aided by The Media).

The Obama campaign owes its success to CDS. Without it, I don't see how he'll have a chance in the GE. I can't even see the poor economy bailing him out.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

and Rezko, and all the fab folks at Credit Suisse and the other wall st firms that love him, etc?

That's why his picture is up on their website.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

and his spouse was a founding member. Oh wait, that's not true.

No, that clearly isn’t my argument, that’s your argument. Obama had the enormous advantage of a press corps on his side, an advantage that will vanish the instant his opponent isn’t named Hillary but St. John.

Oh. See when you wrote:
"Look, the Obama campaign undoubtedly gamed the nominating process better than the Clinton campaign."

I didn't realize you meant by "gamed" that the Obama campaign had just cluelessly lucked into good press coverage that magically gave them 1million donors and an organization that was able to come up from 30 points or more down.

I guess your point is that Hillary should be the nominee because the press hates her and is able to give enormous advantage to her opponents that her team is too media unsaavy to combat. Is that right?

Rootless: How is Obama more of a progressive, in terms of actual policy than Clinton? I mean, surely anyone can beat a typical DLC hack like her, right?

*No need to remember than in 2003 the DLC (including its web page!) highlighted Obama as one of their Dems to watch.

The argument is that Obama's entire campaign success has depended on a media driven by CDS while Clinton has been able to withstand the barrage and continue to score wins in critical GE states in spite of it all.

We all know the media will viciously attack the Democratic nominee whoever it is. Why not pick a candidate who's not so damn dependent on media worship?

Rootless: How is Obama more of a progressive, in terms of actual policy than Clinton? I mean, surely anyone can beat a typical DLC hack like her, right?

*No need to remember than in 2003 the DLC (including its web page!) highlighted Obama as one of their Dems to watch.

Well the claim was "Obama is as much the DLC candidate as Hillary." Considering that Hillary is a member of their leadership team and Bill was a co-founder and Obama is not a member, that's obviously just false. Not a difference of opinion.

As for your even sillier 2003 "highlight", Obama explicitly denied being a member of the DLC.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_co...

So on the one side: Hillary Clinton is a member of the leadership team, a long term endorser and major figure in the DLC, and on the other hand Obama is not even a member. Case closed.

Your question about progressive platform is a different one. Both candidates are running as centrists - but Hillary is bringing with her campaign the DLC team that has done so much to cripple the party. I don't want Terry Mac to run the DNC again.

On pure policy issues I have two comments. First of all policy statements are not enforceable contracts: otherwise the first term Bill Clinton accomplishments of a regressive "reform" of welfare, "dont ask don't tell", Rush Limbaugh on AFR, and NAFTA would not have been possible. Second, there are clear differences.

The most stark difference is the war in Iraq, where despite all the apologetics, Hillary Clinton has never even admitted her AUMF vote to be a mistake. Hillary's hawkish (actually cravenness in face of Republican propaganda) position also is clear in her silly insistence on not speaking to Cuba without some preconditions in place. I also think Obama's health plan is far more progressive. Individual mandate is a terrible idea - healthcare should be a right, not an imposition and certainly not a way of subsidizing insurance companies. Obama's plan leads to universal coverage in an extremely smart and pragmatic way. Clinton's plan leads to a big health insurance company subsidizing bureaucracy.

And lakoff is also right
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lak...

To me, ending the occupation is a higher priority than punishing people who were involved in starting the war. Sorry, but there are people dying here, and ending the occupation is the only hope they have.

Sen Obama is no more likely to end the occupation than Sen Clinton is. Neither of them will do it without huge public pressure (support the Responsible Plan, please).

Basing your ardent support of Sen Obama based on a vote that he was fortunate enough to not have to make is a slender reed indeed. I am convinced (and he has suggested!) that he would have voted for the AUMF if he had been in the Senate at the time. Do you really think he would have sided with Barbara Boxer over Joe Lieberman?

Cute.
Submitted by Susie from Philly on Tue, 2008-04-01 11:23.

Perhaps you can explain to me why Austan Goolsbee, the DLC’s senior economic advisor, is also Obama’s senior economic advisor!

If you can't understand the difference between being a member of the leadership of an organization and having an advisor who has a think tank part time position at that organization,
I can't help you.

To me, ending the occupation is a higher priority than punishing people who were involved in starting the war. Sorry, but there are people dying here, and ending the occupation is the only hope they have.

Well yes, but considering that not only did Senator Clinton endorse the invasion, but after the invasion she was trumpeting her support for the war and has spoken about the "success" of the surge and voted for Kyl-Lieberman, I have greater doubts about her chickenshit position than I do about Obama's chickenshit position.

Sen Obama is no more likely to end the occupation than Sen Clinton is. Neither of them will do it without huge public pressure (support the Responsible Plan, please).

I disagree with the first sentence and agree with the second. But it is important that Obama has been linking economic problems with war costs very explicitly.

Basing your ardent support of Sen Obama based on a vote that he was fortunate enough to not have to make is a slender reed indeed. I am convinced (and he has suggested!) that he would have voted for the AUMF if he had been in the Senate at the time. Do you really think he would have sided with Barbara Boxer over Joe Lieberman?

Yes I do.

Well yes, but considering that not only did Senator Clinton endorse the invasion, but after the invasion she was trumpeting her support for the war...

“I began to suspect that I might have been wrong. [in opposing the war]” -- The Audacity of Hope

“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” -- Sen Obama in the Chicago Tribune 7/2004

I'll have to call that one a tie at best.

I disagree with [the idea that Sen Obama is no more likely to end the occupation than Sen Clinton]

They have identical records in voting for war funding and deauthorizing the war, don't they?

Yes I do [think he would have voted no on the AUMF]

1. The Senator has less faith than you do in that position. "Well, I'm not sure how I would have voted if I were in the Senate and I had access to intelligence information."

2. He has been absolutely petrified of the goopers calling him "weak on defense". See expanding the army, gooper cabinet appointees, etc.

3. Freshman Senators rarely buck the party leadership, and they were saying vote yes. And he doesn't exactly have a record of going against the flow.

So your argument is that the consensus front runner, with the commanding lead, the unchallenged name recognition, the support of the party, the power of the husband as ex-POTUS, the vast money supply of Terry Mac and Sandy Weil’s donor network, got out gamed by some chump with no resume and no qualifications from nowhere, and that makes her more qualified to lead the party to victory in November?

Exactly. And don't forget the fact that Pennsylvania is the latest in a large number of states in which Obama has gained support and Clinton lost it as the election comes closer.

He's not winning over the Dem base for the most part, and couldn't even win Mass w/Kerry, Kennedy, Patrick and all the rest all over tv for him. California too, which seemed like a place he should have won.