Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama Wants Full Voting Rights for Florida and Michigan Delegates

Truth Partisan's picture

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

Obama Wants Full Voting Rights for Florida and Michigan Delegates

(excerpted with comments in parenthesis; nominee for both the most cynical reporting and also the most cynical campaign move)

By Katharine Q. Seelye (in quotes)

"It seems like another lifetime ago, but remember all the fuss about Michigan and Florida?"

(Another lifetime? "Fuss"? All those silly people who care about votes!)

"...In a letter today to committee officials, Mr. Obama asked that a resolution be passed to entitle each delegate from Florida and Michigan to cast a full vote."
"...The party must be united in the fall, he said, adding, “To that end, Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.”"

(However, he is not apparently giving back any votes to Hillary Clinton or returning any votes to uncommitted.)

"...No nominee could afford to alienate the delegates, and voters, from two such important states."

(Now he notices.)

"...By granting Mr. Obama’s request, the party will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the calendar next time because there will be no consequences."
"...The Democratic National Committee said in a statement(:) “This matter will be the top priority for the credentials committee when we meet on August 24th. As always our goal is to ensure a fair process and a unified Democratic Party so that we can win in November.”"

(Ha!)

"Back then (during the primary season), the Obama camp was on the other side, arguing that the two states broke the rules by moving up their primaries and should be punished."

(Remember?)

"The whole subject remains a sore point with some Clinton supporters."

(yeah but who cares about them or people who care about votes?)

"But Mr. Obama’s letter today seems timed to try to minimize any damage,"

(minimize?)

"coming almost two months after Mrs. Clinton threw her support to him and after it appears unlikely that she will be his choice for vice president."

(not choosing her as VP really helps the situation.)

0
No votes yet

Comments

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

Herb's post before I put mine up...it might be my computer because it's been working slowly today.

Submitted by lambert on

That's rich, isn't it? Now that their votes no longer have any impact, they're full partners and colleagues.

Damn.

What's this oozing stuff stuck to the bottom of my shoe? Sanctimony, seems like. Ick.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

contacted me as soon as this story went up at the NYT.

He thought I'd be thrilled! Somehow he never understood the whole Obama taking the uncommitted voters and four of Hillary's delegates before *even though* we had talked it over thoroughly a few times before. Now it's "cooler" for him; he got it and said "Really? REALLY? That doesn't seem very fair."

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

More like, make sure that MI and FL stay in the D column. If the race weren't so tight, I wonder if he'd make the same request.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

"...they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction."

Yeah, wouldn't want to miss out on that! Now that they had nothing to do with deciding it, they can tag along. Obama's so good at this stuff--speaking at the GOP convention hall, having Hillary deliver the same speech he did 4 years ago ("been there done that already myself") while at the same time making it clear she's not VP, giving MI and FL full votes so they can vote for him when they already voted against him and so even more uncommitted delegates can be his (as well as counting more of Hillary's votes for him, right?)

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

A smell so strong you can taste it!

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

if only he wouldn't work so hard at winning, everything would be better.

Obama's endorsement virtually guarantees the delegates will have full voting rights. Clinton, who also has supporters on the credentials committee, had lobbied to reinstate the delegates.

Yeah, full voting rights; that really does suck. And how clever to have actually gotten enough votes to secure the nomination before giving in on the issue. If only Hillary had done that....

And speaking of that awful Hillary Clinton person; supporting Obama for president,

She urged the cheering crowd to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in his bid for the White House, saying she and supporters should "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama ... I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."

and agreeing to give the keynote speech, how disgusting. To think I ever supported her. Next thing you know, she'll be campaigning for him. Just can't trust anyone these days.

Now, of course, the real danger is that he might just win the presidency. That would totally blow, wouldn't it? I mean really, with that nice man John McCain as an alternative, why back Obama? To have a Democrat as president along with control of both the House and Senate, man oh man, progressives will really be screwed then.

If only we could find a way to hand it all back to the Republicans. Sigh. Because that was soooo much better. Nothing much bad ever happens when they're in charge.

Submitted by lambert on

"Just win, baby!" And yes, if Hillary had run the kind of scorched earth campaign Obama ran, she might indeed be the nominee today; I think party loyalty got in her way. Fortunately, that wasn't a concern for Obama. Nor, come to think of it, should it be a concern to me. Loyalty is for little people and rubes!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I have not. Quit being a Raiders fan when he ran off to LA. I haven't given him a dime since and I won't go to another game until he's dead, and buried with a wooden stake through his traitorous heart.

What is the point, for a football game or a political campaign, to anything but a win? It isn't as though second place gets much, if anything. Learning experience, opportunty for personal growth, character-building? Whatever; doesn't do it for me.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Clinton or Obama, a conservative was going to be our only choice. Compared to another Republican radical reactionary Plutocrat, it is still a better option.

Hopefully progressives will take this as a wake-up call, and be able to get ourselves organized and moving forward sometime soon before all hell breaks loose - and I use "hell" here in the atheistic sense.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Let's pretend away the differences between the candidates that grew and grew and/or became clearer and clearer throughout the primary-- and which have become even starker since, as Obama has proven himself unwilling to stand up on any progressive issues whatsoever.

Submitted by lambert on

... then isn't Paul right?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

No matter how much you change the words and pad your condescending remarks, your posts/arguments on the subject can be broken down to two basic points: the world will cease to exist if McCain is elected (which is stale and unbelievable to boot); you're a hypocrite if you don't follow Hillary's lead and support Obama. The same argument used repeatedly--though with different words--wouldn't be intolerable if the condescending nature of your rhetoric was kept to a minimum.

Instead of treating us like children, you could try addressing the real reasons people do not trust Obama and feel that him being elected would be no worse than McCain being elected. I think I remember something from grade school along the lines of "show, don't tell". You're great at the latter but not so much wrt the former (on this specific issue).

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

Metaphorically, anyway. He reminds me of an ex-fiance who wanted me to move out of state with him. He was mystified at my obtuseness, patiently explaining to me over and over that I was just being silly and stubborn, while steadfastly refusing to discuss the very real, practical concerns I raised.

He was especially horrified when, while giving him the boot, I cited his core lack of respect for me. "But, but...," he protested, "I've always said how clean and articulate you are. And perky!"

Sad, as there was much to admire in him... you too, BIO. You're so articulate. For a blogger boy. :-)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Sorry to say, Bo, but I've moved on. I spent a lot of time arguing for Edwards - well, a little time, he didn't last long - and a whole lot of time arguing for Hillary. Failed with both of them. Now I have Mr. Fresh-face Hopieguy, not even on my list last December, but he is who I have to work with and I'll be damn if I'll just turn up my toes and let another Republican destroy the world. Not gonna do it.

I've been laying out reasons why Obama is better than not as bad as McCain, and I'll continue to do so. If that conflicts with other people's perceptions, they are free to debate me or ignore me as they wish. No one is forced to read what I write.

I'll continue to argue that four years of McCain is not equivalent to another four years of BushCo, but will in fact be an order of magnitude worse - because I believe that to be true. It will only take one more term for the VRWC to take over the Federal courts; there will be no more democracy in America. Eight years under a Republican administration and we will lose both the country and the planet. But hey; we sure did give that Obama fellah what for! Taught him a lesson, damn straight.

I thank you for the compliments, articulate and patient. Stubborn comes with the package, surely my attribute and not yours; you I'll call steadfast, so much more, ah, ladylike. Not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore. Just laying out the choices and the consequences, figure everyone can sort it out for themselves. Coincident with that, I am going to insist that everyone is responsible for their own decisions.

As for not being respectful, well; that does sting a bit. I am always happy "to discuss the very real, practical concerns" you or anyone might have. I too have concerns, and I consider them to be as practical and real as anyone else's. As long as we can approach it from that standpoint, one of mutual regard, it should be pleasant enough to exchange views even if we don't agree. We can't any of us roll back the clock, however, and the future is pretty much all I care about politically - so there is that.

I can't change Obama from who he is; it is a package deal with him, too. Herb in another thread suggests that Obama is "2% less evil." For me, if the difference is 0.0001% less evil then Obama is still my guy. Call me simple-minded, less evil is better than more evil.

Submitted by lambert on

To rephrase cornerstone's post in a less offensive manner, and with added perkiness:

At what point does the difference become vanishingly small? Let's devise a test formula:

When Obama ________________________ , then he'll be as evil as McCain.

And I know this is a set-up, because I'm betting that Obama's rightward shift has made every example that could otherwise be used to show a bright line between the two turn blurry, but that's Obama's problem, not a problem with the test as such. Go on! Convince me!

UPDATE Slightly revised for BOG.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

the headline writer should get points for cynicism too--"full voting rights"?

Full voting rights=no impact on the nominee decision; apparently no roll call of Clinton delegates so their votes for her won't be counted; all uncommitted delegate votes given away to a candidate, without being able to vote uncommitted (i.e., as they wish); thousands of committed votes given to someone else.

Now I get the meaning of hopey-changey!

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Howard Deans' 50 State Strategy!

Here's another one:

"We all owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Dean for his principled leadership during this long and challenging process." - Obama

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

What a disappointing development in a horrible primary. This move is only to secure more votes for Obama who is in a dead heat w/ McCain in the polls and struggling with the democratic base.

I love this job!

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

This is change we Michiganders can believe in! In fact, it's change so transparent, you can see throught it!

Really, though, I'd like to give Obama a big, friendly Michigan "Fuck You." I can't even begin to tell you all how big of a sore spot this is, for me.

He has to do this. In fact, he promised he eventually would and everyone knew it was coming, but that doesn't make our primary debacle any less fresh, from our state originally messing it up to the infamous RBC meeting, a delegate grab so blatant I don't know how anyone could have thought that decision was a good deal for Michigan, the Democratic Party, or democracy.

Submitted by lambert on

DamonMI:

a delegate grab so blatant I don’t know how anyone could have thought that decision was a good deal for Michigan, the Democratic Party, or democracy.

Well, golly, it must have been good for somebody!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

carissa's picture
Submitted by carissa on

Now it means the the delegate votes needed for winning the nomination goes up, right?

“…By granting Mr. Obama’s request, the party will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the calendar next time because there will be no consequences.”

Ummm...wasn't this the big objection from the Obots all along when they were screaming about the rooolz???

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

All you can do is jump from one piece of flotsam to another, and try to not drown. This cycle the choices are unpleasant, but any Democrat - including Obama - is better than any Republican.

In my view the differences are substantial, but it doesn't really matter if they are small; less evil is better than more evil, and if that doesn't compute for you, well, not much I can do about it.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

but any Democrat - including Obama - is better than any Republican.

But no longer. Not saying I'm opening my heart to the Repubs. What seems clear to you is not clear at all to myself, or it seems, other posters here.
How can validating one of the most vicious and anti-progressive campaigns in modern history be a net virtue - by any calculation? Because the end justifies the means? Or in this case, the chance of less net evil occurring?
I'll ask again, rephrased for the delicate among us, where is the evidence of good, or less net evil? Because he has a D behind his name? At what part of the slope we're sliding down will you reach out for a handhold?
To be clear, I don't like McCain. But I'm simply not convinced his Presidency will do more damage to our country than an Obama Presidency, given the method and the ends used to achieve it.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

or even 0.0001% less evil, I'm not convinced.

Besides, your equation lets Congress off the hook for enabling future evil. They will 100% back Obama's evil, will they 98% back McCain's should he win? If they do, who's fault is it? Why is there no alternate game plan?

Who is intellectually lazy now?

In short, work harder, in other words: "bring more on".

P.S. said in the most respectful way I can, out of respect for those things you write with which I agree and given the disrespect you show to those you haven't yet managed to find a way to convince.

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Submitted by lambert on

The evil to be counted is Congress + Supremes + President (at least) for either candidate, and that considered over time. Not just one or the other. Yes?

I suppose it isn't so much net evil, as the net present value of evil. If we've got a finance geek on board, maybe they can say.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Or maybe we could be positive and say Net Good?

I do believe the equation includes congress and the courts. I think BIO feels the presidency controls the courts and that it is fact Obama will pick "good" judges and McCain bad and those will become judges based only on their picking them (i.e. congress rolls over). In both instances it includes congress as an unimportant after-thought. OK, I can see that view, although I only think it is CERTAIN if Obama is elected that congress becomes an ineffectual lapdog. I can respect the view that Obama would pick "better" judges. The problem is I do not at all believe he will put in place better LAWS for those judges to judge, nor do I believe he will do much to push progressive POLICIES (despite what Kennedy and Clinton, etc. say). Why should I? He has caved on nearly every significant test. Oh, and he lies about it (like in the FL. MI. thing); that's not good.

In fact, IMNSHO, a Democratic congress would be loath to "show up" Obama and press further than he would on ANY issue. Especially since he is flat out saying he wants to "work with the other side" and "change the way Washington does business". In other words, with President Obama, his view is the limit on the left hand side.
But over all, do we want a congress continuing as ineffectual lapdog? Is congress really less important than the courts? I'm not convinced, but reasonable people can differ. I would like to see the Dems in Congress grow a backbone, and once again IMNSHO, that is IMPOSSIBLE with Obama. The question is, would it be possible with McCain as president? Would they challenge him to not sign popular progressive policies? Would they cave like on FISA and allow his policies to prosper like they did (unbelievably) for GWB? Will they continue to be pawns of the Republicans and show zero spine or leadership? I truly don't know, but there is a possibility that a change in Dem tactics would be demanded after an Obama defeat. None will be forthcoming should he win.

The other question though depends on Obama's VP choice, if he picks a VP with backbone, I may rethink my view of him, but he hasn't done anything yet to signal anything but contempt for the "Democratic" wing of the Democratic party.

Bottom line for me is I'm a "semi-undecided" voter, in terms of I haven't decided if I will vote for Obama or not vote for president. I will not vote for McCain, I have decided that.

I'm the glass half full (or empty, take your pick).

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

I would also add something here - with the capture of the DNC and Obama instructing outside donors to only give to the party through him, the D Congress would at some level be beholden to *his* money machine. Outside of strong incumbents, who could afford to challenge the keeper of the keys and risk not being fully funded in his/her next campaign? Not that all money would be cut off, but just enough would be done to let them know the error of their ways for next time around.
IMO, there is no way a D Congress will grow a spine in this very tenuous situation. They will owe loyalty to a person, and not an organization.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Lambert,

How could the RBC decision have been good for Obama? It was incensing enough to fair-minded folks that his state henchman, here, faught a revote at every turn (unless it was a caucus, of course). And, even after that incredible injury, we were resigned to the fact of getting our delegation cut in half. But, giving Barack Obama all uncommitted delegates, when all of those that voted uncommitted were clearly not for him, and subsequently taking delegates from Senator Clinton were such egregious errors, that I can't see how it helped in even in the short term.

It was either unconscious self-sabotage, or something much more sinister. Hell, why can't it be both?

I can't imagine Senator Clinton, or any other candidate, for that matter, having the gall to accept pilfered delegates, and I don't think I'm being naive.

Submitted by lambert on

Winning is good, good winning.

That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

"...giving Barack Obama all uncommitted delegates, when all of those that voted uncommitted were clearly not for him, and subsequently taking delegates from Senator Clinton were such egregious errors..."

Completely agree.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

It's really too bad, then, that he very well could be the first candidate in a couple of decades to turn Michigan red, albeit, McCain has always been popular, here (one of only 7 states where he beat Bush in the 2000 Republican primary).

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

McCain voters back in the day. fuck yeah i was! i knew that there was no point to voting for gore; he was assured victory in our open primary. so i 'crossed over' and voted for mcstain, with no intention of voting for him in the general, if he had ended up the rethug nom. i was just voting to try to get shrub out of the picture, when i thought mccain would be less evil than bush. i stand by that choice. i'm very sorry the last 8 years haven't been a mccentury preznitcy. as bad as he is now, back then, he seemed...more sane and informed than chimpy.

shorter me: what does it *really* mean that mccunt did well back then in the states you mention? that they are more, or less progressive/liberal? it's not wholly clear to me.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Outside of Michigan and Arizona, the five other states McCain won in 2000 were all in New England (minus Maine). I suspect it's the same reason why Hillary did well in the region: Traditional Yankee Skepticism.