Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking

[spifflog]

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Nonsense. Complete poppycock. It’s nice as an opinion and all, but it hardly proves there’s any responsibility on his part, even, as you say, “as a leader”, to make a big stink about counting votes that were disqualified before they were even cast. That’s just ABSURD!

What leaders do, is know when to take a stand and when to stand down. Good leaders in the Federal government also know when it’s incumbent upon them to allow individual states to exert their own authority as it pertains to their own citizenry. He knows this, in part, because he is the only candidate who has ever had state legislative experience!

And he’s not obliged “as a leader” to acquiesce to any quackery they throw out there just for appearances sake. He has an obligation to his own supporters, not to squander their hard work and funding on pipe dreams filled with untenable and inequitable solutions that may only serve to hurt him in the long run.

Sorry, but the facts remain; Barack Obama did not create this mess and he’s under no obligation to try to fix it, either, much as you and Hillary might stamp your feet and wish it were so.
[/QUOTE]

I usually vote Republican more often than not, but the wife votes for any democrat, so I think we even things out. Weve been trying hard to like Obama. I can’t say that he’s done very much, and has little to no experience. I think there’s a reason that we elect Governors more than legislators, and that’s because of their management experience. (And no offense, but touting Obama’s state legislator experience in laughable.)

Said wife and I both came home from work Friday and had the exact same thought. He talks all about “change” and changing “politics as usual” in Washington. And when he had a chance to do it, by ensuring that voters in Michigan and Florida could participate in the primary, he took the typical politicians way out. With gobbledygook that translated to “this is the most politically expedient thing for me to do” regardless. For both of us, that effectively stripped him of the “change” moniker once and for all - and I think that’s the lasting hit that he’ll take over this.

[Phlosphr]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
I usually vote Republican more often than not, but the wife votes for any democrat, so I think we even things out. Weve been trying hard to like Obama. I can’t say that he’s done very much, and has little to no experience. I think there’s a reason that we elect Governors more than legislators, and that’s because of their management experience. (And no offense, but touting Obama’s state legislator experience in laughable.)

Said wife and I both came home from work Friday and had the exact same thought. He talks all about “change” and changing “politics as usual” in Washington. And when he had a chance to do it, by ensuring that voters in Michigan and Florida could participate in the primary, he took the typical politicians way out. With gobbledygook that translated to “this is the most politically expedient thing for me to do” regardless. For both of us, that effectively stripped him of the “change” moniker once and for all - and I think that’s the lasting hit that he’ll take over this.
[/QUOTE]

It’s understandable if you don’t follow Obama’s career to think the way you do. But the fact to the matter is we have ONLY legislators this time to vote for, and if you take the pepsi challenge with Clinton and Obama, Clinton’s legislative career pales to Obama’s in what she actually accomplished. Further, putting the onus soly on Obama’s lap for the non-seating of MI and FL tells me you don’t want to read any further into the man and his candidacy than what you already have preconceived. If Obama fought tooth and nail to have them seated they still would be in the arena they are in now.
If you and your wife generally even each other out by you voting republican and she voting democrat - will she vote Obama if he cinches the nomination? Which it certainly looks as if he will do?
I urge you to look deeper into Obama’s career in Washington, into his career as a change agent and at what he will propose to do should be get elected. If you don’t read into the guts of a candidate then how can you truly know who you are voting for or against?

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
And when he had a chance to do it, by ensuring that voters in Michigan and Florida could participate in the primary, he took the typical politicians way out.
[/QUOTE]
Which was what? Proposing that both campaigns stick to the DNC rules they agreed on? Obama has been more than accomodating towards finding a solution. As recently as last Thursday, an Obama spokeman was supporting the seating of Michegan delegates:

Obama’s campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday: “We support a fair solution that allows Michigan Democrats to participate at our national convention this summer, and we look forward to working with the Michigan Democratic Party and the DNC to achieve that goal.”

You cannot blame Obama if the legislatures of Florida and Michegan rule out a redo of the primary.

But Florida has already ruled out a new vote, and Michigan’s state legislature also appeared unlikely to debate the option of holding a new primary before its Easter recess.

Asked if such a bill would be brought to the state senate, Senator Michelle McManus, chairwoman of the campaigns and election oversight committee, said: “I don’t foresee that happening.”

“We had a primary, and unfortunately the Democrats choose not to participate. The Republicans did, and John McCain has said he’ll seat all the Michigan delegates,” she told AFP.

“They can go have a caucus. This is their issue to resolve, it is not an issue for the Michigan legislature.”

It is Hillary who is opposing a caucus in Michegan, because she doesn’t do well in caucus states. Why is this Obama’s fault?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
I usually vote Republican more often than not, but the wife votes for any democrat, so I think we even things out. Weve been trying hard to like Obama. I can’t say that he’s done very much, and has little to no experience. I think there’s a reason that we elect Governors more than legislators, and that’s because of their management experience. (And no offense, but touting Obama’s state legislator experience in laughable.)

Said wife and I both came home from work Friday and had the exact same thought. He talks all about “change” and changing “politics as usual” in Washington. And when he had a chance to do it, by ensuring that voters in Michigan and Florida could participate in the primary, he took the typical politicians way out. With gobbledygook that translated to “this is the most politically expedient thing for me to do” regardless. For both of us, that effectively stripped him of the “change” moniker once and for all - and I think that’s the lasting hit that he’ll take over this.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s unrealistic to expect politicians to not act like politicians ever. IMO they have to balance what they really think is best, their honesty, with the political landscape and their goals. {winning the election} If we scrutinize compromise to closely it will inevitably look like hypocrisy. We’ve come to tolerate far too much under the umbrella of “it’s politics” We can raise the bar concerning what is acceptable and what isn’t, but I don’t think we can expect it to stop being politics.
I haven’t examined the Florida and MI thing too closely but I don’t think it’s a matter of Obama not wanting their votes to count. I think it’s a matter of resolving the problems in a way that neither candidate has an advantage. Who funds it? Do the candidates get equal time to campaign there? When will this all happen. As mentioned up thread, Obama didn’t create this mess and it isn’t primarily up to him to solve it. It’s easy to say “every vote should count” and while the sentiment is true the practical application of that principle and ensuring it’s done fairly for all parties concerned is a lot more complicated.

[spifflog]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think it’s unrealistic to expect politicians to not act like politicians ever. IMO they have to balance what they really think is best, their honesty, with the political landscape and their goals. {winning the election}.
[/QUOTE]

I concur that politicians acting like politicians shouldn’t be an issue - except when they alter the expectations themselves.

Obama has campaigned as the anti-politician. He’s the “change” guy. The “we must change politics as usual in Washington” guy. He’s not a “Washington insider.” Once one decides to distinguish oneself in a particular way, they have altered expectations, and should be view accordingly. That is why I think republicans are held to a slightly higher standard when it comes to personal conduct. They campaign on that, so they are held to a slightly different standard. Same thing with the experience card. I think Clinton and Obama both lack experience. But she has chosen to make experience a cornerstone of her campaign, so, accordingly, she has taken more heat over it.

All the discussing above not withstanding, if Obama wanted to have the do over primaries, they would have been done. But it’s not in his best interest to hold them. I get it. And I understand the politics of it. But It’s hard to argue that stance with a giant “Change!” sign waving in the background.

[Bosstone]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
All the discussing above not withstanding, if Obama wanted to have the do over primaries, they would have been done.
[/quote]
I’m pleased to see that you have such confidence in him.

But it’s not in his best interest to hold them. I get it.

It’s also not in the interest of the DNC. They allow the rulebreaking states to be seated and next time it’s even worse, now that everyone knows they can get away with it. That’s part of why the whole ‘leadership’ argument has been amusing me; it takes strong leaders to enforce the rules, rather than just letting the people supposedly bound by the rules do what they want.

And if it really, truly was the Republican legislatures trying to screw over the Democrats, and next time around they try it again? That will be a clear sign that the rules do need to change to prevent such mucking about. Right now it’s not that obvious.

[Shayna]

[QUOTE=zut]

No, he didn’t create this mess, and no, he’s under no obligation to fix it. However, that’s a short-sighted strategy.

Let’s assume Obama wins the Democratic primary. I’m reasonably comfortable with that assumption, and I infer you are also. So what happens in the fall? In the fall, John McCain runs ads in Michigan and Florida that say, “Barack Obama doesn’t want your vote. He didn’t want it last March; why give it to him in November? Vote for John McCain, who’s always listened to the people of Michigan/Florida.”

Remember Florida went Republican in 2004, and Michigan only barely Democratic. It wouldn’t take a ton of voters (either actually swayed by the above argument, or just disillusioned enough to stay home) to make both states Republican in 2008.

What good does it do for Obama to win the nomination if he loses the general election? He’s got a few months to sort this all out, and I certainly hope he’ll be able to say, “I fought to make sure Florida and Michigan were heard.” But right now, not so much.

If we get a President McCain because Florida and Michigan go Republican, I’ll be royally pissed.
[/QUOTE]
I am of the opinion that none of this will be an issue by then, precisely because by the time of the convention, Barack Obama will hold a sufficient enough delegate lead that even seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as is will not unfairly strip him of the nomination. I predicted a trouncing on Super Tuesday, and I was right. I am predicting Florida and Michigan get their delegates seated at the convention and Barack Obama becomes the hero, for “having done the right thing” and for having done so without the ungodly expense and possible law suits and endless screams of “NOT FAIR” by those who don’t like whatever wacky compromise might’ve come to fruition.

Bookmark this post. Florida and Michigan will be seated.
[QUOTE=spifflog]

All the discussing above not withstanding, if Obama wanted to have the do over primaries, they would have been done. But it’s not in his best interest to hold them. I get it. And I understand the politics of it. But It’s hard to argue that stance with a giant “Change!” sign waving in the background.
[/QUOTE]
I find this really comical. What on earth makes you think Barack Obama has the single-handed power to have made these re-dos happen? Is he supposed to be Superman or something?

And what does “change” have to do with anything? How would Obama prove he means he intends to make drastic changes in Washington by insisting that individual states spend tens of millions of dollars to re-do primaries that they fucked up in the first place? EXACTLY HOW would that represent “change” to you in any way? Seriously. What’s “change” about that?

[grayhairedmomma]

[QUOTE=Shayna]
What on earth makes you think Barack Obama has the single-handed power to have made these re-dos happen? Is he supposed to be Superman or something?
[/QUOTE]
He isn’t but isn’t it amazing how the balance of power has shifted between him and Clinton? He does have the political power to make a primary in Michigan happen. He is clearly withholding his blessing of what Clinton wants and as a result she’s not getting it.

I see and kind of agree with Elvis’ argument that he could show his leadership skills by encouraging the state legislatures more enthusiastically. BUT, as someone else in this thread said, if you give Clinton an inch she’ll take a mile and then pretend it was all hers in the first place.

I think that this issue is a good preview of how he’ll deal with “rogue” nations. He is clearly not a stupid man. He clearly does not trust Clinton (rogue nation), and he’s not going to jeopardize himself (the country) by doing something just to appease a small part of the electorate and Clinton.

I think he’s going to make a fantastic president.

[spifflog]

[QUOTE=Bosstone]
And if it really, truly was the Republican legislatures trying to screw over the Democrats, and next time around they try it again?
[/QUOTE]

This is new to me. (I’m an independent in DC). How did the republicans crew over the dems on this? I thought (at least in Florida) both parties moved the primary, and the vote was nearly unanimous.

[Santo_Rugger]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
This is new to me. (I’m an independent in DC). How did the republicans crew over the dems on this? I thought (at least in Florida) both parties moved the primary, and the vote was nearly unanimous.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the edit was to add the end of the paragraph?

[QUOTE=Bosstone]
That will be a clear sign that the rules do need to change to prevent such mucking about. Right now it’s not that obvious.
[/QUOTE]

[Bosstone]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
This is new to me. (I’m an independent in DC). How did the republicans crew over the dems on this? I thought (at least in Florida) both parties moved the primary, and the vote was nearly unanimous.
[/QUOTE]
All evidence says that the Dems, at least in Florida, were complicit in changing the primary dates.

Despite that, it keeps getting repeated that the Dems didn’t have a hand in changing the primary dates, that it was the Republicans stomping on the helpless Democrats. I don’t see that this is so, I’m only saying that if by some chance it turns out to be so and next election cycle we see the same thing happen, then something needs to be done at that point. But it’s pointless to change the rules now.

[SpartanDC]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
This is new to me. (I’m an independent in DC). How did the republicans crew over the dems on this? I thought (at least in Florida) both parties moved the primary, and the vote was nearly unanimous.
[/QUOTE]

Michigan has a split legislature, so no one got screwed there.

Florida has a GOP-controlled legislature, but you’re right about the fact that Democrats there voted to move the primary. However, that move was only one provision of a much larger electoral reform bill that included a requirement of a verifiable paper trail for votes in the state’s elections. For obvious reasons, that’s a big issue in Florida and Democrats decided they would rather not throw the baby out with the bathwater and went along with supporting the bill, probably thinking (at the time) that one of the two candidates, probably Clinton, would wrap up the nomination in some other way, and the FL delegation would get seated with little controversy.

Now, however, you have the exact opposite of that, which brings us to the current clusterfuck.

As for Michigan, everything I’ve read indicates that while Obama’s people didn’t flat out tell its supporters in the state legislature to block a primary, they did take a very non-committal approach to the whole thing; basically, they were trying to run out the clock. That said, getting that primary off the ground faced numerous hurdles that the Obama campaign had little control over. Frankly, I never bought the argument that Obama’s people were downright opposed to a Michigan revote because he’d probably fare better than “uncommitted” did once an actual vote took place.

[BobLibDem]

I agree, both parties conspired to move the MI and FL primaries up against both parties’ rules. They assumed that they would get seated because the nomination races are never close and the winner would graciously have the rules committee seat them. But of course that wasn’t the case this time. To seat them now invites future chaos, better to deny them seats. I can guarantee one thing- if someone moves their primary up in 2012 and the party says it won’t count, NONE of the candidates is going to remove his/her name from the ballot.

[spifflog]

[QUOTE=Shayna]
What on earth makes you think Barack Obama has the single-handed power to have made these re-dos happen? Is he supposed to be Superman or something?

And what does “change” have to do with anything? How would Obama prove he means he intends to make drastic changes in Washington by insisting that individual states spend tens of millions of dollars to re-do primaries that they fucked up in the first place? EXACTLY HOW would that represent “change” to you in any way? Seriously. What’s “change” about that?
[/QUOTE]

Come on Shayna. You’re nearly rabid over this guy. On half the posts here, you argue that he IS superman. If both Obama and Clinton wanted these primaries done over, they would be. But let’s be honest, Obama hasn’t been working all that hard to actually make It happen. If these states were learning strongly to Obama, you’d be running and screaming for all to hear.

How would it represent change? Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse? He is Mr. Change. But nothing could be more old school Washington politics than for a politician to say that votes should not be counted. And this from a “change” democrat, a minority one at that, arguing that votes should not be counted - in essence arguing for disenfranchisement. Never thought I’d see that.

Change would be something like this:

“Having these votes re-done will not benefit me. They could potentially hurt me. I lost the election in Ohio. Michigan is very similar to Ohio in demographics and make up - but Michigan votes deserve a say. I lost the vote in Florida earlier. But Florida voters must have a say as well. Many would expect me to take the easy way out, the politically expedient way out. To obfuscate and make a half hearted effort designed to stop the votes in Florida and Michigan. I have actually been advised to do just that. But if we are going to change the way Washington does business, it must start here. So I will work with Senator Clinton, and we will find away to ensure that new primaries take place, and than all votes are counted.”

Having said all this I will probably still vote for Obama. But he’s not as different as I had hoped. And this proves it..

[Bosstone]

[QUOTE=spifflog]
But nothing could be more old school Washington politics than for a politician to say that votes should not be counted.
[/QUOTE]
…And on what, exactly, do you base this assertion?

[Shayna]

[QUOTE=spifflog]

Come on Shayna. You’re nearly rabid over this guy. On half the posts here, you argue that he IS superman. If both Obama and Clinton wanted these primaries done over, they would be. But let’s be honest, Obama hasn’t been working all that hard to actually make It happen. If these states were learning strongly to Obama, you’d be running and screaming for all to hear.
[/quote]
Oh bullshit. The man is not Superman and I’ve never implied any such thing. He’s a HUMAN. AND he’s a politician. But he’s a damn sight better one than Hillary Clinton, with demonstrable accomplishments of major legislative reform on issues such as ethics, death penalty reform and government transparency, to name a few, as opposed to re-naming post offices!

And I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you follow my posts closely enough to accuse me of being rabid, but managed to miss where, on more than one occasion, I have said flat out that if Obama had won these two states in these fake primaries where everyone knew going in that they wouldn’t count, I would steadfastly hold that they shouldn’t count. I do believe that rules are rules and should be followed in order to ever have any meaningful effect.

@spifflog

How would it represent change? Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse? He is Mr. Change. But nothing could be more old school Washington politics than for a politician to say that votes should not be counted. And this from a “change” democrat, a minority one at that, arguing that votes should not be counted - in essence arguing for disenfranchisement. Never thought I’d see that.

Knock it off with the insults, this isn’t the Pit. You show me one place where Obama has argued that votes shouldn’t be counted, or where he has actively argued for the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan. Go on, show me.

You can’t, because it’s bullshit. Barack Obama has said, repeatedly, that he’d like to see both states get their delegates seated. But he wants it to be through a fair process, and coming up with that process is up to each state to determine. In Michigan, the legislators went on break without coming up with a resolution. HOW is that Obama’s fault? In Florida, the head of the democratic party said, “Thousands of people responded,” she said. “While your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t.” cite.

So Florida voters CHOSE not to re-do their primaries. HOW is this Barack Obama’s fault?

And by the way, the ONLY candidate I’ve ever heard specifically say that voters should be disenfranchised is Hillary Clinton, who continually points out that she’s entitled to take the nomination with the use of Superdelegates, even if she has to do so by superceding the will of the voters. She’s right, technically she can, and she wants this nomination so bad that she actually would!

Now you tell me, which candidate gives a crap about VOTERS and which one does not?

@spifflog

Change would be something like this:

“Having these votes re-done will not benefit me. They could potentially hurt me. I lost the election in Ohio. Michigan is very similar to Ohio in demographics and make up - but Michigan votes deserve a say. I lost the vote in Florida earlier. But Florida voters must have a say as well. Many would expect me to take the easy way out, the politically expedient way out. To obfuscate and make a half hearted effort designed to stop the votes in Florida and Michigan. I have actually been advised to do just that. But if we are going to change the way Washington does business, it must start here. So I will work with Senator Clinton, and we will find away to ensure that new primaries take place, and than all votes are counted.”

Again, utter nonsense. That doesn’t prove he means what he says about change in Washington at all. This has nothing to do with Washington or change in any way. It’s a state issue. And these states have spoken.

@spifflog

Having said all this I will probably still vote for Obama. But he’s not as different as I had hoped. And this proves it..

I’m glad he’ll have your vote, but it proves nothing of the sort.

[spifflog]

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Barack Obama has said, repeatedly, that he’d like to see both states get their delegates seated. But he wants it to be through a fair process, and coming up with that process is up to each state to determine. In Michigan, the legislators went on break without coming up with a resolution. HOW is that Obama’s fault?
[/QUOTE]

I’d like you to answer one question. Did Obama work as hard as he could to ensure that the primaries were held again?

[DSeid]

Why would that be leadership? I’m thinking it is more reasonable to treat the state leaderships as responsible adults: You made a choice and there were consequences of that decision. You are free to fix it and I will participate so long as it is being done in a fair way. But it is your mess to clean up. Or not if you choose not to.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Here’s what they should do.

Hire five repuable polling firms (Rasmussen, Zogby, etc.) in secret. Have them do polling. Average the responses to get percentages and then dole out the delegates in that proportion. And no Superdelegates for either state.

I am serious.

[Shayna]

[QUOTE=spifflog]

I’d like you to answer one question. Did Obama work as hard as he could to ensure that the primaries were held again?
[/QUOTE]
I believe he did, yes.

Any other questions?