I’m not so sure about that. When those other states moved up their primaries, it pissed off IA and NH. It can be argued that removing your name from the ballot in a rogue state would appease IA and NH and get you more very important votes there. A more cynical view would tell you that that was the reason that most of the candidates removed their names in the first place.
It’s not like he didn’t have other things on his plate at the time. I’d say that he didn’t try to block it or anything but there are only so many hours in a day.
No more questions.
You are either naive, which I doubt, or you are being disingenuous (in my opinion of course). I just wanted to see if you were here to have an honest debate or were just blindly support your guy.
It is clear, at least to me, that he slow rolled this. Don’t know how one could portray it any other way. Again, I fully understand the politics of it, but it doesn’t jive with the “bringing a new vision to Washington” mantra.
Why is it automatically assumed that this is the best outcome?
I seriously don’t see why seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan is still being debated. They were told that if they moved their primaries up in contravention of the rules they would not be counted. They did it anyway. They weren’t counted. What’s so hard to understand about this?
Also, why is it incumbent upon ANYONE to make accomodations for those who refused to follow the clearly stated rules? Florida and Michigan tried to be cute and it blew up in their faces. Too bad. So sad. And to blame Obama, or to say that somehow it’s his responsibility to fix something he had NO HAND in breaking, to me, seems patently ridiculous …and yes, I’d be saying the same damned thing if it were Obama crying about it.
Jeez, is this election over yet?
Take your allegations of disingenuousness to the Pit, where they belong.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, such that it is clear to you that he “slow rolled” this. But I am equally entitled to my opinion that he did everything he could do and should do to try to come to a fair outcome for both his own campaign and the voters of the two disqualified states. One does not have to be either naive or a liar to come to this conclusion.
Spifflog - Look, I’m an educated man, and I do not blindly support Barack Obama,* any inference to the contrary is indicative of a negative opinion. Look, you think Obama could have done more, I do not - but then I have been following Obama for a long time and to me this is a nonissue. For someone picking up on Baracks trail now it may appear dubious, and it may appear he oculd have done more, but for someone like me - who again does not blindly support any candidate EVER - this is a nonissue because the rules and his and Clinton’s history on the subject is clear.
Obama is not a liar, nor a sleeper cell terrorist - perhaps we could start on that basis for the furtherment of this debate.
***Shayna ** and I have been on the same team for a while now, and I can assure you she doesn’t blindly support anyone either. Her charactor is of the highest degree and any assumption to the opposite I’ll be happy to talk about outside of the GD.
Despite the persistent assertions that Obama and only Obama could possibly conceivably beat McCain in the general, electoral-vote.com currently shows that if the election were held “today”* Clinton would probably edge McCain, whereas Obama would not.
- aside from the normal giant block of salt about how long it is from now until November, the state by state polls available for these results are not simultaneous and some necessarily have to date back to February
:dubious:
I’ve never said Obama and only Obama could beat McCain - however, I will say - Obama will be the only one to get the chance. 
[QUOTE=Phlosphr***Shayna ** and I have been on the same team for a while now, and I can assure you she doesn’t blindly support anyone either. Her charactor is of the highest degree and any assumption to the opposite I’ll be happy to talk about outside of the GD.[/QUOTE]
Let’s take a step back from cliffs on hyperbole mountain. I haven’t been invited out the schoolyard to duke it out since the third grade.
This is one of the mildest disagreements on a political issue that I’ve seen here. Can we all grow a thicker skin? It’s only March, we have eight months to go.
My point, one which I’ve apparently failed to make, it that I felt Obama had a real chance to separate himself, and show that he is the politician that he purports himself to be. A non-Washington insider that will do what is right - what the folks outside the beltway would view as right.
We have several 22-26 year old interns who world in our office, virtually all who are supporters of Obama. During the discussion on the Florida and Michigan primaries, they saw for the first time, political speak coming from Obama. And the slightly older, more ‘seasoned’ if you will among us could see some of the enthusiasm drain from them as they saw their guy as a real politician. One who could tell half truths with the rest of them. I saw this as an opportunity for him to actually “walk the walk” and I was disappointed as they were.
You all were not. Got it. As they say, YMMV.
Look, I take potshots at my honesty and integrity very seriously. No doubt you would too, were yours called into question. You weren’t invited out for a fight, you were advised where one belongs if one wishes to wage one on these forums. An apology might be in order, but instead you insult me further by suggesting my skin needs to be thicker. This is the last time I’ll ask you to stop insulting me here before I report your posts to a moderator. Thank you for your cooperation.
I’m terribly sorry you and your young co-workers were disappointed that a politician turned out to be a politician after all. But aside from alleging that it would somehow help his image, no one here has provided any concrete reason why Obama should feel any obligation to go out of his way to demand resolutions to problems he didn’t create, but was happy to work within whatever solution the states came up with that was fair to both himself, his rival and every voter in each state. That they couldn’t come up with something that met those criteria is not Barack Obama’s fault.
spifflog, do you think that had the states decided to hold revotes, Obama would have tried to block them? Or do you think he would have accepted them and their outcomes? Because it was certainly their choice, not his.
Yes. 1, on what do you base that belief, and 2, why did he fail?
YOU posted that absurd accusation against the informedness of the people of Florida and Michigan, and then actually tried to claim I did! Come on, dude, scroll up.
Then try to put in in a straightforward sentence. Or man up and retract it, your choice.
Obama, Clinton Campaigns Quietly Work Toward Compromise on Fla., Mich. Delegates
Just because he didn’t make a public spectacle of himself, showing up for fake victory parties in states that didn’t count, doesn’t mean he hasn’t been working closely with all responsible parties to come to a workable solution. And I think that’s all he needs to do; follow the rules and participate in the negotiations that would allow new contests.
He didn’t fail. Get that through your head. The legislatures and state parties in Michigan and Florida failed to come up with a workable solution that didn’t a) cost millions of dollars they had no means to fund and b) further disenfranchise voters who either wouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’d already voted in the Republican primaries since they were told their vote in the Democratic primaries wouldn’t count, or wouldn’t be able to get to a caucus location because there would be fewer of them able to be set up than there were in the original disqualified primary.
Not to mention, FOR ABOUT THE 4TH TIME IN THIS THREAD ALONE, THE VOTERS IN FLORIDA SAID THEY DON’T WANT A RE-VOTE.
So that’s the “uniting leadership” we’ve heard you tell us so much about. The ability to bring people together to solve problems.
There are a lot of people other than yourself who still need convincing of that. This doesn’t do it.
But then I’m trying to tell that to someone who actually believes that “THE VOTERS” are the same as “the party leadership” ! No use, really.
I’ve already done so. Please to quote what you would call an “accusation” about FL/MI folks.
And I ain’t the one sayin’ shit like “RTF, great contortionist act there. Did you used to be in the circus?” and calling it ‘debate.’
It may have been missed in all this kerfluffle Elvis but I had indeed asked you to confirm your understanding of a path to a Hillary nomination and victory.
My understanding was that her team works on undermining him (by keeping up associating him with a scary sounding Black preacher, etc.), along with depending on the Republicans and the media at large aiding in that process, to the degree that she is able to blow him away by 20 plus in PA and to win the remaining primaries by large margins. This still gets her popular vote to a near tie (if you credit Michigan and Florida) and gets her pledged delegate deficit to near one hundred. Then despite the fact that Pelosi and many other superdelegates believe that the pledged delegate count should hold sway, supers swing by two to one for Hillary and nominate her because he is now such damaged goods. From there she, glowing as the vindicated comeback kid, wins the usual blues plus one purple.
Unlikely but not literally impossible I guess.
Assuming that is the possible scenario then at what point would you believe it becomes so unlikely that continuing the race has more potential to cause the party harm than a realistic chance to get your favored candidate the nod? Is there such a point in your mind? Or are the party’s best interests immaterial at any point? Or is the possibility of an Obama candidacy so horrible that potentially harming the party is a lesser risk?
Honest and serious questions. Thank you.
Tom. We’ve established that this is completely false with regard to Florida. Florida’s Democrats in their House voted 115-1 in favor of the date change, when the bill in question was nothing but a date change bill. This puts the lie to the concept that the Democrats were against the date change.
For pity’s sake …
There aren’t many competing interpretations possible there.
SHE’s associating Obama with Wright? He hasn’t done that “undermining” himself? Inventedm bizarre conspiracy theories are to be made fun of, not Greatly Debated.
To whatever tenuous basis in reality your question may still be based on, then yes, you do know the role of the superdelegates, under “the rules”, votes Obama needs too - they get to protect the party’s interests against things like a candidate bursting his own balloon, not incidentally losiing the support of people who had voted for him just a few months eariler but have since come to wish they hadn’t. They’re not going to complain if their updated, better-informed wishes are upheld, ya know.