Really? How do you know that? Somebody’s been running a whisper campaign for the last month or two trashing Hillary Clinton’s reputation and saying she’s completely unprincipled and is unfit to be a candidate. And whose campaign benefits from that? Maybe Obama just has a slicker oppo team than Clinton has.
An opinion piece which itself has vague references and no cites isn’t really a cite.
It is until you have a better one.
Look, dudes- Obama is a career politician. He wants to win. Certainly he’s going to have his team do everything legal to win. And keeping the Fla delegates out is legal. Just in this case, if he wins, he loses.
And, oddly, his platform and Hillarys are nearly identical.
Burden of proof is on you. You’re claiming that Obama has taken proactive steps to stifle any revote attempts.
I think too many people are quick to demonize someone they can’t possibly know. You shouldn’t be too quick to condemn without proof.
I also think that the damage she is accused of doing to Obama is overrated. If anything, she’s desensitizing the public to stuff such as secret muslim or angry pastor storylines.
So, chill.
Would you say that to a 40-year friend of hers who’s so disgusted by her campaign tactics that intends to endorse her rival today?
My cite is above. :rolleyes: Once I come up with a valid cite, the burden shifts to you.
Can you explain a bit further?
The audience of mainstream media outlets will not be interested in the same old stories already ran during the democractic primaries thus the Mc Cain campaign will have less ammo to use during the presidential elections.
At least that’s my theory. We’ll have to wait and see if it amounts to anything.
So, she doesn’t like her campaign and prefers Obama’s style. I can get that. It doesn’t mean she thinks Hillary is evil though.
Your cite is an obviously biased opinion piece. Evidence has yet to be brought up in these threads IIRC that Obama is taking proactive steps to prevent revoting. I’m not going to accept an opinion piece that makes vague assertions but doesn’t cite names, places, or specific events as primary evidence.
If Obama actually does have his campaign taking documentable steps to prevent a fair revote, there should be an objective cite for it somewhere.
The things that Hillary is slinging at Obama are hot-button issues and plays on deep-seated, sometimes (unspoken (unspeakable?) fears among the electorate. To me, not only does she do the dirty work of the Republicans and 527s on some of these, any taint she manages to attach to Obama will have longer to coat, gel and smell and leave the Republicans free to put their energy into other areas.
You clearly have no idea of how the Democratic Primary system works. Right now, Obama has a majority. In order to get anything changed, his supported would have to agree. He has not done so, has he?
There’s a fair and objective cite that said "
Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.”"
However, few really want a RE-vote. Obama is also stopping the vote that was cast from being counted. Simply by sitting on his ass and not raising a finger, he can stop that. Can you show me where Obama has said “OK, let’s count those Fla delegates, as is”? :dubious:
Until the Convention is seated, Obama can pretty well prevent any changes from occuring just by not specifically allowing them.
Now, sure, I am saying “Obama” where I mean “Obama’s supporteds as directed by Obama’s staff as directed by Obama.” He has not personally filed any lawsuits in Fla. His campaign laywers did.
I’ts been *denied * that many times, or more, here, yes, and typically peremptorily and with puerile demands for countercites first - but discredited? :dubious: Nope.
Got anything to offer to convince skeptics who can’t help noticing Obama’s inaction aligning with his tactical interests, or don’tcha? You’d be the first, though, don’t worry.
Some news stories about Obama’s stalling tactics, for anyone still wishing to engage in the schoolyard-level “No, *you * cite first!” game, from about 5 seconds on the Google:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/03/obama-campaises.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jY62kvlMDnwPlz8Wu0fNM20lCN7g
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/776838.aspx
Just for starters.
Naturally, there will always be folks for whom simply having their guy get a tactical win is more important than democracy itself. But one *might * still have thought that lesson would have been learned from the other side’s work in 2000 or 2004.
A majority of… Florida lawmakers? The voters who don’t want a revote? The state tax fund that would be used to redo the voting?
If the Florida electorate and voters wanted to revote, they can find the money and do so without his permission.
It’s not a “fair and objective cite” because it’s clearly biased, and I’ve noticed that HRC supporters are about as slimy and disgusting as she is when it comes to trying to twist things to support her. Without reference to specific incidents that it substantiates, the vague references are fairly worthless.
So if Obama doesn’t do everything up to cheerleading for the revote and financing it from his own campaign, he’s anti-democracy.
Why would he? It wasn’t a fair election. You would accept a Saddam-style election if the results were favorable to your candidate and call it democracy.
I’m not even denying that this has happened, but I wanted to see evidence.
Sure. Florida and Michigan knowingly violated the rules and are now suffering the consequences which they were fully aware of when they made their decision. Obama - or anyone - is not under any obligation to cheerlead for a new vote, especially when the voters don’t seem to care themselves. His “inaction” does not constitute proactive steps to attempt to stifle a revote.
How is asking anyone to provide proof to substantiate a claim “schoolyard-level”?
Careful everyone, watch your step. The irony in here is so thick that you might slip in it and hurt yourself.
Got a cite that it’s the voters *themselves * (and who asked them), not the state party machinery (both parties) and the Obama campaign?
Not his own campaign solely; Clinton’s offered up a share as well. Other than that, though, yes, what other conclusion can you draw? Disenfranchisement, the D-word, gets derided quite a bit by your camp, but never explained away.
Whereas you’d accept a Chavez-style election? Please.
The entire states, huh? Perhaps you could be a little more specific. Some of that would help even before we get into principle. Who was it exactly who violated the rules? Who is it exactly who is suffering the consequences?
Cite?
Didn’t say it was proactive. It’s stalling. If you find that inspiring, you’re welcome to do so, but do *not * then claim it to be an improvement over what Bush did in 2000.
When it’s accompanied by a refusal to substantiate one’s own claims, or a refusal to admit not being able to do so. And, note, you *still * have not provided any basis whatever to believe Obama wants “the people’s voice” to be heard from Florida or Michigan, only rationalizations for his stalling.
Reread the above, as slowly as it takes.:rolleyes:
No. It’s an inference from the lack of apparent public interest in a revote from what I’ve read.
The conclusion I draw of course is that he has no obligation to fix a problem he did not create. It’s not even clear that the correct solution is a re-vote - rewarding a deliberate abuse of the rules may have more consequences than benefits.
The idea that he should use his own money to try to correct a mistake that he had no part in, and that if he doesn’t he’s anti-democracy, is absurd.
Elections have rules. The legislature of those two states chose to violate them, knowing the consequences, and are hence now suffering the consequences.
Do you seriously contend that counting the Michigan vote AS IS with only one candidate on the ballot is more democratic than following the election rules and ignoring it?
The elected legislatures of those states did it, of course. Everyone is suffering the consequences. Such is the nature of government.
Inference based on lack of protests and calls for votes I’ve seen in the media. May be wrong.
The person who I originally asked for a cite from indicated that Obama was actively attempting to stop a revote.
And it’s not stalling, he has no obligation to fix this issue. Stalling sounds like he’s delaying acting on an obligation.
When did I say anything that remotely had anything to do with this?
When I asked for a cite for his claims, at that point, what claim of my own did I fail to substantiate?
This frames the debate in such a way that it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
I am not a democrat, nor have I ever been. I will most likely not be voting for Obama in the fall. And yet you’re going to try to say now that I’m so biased in favor of Obama that I’m willing to dismiss reality in order for him to win?
You’re saying this as a person who would not care one little bit if Florida and Michigan weren’t heard if the situation were reversed. You are clearly biased towards Clinton enough that you’d happily twist reality in any way to create the perception that she deserves to win.
And you want to claim that my bias is stronger than yours? Absurd.
And “what you have read” is what? :dubious:
Only if he wants to convince people of his leadership qualities.
It isn’t about the money. That’s another of your rationalizations.
Oh, it’s the legislatures that are suffering, not the people (whose voice must be heard, I keep hearing?) Try again.
Those are the rules. I keep hearing they’re important.
No, seriously now, a good-faith effort to get the voters’ views to count there would pretty much have to require tossing it and revoting. Right?
A nature which Obama’s supporters keep trying to claim he’ll transform. Here’s a great chance to demonstrate it.
Mighty hard to tell the difference, isn’t it? Does the difference matter to you? Why?
You are using a legalistic definition of obligation, then, not the one that entails providing leadership and solviing problems.
Every time you repeat the same arguments that Team Bush used in 2000.
The one that he is not stalling - which you have repeated above.
To the contrary, it illustrates your own failure to substantiate your own position with anything resembling a cite - for which you repeatedly have taken your other interlocutor to task.
No, I’m saying you’re guilty of the same acts you condemn others for. In response, that is, to your claiming “irony”.
That claim, besides being gratuitously insulting to someone who stayed awake in Civics class and understands the importance of democracy, was entirely imaginary on your part. If you can provide any evidence, any quote from me, that would substantiate that nonsense, then let’s see it.
Now put up or shut up. (Hint: I expect neither from you).
These threads, AP news stories, various political articles. I fully admit I may have missed something. Is there a widespread sentiment in those states about a revote?
Yeah, you’ve made those arguments before - if he doesn’t do exactly what you say he should do, he’s just proving that he’s not a leader and he’s not different.
Of course it is. If a primary didn’t cost money, we’d have probably had a revote by now. That’s probably the most significant issue at hand preventing a revote.
Representatives make decisions that the people have to live with all the time. Is representative democracy not among the flavors of democracy that you support?
This is absurd and just proves how disingenuous you are.
No, those are not the rules. The rules are that since Florida and Michigan violated the election protocol knowingly and the rules state that because of this, their delegates will not be seated.
It was because of this violation of the rules that everyone knew ahead of time that these would not be real primaries and they wouldn’t count. Candidates couldn’t campaign, and most removed their names from the ballot or tried to do so. Many people didn’t show up to the voting booths.
Because the rules were violated, the election results were ruined and weren’t at all legitimate.
And now you’re claiming that “the rules” say that this result must be taken as-is?
You don’t even need someone to argue against you - just start talking and most people will take a contrary viewpoint.
Yes.
Obama is going to transform the nature of representative democracies in a way where the negative consequences of bad decisions by elected representatives don’t negatively impact the people? He’s ambitious then.
It’s not Obama’s problem to solve. It’s reasonable of him to take no action. If he’s actually taking proactive steps to stifle a revote for reasons of political advantage then his behavior is much more criticizable. It’s a significant difference.
There’s some homeowners association in Kentucky that’s deadlocked on the issue of whether or not people should be able to grow big trees in their front yard. Why hasn’t Obama used his leadership skills to solve this issue? Why is he stalling?
Team Bush said that the Florida and Michigan primaries in 2000 shouldn’t count because they violated election rules, and that Obama isn’t responsible for that? How odd.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9698640&postcount=56
Where did I make such a claim in my original call for a citation?
Besides which, how can I give a cite that he’s “not stalling”? I explained why it’s not his issue to fix, and hence, how could he be stalling? This is a logical issue rather than one of proof.
But I have not made claims of fact that should be independently verifiable and hence should be citable. The only claims that remotely fit that are claims that I haven’t heard the people of FL and MI calling for a revote - where I admitted I was only basing that off what I’d read, and that I may be wrong.
This is what you said:
I have made no such claims.
This is what you said:
You are declaring that I’m so biased in favor of Obama that I care more about him winning than about democracy. How biased can I be when I’m probably not even going to vote for the guy?
No, you are the one who has displayed the behavior of twisting and parsing and using disingenuous arguments when it benefits “your guy” - you are far, far more biased than me in this debate and hence I said the statement was ironic.
Your contention that the FL/MI primaries should be counted as-is, when it’s clear they are not the result of a fair vote (and in MI, it was a one candidate race), and that they should influence the outcome of the democratic process, proves that you care more about Hillary winning than you do about the democratic process. Trying to include a one-candidate election result as if it were legitimate is the height of anti-democratic advocacy.