This is so not right
Obama’s campaign and the DNC have made a deal to do joint fundraising?! I almost can’t believe it but it looks like they are deliberately ignoring the will of more than half of the voters and throwing all of their weight behind Obama.
Update: It’s even worse than it looks at first glance. The fundraising entity would enable big money donors to contribute up to $28,500 with the majority of that money going to the DNC. In other words, Oprah and her friends can get over that pesky $2300 rule and donate 10 times that amount to the DNC. But they’re going to want something for that money. There is no quid without a pro quo. The DNC is going to have to dance to their tune. This stinks big time.
Filed under: Gender Equity, Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: DNC, joint fund raising, Obama
The article also mentions they’re trying to work a similiar vehicle with Hillary, but not thanks. I’ll give directly to her, thanks. The DNC will not see a dime from me for some time to come, if ever again.
Thanks for posting this RD — I saw the reference in the comments and my head is spinning. I think I feel faint from shock.
No wonder the DNC is dragging it’s heels on FL & MI — they had this pending.
Marco — me too.
Marco: Well who can blame her? Under the fundraising arrangement with Obama, the DNC, that entity that is sitting on FL and MI, would get the bulk of the $28,500 limit donations. I wouldn’t want to give them a dime either.
Actually, let them do this. I think it is going to be horrible PR for Obama, especially with FL and MI voters. He will have lost them for good if this goes through.
I hope Hillary finds a way to use this. It’s disgusting.
Exactly. There is going to be one hell of a backlash over this. Sounds like another one of Donna Brazile’s great ideas.
sorry about my typos. “Not thanks?”
I need more coffee.
As ofr her going labor, Hillary is a strong Democrat. I know she shall remain one and will not toss her party aside even if its moron leadership continues to stab her in the back. I have wondered at times during this campaign why she’d even want to lead the party after the attacks of the “creative class(less)” and the mind-boggling ineptitude of Howie, Nancy and Harry, but she soldiers on for the country - not for netroot special interests and DNC coffers.
I agree with you both that this isn’t going to sit well with the 12 million voters who aren’t racist, stupid Archie Bunker-types bit simply think she will be far better at the job than Obama.
Its not like Obama hasn’t been paying off Super-Ds already anyway. Even if this isn’t as necessarily nefarious as its being made to be here, the conflict of interest is way too much.This has the potential to really piss off a lot of voters. If the DNC really thinks this is going to be helpful they are more incompetent than I already think they are. If they want Dems to vote McCain, this is the sure fire way to do it. If Dean/Brazile weren’t so incompetent they could raise the money themselves.
I’m glad I haven’t donated anything to the DNC. I give my contributions directly to Hillary.
Lawsuit? Conflict of interest.
———————————————–
It’s time to think third party. I do not think this is survivable.
Hillary can have the right attitude, the right stuff - the party leadership is beyond the pale.
gqm: It’s probably just as nefarious as we think it is. Just because it might be legal doesn’t mean there aren’t issues. For one thing, the RNC is doing it wilh McCain but he is the only candidate and presumptive nominee. Secondly, the reason the DNC has had trouble raising money is because of MI and Fl and The Gang of Four. So, in order to pay for the convention and help out down ticket races, they have turned to their candidates. I can imagine them hitting up Hillary and her campaign saying, “Sure! Resolve MI and FL and it’s a deal”. But they don’t have a deal with Clinton, do they? So, it looks like they have no intention of settling that problem. Not quite the same problem with Obama though, right? He has more money than God coming in and in *his* case, the deal is much simpler: His friends will donate generously as long as Obama continues to be the favorite. Oh, maybe it’s not spelled out but they will reward good behavior.
AND by cutting a deal with only one, they give Obama their blessing. The correct thing to do is do it for both or neither. This is not the route they chose.
So, given the limited data I have, I conclude that they have no intention of fixing MI and FL and they will use the Obama campaign to fund the convention and that Hillary can go fly a kite for all they care.
So they really are that dimwitted. Just splendid.
edwardian: I call it a death wish.
It’s a death wish, indeed.
Do they really think the millions of PO’d voters - especially in MI and FLA - are gonna stick around if this blatant BS continues?
Funny how just when we REALLY need a functioning Democratic party (could we have more national emergencies?) it totally implodes.
Not sure the DNC is necessarily behind this as a way to support one candidate over another as the same deal was offered to both. I do think however that your correct in saying Obama benefits from it more than Clinton could at this point. The upside for Obama is obvious. By accepting before Clinton he gives himself the air of inevitability which effects SD’s. He also, as a result of his huge fundraising aparatus, is responsible for providing huge sums to down-ticket candidates via the DNC… something which also helps him with SD’s. This goes along with the 50 state voter registration plan he announced today as well… both make him look good to down-ticket dems and thus to SD’s.
Clinton currently has less money to play with so this makes much less sense to her. The DNC is doing what it’s supposed to and Obama is definately using it to his advantage. The only reason Clinton isn’t though is because she can’t, as a practical matter, do so at this point in time.
So, while this definately works in Obama’s favor for all kinds of reasons, I don’t think it’s particularly nefarious. It’s merely politics as usual, that Obama happens to be the beneficiary of due to his circumstaces (mainly money). Remember, the DNC is more than just it’s presidential candidate(s) and this is somethign that is done every election cycle. I imagine Dean is rather hoping Clinton signs on as well, that way he gets access to both candidate donors!
Is it the end of the world? That should be our theme song until the Dem “leadership” quits their petty games.
RD, I agree with you but only pointing out in the “best case” scenario, their idea is still bad.
Speaking of donations, the email du jour from Nancy Pelosi is below. I have STEAM coming out of my ears:
“The Democratic Convention in Denver is going to be so exciting. And, because of all you’ve done to support Democratic candidates, I want you to have the chance to be there in person.
I’m honored to serve as Chair of this history-making gathering. From the opening gavel right through Thursday when our nominee delivers an historic acceptance speech, it’s going to be a remarkable week.
You can win the opportunity to be right there in the Convention hall in Denver, Colorado when it all happens. Simply give a gift of at least $25 or more by May 1st and you’ll receive an official entry for flight, hotel and accommodations to the Democratic Convention (Sunday, August 24th thru Thursday, August 28th). And every time you make a contribution for the same amount before the end of the month, you’ll receive another chance to win.
Enter our Match-It-By-May Convention Contest!
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is the engine driving change forward, but we must win the White House and strengthen our Democratic majority in the House to fully implement our New Direction agenda.
So I am asking people like you — who have gone online before to support our Democratic candidates — to please step forward again and match your most recent donation before the end of April.
We’re calling it our Match-It-By-May Campaign. With thousands of people acting over the next six days, we’ll have the resources to keep our 2008 victory plan on track. You sent gifts as large as $25 to help the DCCC and our candidates in 2006. It’s time for you to act again. If you Match-It-By-May, we’ll have the time-sensitive financial support needed to win the tightest, most highly-contested races of 2008.
Enter the Match-It-By-May Convention Contest for a chance to see history in the making.
On to Denver,
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
P.S. Don’t forget, you can’t win if you don’t enter. So, please, take part in our Match-It-By-May Convention Contest now.”
She got a reply from me about her being in the tank for BO and that WOMEN are watching her AND the party and they are going to lose us forever, if they slam dunk this nom for BO. Though she was too chicken shit to allow a reply to her e-mail (no-reply) you can let MADAM Speaker know what you think of blah blah blah “see you in Denver” BS at:
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Goddamnit.
By the way, for what it’s worth, Matalin was on some jabber head talky show saying “they” Dean, Pelosi, supers, et al are so SCARED of the BO bullies that they are making sure he gets the nom even though they KNOW he will lose by McGovern proportions to McCain in Nov. She said they don’t care about the WH because they are certain they will control the house and Senate and hope to keep a grip on McCain. Interesting to mull, anyway.
Sorry, Billd, they should have tried much harder to avoid the perception of partiality. And as for Hillary, if the DNC had settled MI anf FL, the money would flow to both entities.
It is regrettable that downticket Dems suffer from all of this but that’s due to Dean’s very poor leadership.
I think this is going to backfire spectacularly on both the DNC and Obama.
Speaking of Pelosi, is it possible that she might have her sights on a ticket with Obama?
Could be I suppose, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see. I confess my perceptions are, perhaps, somewhat clouded by my personal take on the whole MI / FL affair which I’ve already elaborated on in another thread today so won’t belabor again here.
As to the perception of partiality… hmmm…. honestly I’d have to know more about what happened behind the scenes on that. If Dean waited as long as he reasonable could without causing problems for the donw-ticket Dems (again, they are what the DNC is for as much as the pres candidates) then I’m ok with it. If he timed it now just to scew things in Obama’s favor then I’m in agreement with you.
Dean’s job should be to take care of the DNC. That includes both being impartial AND making sure he’s taking care of his responsabilities down-ticket. If he’s setting the timing of his duties solely to meddle in the nomination, then he’s out of line.
jules: could be!
But apparently, in theory anyway, they don’t give a shit about winning the WH in ‘08. This is all a charade to “keep peace.” Eff that. I never thought I could leave this party, but there’s one hand already on the door knob right now.
Dean is NOT impartial.
Well, look at how well money helped Obama win over PA against a demonized opponent! I’m sure it’ll help Democrats nation-wide to be associated with a moneyed, landslide loss.
I feel the same way, ufa. Either you’re right that they don’t want a Dem in the WH next year, or they are suffering from a severe case of “cognitive dissonance” themselves. Good point by Davidson, btw.
billd: I read your comment on FL and MI and you are misinformed on Florida. They *did* protest when they were called before the Rules and Bylaws committee. The Florida Democratic Party chair explained that they were forced into the early date by the Republican legislature. The GOP put a paperless voting proposition on the primary ballot. The Democrats would have been nuts to choose a different date. But the GOP knew it would be a poison pill and they were perfectly happy to have their delegate slate stripped by half.
The Rules and Bylaws committee offered Florida a caucus with a total of 150,000 ballots. FL told them how unrealistic that was and we now know that 1.7 million people voted in FL. So, the DNC gleefully and stupidly stripped FL of all of its delegates.
The grisly proof is here in this video of the occasion . Watch it and weep and tell me why Obama wouldn’t agree to a revote that Clinton’s campaign was going to fund.
WTF. I am so through the DNC. Dean and Brazile make me sick.
NOT A DIME TO THE DNC. My money goes directly to Hillary.
Davidson: Damn, you are so right. “moneyed, landslide loss” - well that ought to keep the Limbaugh, Hannity RW blabbers with something to talk about for the next four years. I can hear it all now from them. “Not only are LIBRULS eeevil, they are stupid.”
Davidson, are you referring to Obama’s Humiliating Defeat in Pennsylvania?
I’ll definately do some research into the Florida thing if I was misinformed about it. What I recall was that the vote to move up the date was unanimous. 118-0 or something like that. I’m just not sure I buy their arms were being twisted in the face of a unanimous vote. Surely -someone- would have stood on principal?
As far as the revote goes, the problem was never really who was paying for it. As the Chair of the FDP said: “A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. ” In that they were stymied by Republicans ‘gaming’ the syatem as it were.
billd: The vote was unanimous because it would have been political suicide to go against a proposal to outlaw paperless voting machines- in Florida.
Yes, Florida ran out of time to hold another primary in June because it would have had to comply with state and party scheduling rules and the DNC and Obama’s campaign did not move towards a resolution in time for it to be scheduled by the end of the party’s primary schedule. Obama didn’t do himself any favors though. He’s not legit without FL and MI and now his only options are to completely ignore them until they don’t count, in which he loses them in the fall, or include the results as they currently are. He’s boxed himself and the party into a corner and probably took some very bad advice. So much for good judgment.
I first learned about this from one of the commenters on TalkLeft. I was outraged. McCain has a simliar deal with the RNC but the difference is that McCain is there nominee. Obama and Clinton are still competing for the nomination. This is just wrong on so many levels. It gives Obama another fundraising advantage. I said this on TalkLeft but the DNC needs to stop acting like leeches. They are desperate for money but the answer isn’t to feed off of Obama. They are so ready for Clinton to get out of the race. It is obvious now.
@KB: Ha! Yes, both his humiliating PA loss and his upcoming landslide loss (if he’s the nominee). The Democratic brand will be hurt badly by nominating Obama, but adding an embarrassing landslide loss will only increase the damage. I fear this will be a game changer on par with the Reagan Revolution, except this time it will fundamentally delegitimize, splinter the Democratic party.
@ufa: They have no legitimate reason to fear the OFB (Obama Fan Boys) since Clinton can beat McCain even amidst an all-out media onslaught where she has been demonized as nothing short of being a KKK member. I don’t buy that they fear the OFB; they are the OFB. They honestly believe he’s electable. Insane.
I think Neo-Liberal Coterie pitched an amazing new house to the DNC. It’s huge, it has a great room, a wine cellar, a greehhouse and an indoor pool. It has a master suite and his and her bathrooms. They presented Obama as the front man as part of the deal.
So the roof leaks and the landscaping isn’t done. Just a little more money and you’ll have your dream house. There’s no sewer connection - just a little more money. Sorry to tell you, there’s a crack in the swimming pool. Just a little more money.
It’s never a good idea to fall in love with a job, a house or a car. It’s a really bad thing to fall in love with an ideology. You invest your time and emotions in the cause. Little by little, you see cracks in the ideology but just a little more time, just one more primary and everything will be fine. Don’t worry.
They are beyond reason now. They can’t admit they were wrong.
Um, maybe you should go back and read what Halperin wrote again. The DNC is negotiating with both campaigns and Halperin implies that there’s no deal with the Clinton campaign–yet. There may be one forthcoming. But if you’d rather get your panties in a bunch, don’t let me stop you.
Why no, it’s absolutely not nefarious. Everything Dean and Brazile have done is absolutely even-handed and above board and not in any way designed to favor one candidate, cough, Obama, cough, over the candidate they wish would go away and never be heard from again. So now they’re selling the party itself to the highest bidder. Well, who can blame them? It’s not their fault Oprah isn’t backing Hillary. And it’s not their fault all those silly people in MI and FL voted for Hillary, making it necessary for said votes never to be counted. Maybe Oprah will buy them all a car to assuage their hurt feelings.
Rather than giving Obama an air of inevitability, this reeks of desperation by Obama, Dean and Brazile. They would do absolutely anything to end this thing; unfortunately for them, it seems like every one of their ham-handed moves to favor Obama just hardens the attitude of the Democratic base against such tactics and against Obama himself. I have gone from thinking Clinton, Edwards or Obama would be acceptable as our nominee to being absolutely resolute that I will never vote for Obama for any office anytime anywhere.
I understand that Dean and Brazile and the DNC are hurting for money, and pimping the Party out to Obama may seem like a good short-term solution, but it might be more constructive to ask themselves why so few are contributing to the party. If Obama is such a good candidate, why can’t he convince voting Democrats that He is The One? And if he can’t convince the Democratic base, how would he ever be able to compete against McCain? And more importantly, does anyone at the DNC care if we lose in November?
Obama has run the sleaziest, dirtiest campaign I have ever seen (and I’m old). He has had the media, bloggers from the misogyny wing of the party, the DNC, and most of the big-money donors (Oprah, oil company, nuke industry, hedge fund and banking industry execs) all working tirelessly and contributing in his behalf; and Hillary still beat the crap out of him in PA. So now Howard is going to give him even more help. I think the only thing this will definitely do is push a few more voters out of the party.
What exactly does Dean see in this guy? Obama has, if not actually failed upwardly at every level, at least never accomplished even one thing that he can point to and say “this is why you should vote for me.” It’s just all hope and change and unity ponies and koolade and tingly legs. Excuse me, but I expect competence in a President. We’ve had several years of the opposite now — I’m not signing up for four more.
And as for the “politics as usual” argument, maybe so; but look where politics as usual has gotten this country in the past seven years. The country was ready for a real change, not just to trade one hopey, changey, smirky guy for another. It took real talent to squander that, Howard.
Maybe it’s time the guys at the DNC and Donna Brazile read the writing on the wall, smell the coffee, etc., and accept the fact that next January the President sworn in will be either Clinton or McCain. The more we learn about Obama, the less acceptable he becomes as a candidate. And that’s just the known knowns; when all the unknown unknowns hit the fan, not even Idaho would vote for him. And who wants to bet on whether his unknown unknowns from our point of view are really unknown to McCain and the republicans?
So, on the one hand we have intelligent, hard-working, competent Hillary Clinton, who might actually be able to turn things around for this country. And in the other corner, the hopey, changey, smirky guy who has never and will never do anything to solve any real problems. But I’m sure when we’re out of work, have no place to live, no fuel to burn, no food to eat, etc., we won’t mind at all because he’ll give us plenty of koolade and a real nice speech. George W. Obama — many vacations, no solutions.
billd:
Did you have a chance to check the links in the other thread that I gave regarding the rules? I included a PDF of the rules for you to read—if you’re an insomniac, of course.
I’ll quote fom that myth about Florida and Michigan link I sent you:
======
[STATEMENT:] Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state’s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.
FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state’s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.
Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
=====
The “unrelated issues” legislation they’re referring to here is about the paper trail for elections, something the Dems had been fighting for.
FYI
BlueStateGirl, if you posted that comment to one of my threads, I’d delete it. And I’m just offended enough by reading it, that I might yet do so.
We don’t use that dismissively insulting language on this blog. And we don’t appreciate guests who do so either.
We’ll see what riverdaughter has to say about it. But, I’m all for deleting it.
Ohio - Yep… as far as I’ve been able to see reading that and doing some web research on my own, the Florida Dems got rather ’screwed over’ to put it mildly. DNC probably should have stuck with a 50% delegate seating and allowed the candidates to campaign there given the circumstances. Still have to disgree that they should be seated as is now though. With what the DNC had already declared there’s just no way that could have been considered a fair election. As I said before, it’s an embarrassmnet to the party as a whole and there’s really no good way out of it for anyone. Just a bunch of bad choices.
I am curious about how the legislative process works though. Other states have Republican and Democratic primaries on different days so I assume it’s not universal. Makes more sense to me that R’s should have sole control over their parties nomination date and practices while D’s have the same over theirs. Yet another archaic system that needs changed, rather like the primary schedule itself. I am gratified to see FL went to a paper system though for the General.
MessyMarcy - “I have gone from thinking Clinton, Edwards or Obama would be acceptable as our nominee to being absolutely resolute that I will never vote for Obama for any office anytime anywhere. ”
Ah, I remember those heady days when Dems were happily sorting through our candidates and labeling them Choice #1, Choice #1.1, Choice # 1.2, etc. because they were all so darn good. *sigh* Look at us now.
BlueStateGirl: That’s knickers in a twist.
And no, I don’t think this is appropriate. Either both campaigns agree to it or neither of them do. Either the DNC announces it at the same time or it gives the impression that Obama has been officially endorsed by the DNC rank and file. Anything else smacks of favoritism at a crucial time in the primary season when voters are looking for guidance about who to vote for,
It’s going to backfire on Obama and the DNC. Good!
MessyMarcy: I don’t know what the DNC is thinking. Clinton was always my first choice but Obama was one of my last along with Richardson. This was before all of this drama started. I’m disgusted now that I know Pelosi and Brazile were out to help Obama from the start. Brazile needs to realize that saving the party is more important than trying to get a black man elected president. Obama is not the one we’ve been waiting for. I hope a great black male or female leader can win the nomination someday. Someone like Harold Ford, Jr. would get my vote in a heartbeat. But Obama has destroyed this party. People want to blame Clinton but she’s our only hope against McCain. Thank goodness she decided not to get out of the race before the Wright and Ayers controversies were brought to the forefront of this campaign. Obama has already lost the general election. The only option we have is to help Clinton beat the Democratic establishment and their preferred candidate.
billd,
I think every state has its own legislative machinery to handle primaries. The crappy part is when you’re at the mercy of the opposition on the subject of your own business.
Regardless, I’m not clear. Are you saying that the FL and MI delegations should not count now becasue of the rules? All 100%? Regardless of the negative effect treatment of the voters from those states?
How about the vote? The rules don’t strip the popular votes. And I’ll bet you eighteen bucks worth of donuts that the automatic delegates have already figured those numbers into their equations.
Agggh, I am so tired of the rules debate.
How do you see this playing out?
I thought of the perfect name for their cabal: Waffles for Everyone (exept women)..
Oh, crap, I meant to mention the NPR interview Sen. Clinton did regarding the Michigan and Florida situation. You could probably google to find it (I don’t have the link). I think she did the interview last fall—November, maybe?
Now excuse me while I go to get some donuts. Non-sprinkle donuts because only Republicans eat sprinkle donuts.
Is that a character smear? I would never smear donuts 1) because the icing gets everywhere and 2) no one has done more donuts than I.
done more FOR donuts.
Sheesh, my mistake makes me sound like a pervert.
Which I am, but not about donuts. I am a non-donut-related pervert. Of course, no offense intended to donut-related perverts.
I’m so sick of hearing how HRC is “tearing apart the party.” pffft! As we speak, the DNC keystone kops are lacing the convention with explosives set to simultaneously detonate in August and carry out their full tilt party implosion. I hope after all this is said and done, as we pick through the carnage of the Democratic Party, that Dean will be ridden out of town on a rail. It’s time for a housecleaning.
Ohio - If your asking me for a solution I really don’t have one. I would ideally like to have seen a revote but since that’s not going to happen… *shurg* MI for me is just out of it. There’s just no way that can possibly be considered fair when Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. Florida is a little more hazy, but I still don’t think the results are anything resembling an accurate representation of the people’s choice. Many people didn’t vote at all since they already knew the delegates would not be seated. Neither candidate was able to campaign there which gave Clinton a HUGE advantage in name recognition alone since it was so early in the primary season, etc. Yet I really do take the point about not wanting to disenfranchise voters anywhere for any reason, so… I just don’t know.
Note: *shurg* = *shrug* after it’s had a few too many donuts.
billd: The Florida primary was fair and square. Hillary stuck to her promise to not campaign there and only held a couple fundraisers where she carefully did not address the press. Obam bought $1.4 Million of ads on cable TV. Considering that 1.7 million Democrats, a historically high turnout, went to the polls, I think we can conclude that they took this election very seriously. There wasn’t anything tainted about it except that the DNC decided to disenfranchise 1.7 million voters.
Now, you can say it’s unfortunate and bad decision making but that’s that and it’s too late. But the voters of Florida are still unfairly disenfranchised through no fault of their own and are very likely to take it out on the party in November. If you’re cool with that prospect, then there’s no need to discuss it further. Of course, you may have talked yourself into believing that the election is so important that they’ll come around in the fall. Mebbe, mebbe not. I don’t think *I* will because as a super Tuesday voter in NJ, *my* vote only counts if Florida’s vote counts. And that goes for every other voter for Clinton. So, not only did the DNC disenfranchise Florida, but it has disenfranchised CA, NJ, MA, TX, OH, *PA*, AZ, etc, etc. See the problem?
It’s very simple. Obama could have just asked the DNC to waive the rules and seat the delegates and he would have taken a small hit in delegate but gain enormously in good will going forward. That good will would have been helpful to him in winning PA for example where he might have made up for it in delegates had he won. But he chose not to do this. Instead he obstructed. And that has not gone unnoticed by the rest of us. So, as far as I’m concerned, he will be an illegitimate nominee. And since his campaign mouth says the party has over relied on blue collar workers in the past, and now I consider myself one of them proudly despite my relative affluence and college degree, he doesn’t really need my vote or campaign efforts on his behalf. I’ll just skip the presidential button and go straight to down ticket.
BTW, the guilt trip you are about to lay on me and the rest of us abstainers won’t work. It is not incumbent on ME to change my attitude. It is incumbent on YOU to get Obama to change his.
Actually the ‘guilt trip’ as you put it was directed towards abstainers on both sides as you may note.
As to your rationale about disenfranchising all Clinton voters… sorry but that just doesn’t make any sense to me. By that logic if they DO count Florida they will have disenfranchised all the Obama voters. Regardless of how you choose to count the popular vote that too is a nearly 50% split. There’s a reason this primary season has gotten so divisive.
Perhaps Obama should have done that. What he did do was state continuously that he would agree to whatever the DNC decided. To characterize that as trying to disenfranchize Florida voters seems a bit of stretch to me anyway. Likewise Clinton initially agreed to follow the DNC’s decision on this but did not actively start calling for the votes to be counted until it was clear she would need them. Not blaming her for that, it’s just smart, but I wouldn’t put her on a pedestal of unvarnished virtue over the issue either.
I don’t see any way for this to come out ok by me except that DNC leadership ends up replaced with someone with both competence & integrity.
I am more seriously unhappy with the party leadership than anyone else, honestly. If Dean were any sort of leader none of this craziness would be happening.
But, then, I still believe that the only appropriate action is for Dean to publish some sort of ‘bill of rights’ style campaign rules outlining what a good vs. dirty campaign looks like, and then use his clout to get the entire Dem party behind it. Of course Dean won’t do anything of the sort because it takes away his argument that there’s something terrible about fighting all the way to the convention, and also because it stops his own favorite from being able to simultaneously use dirty tactics & complain about other people.
And, Riverdaughter, you are so right about the guilt trip thing. The Democratic party will NOT be able to compete with the Republicans (no matter how superior they are on the issues) until they get OVER this weird belief that somehow if the voters don’t vote for them, it means something is wrong with the VOTERS.
sorry I should have said, I don’t see any way for this to come out ok by me except that DNC leadership ends up replaced with someone with both competence & integrity - OR A THIRD PARTY. (Which does not sound crazy to me at all.)
Oh wait, you said “the guilt trip you are ABOUT to lay one me…” (emphasis mine). I thought you were referring to the ‘guilt trip’ I laid on everyone in the ‘wishing’ thread.
For ease of reference and to avoid confusion I quoted myself below:
“Supporters of both sides who say they will not vote for the other should they win just annoy me. This isn’t about Obama vs Clinton so much as it’s about the reversing the disastrous policies of the Bush years. If we actually follow through with those petty promises and hand this election to McCain, then may all the suffering among the poor, the countless deaths in Iraq, the bankrupt and homeless families in our own Nation, those who continue to suffer and even die without medical insurance, be on our own heads. Clinton or Obama - Obama or Clinton… it’s about fixing what’s wrong with this country, not about ‘taking our toys and going home’ if we don’t get our first choice.
I just hope Democrats remember that when the smoke finally clears.”
billd: It’s perfectly logical. If the argument is that the person with the most delegates should get the SDs, then Obama wins by suppressing Clinton voters in Florida- and by extension every other Clinton state. Without Florida, her critical mass is less than his even though she won those delegates fair and square. He doesn’t need Florida to win if the criteria is purely delegate count.
Of course, that is *not* the only criteria but to leave Florida out gives him the impression of having an unbeatable delegate count. It’s deceptive AND unfair to Florida’s voters. If they make it to the reception but miss the weddling, they’re going to be pissed and they’re not the only ones.
billd:
You know it was Sen. Obama’s camapign that put the kybosh (sp?) on the Michigan re-vote, don’t you? TalkLeft goes into it at length regarding the lawyering. Particualrly look for posts by Big Tent Democrat. he is weak Obama supporter, but most importantly, he is honorable and intelligent. His posts on the issue are enlightening.
You can even google it and you’ll find some MSM articles on this.
As far as Michigan, Sen. Obama took his name off the ballot for political gain. That was his choice and his tactic. He and his surrogates then campaigned for voters in Michigan to vote “Uncommitted” in protest. It wasn’t like he went across the state, but there werre radio ads and such—not enoguh for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to cry foul.
I have read that some people believe the name removal tactic was specifically to cause the MI primary to appear invalid as they all knew Sen. Clinton had big advantages in the state. I haven’t researched this, so take it with the proverbial grain.
(Also, some of his supporters urged Dems to vote in the Republican to game the Repub primary.)
Whatever short-term immediate gain Sen. Obama was hoping for by taking his name of the MI ballot, it has now come back to bite him on the ass. Too bad, so sad—I think this is the part where I say, them’s the rules, but I refrain.
See how I did that? Got to say it then disown it all in the same sentence? I should go into politics. I’d do great, except for that pervert thing.
Anyway “Uncommitted” does not equal Obama. There were other candidates still in the race (Edwards for one) who received votes. Giving Sen. Obama those votes is wrong. Giving him the delegates belonging to Uncommitted is also wrong because he took himself out of the race.
I don’t believe in giving prizes to people who don’t compete.
Uncommitted delegates go to the convention as Uncommitted and commit then. That’s how it works with Uncommitted delegates.
This: Likewise Clinton initially agreed to follow the DNC’s decision on this but did not actively start calling for the votes to be counted until it was clear she would need them is factually untrue. I’d post quotes, but a (very) cursory Google search yields dozens of examples in which Hillary says she thinks the DNC should not pursue the nuclear option vis a vis delegates in either state.
And as far as a guilt trip on those of us who won’t vote for Obama? Sure the Iraq war, the economy, etc. has been a disaster, but so is disenfranchising voters. It’s easy to expect completely horrible corruption, lying, etc. from the Republicans, but somehow it hurts A LOT more when it comes from folks who were supposed to help you, and presumably who ought to know better.
As for the rest of it:
Rather than giving Obama an air of inevitability, this reeks of desperation by Obama, Dean and Brazile. They would do absolutely anything to end this thing; unfortunately for them, it seems like every one of their ham-handed moves to favor Obama just hardens the attitude of the Democratic base against such tactics and against Obama himself. I have gone from thinking Clinton, Edwards or Obama would be acceptable as our nominee to being absolutely resolute that I will never vote for Obama for any office anytime anywhere.
…
I understand that Dean and Brazile and the DNC are hurting for money, and pimping the Party out to Obama may seem like a good short-term solution, but it might be more constructive to ask themselves why so few are contributing to the party. If Obama is such a good candidate, why can’t he convince voting Democrats that He is The One? And if he can’t convince the Democratic base, how would he ever be able to compete against McCain? And more importantly, does anyone at the DNC care if we lose in November?
…
*my* vote only counts if Florida’s vote counts. And that goes for every other voter for Clinton. So, not only did the DNC disenfranchise Florida, but it has disenfranchised CA, NJ, MA, TX, OH, *PA*, AZ, etc, etc.
I just want to say THANK GOD for you people. I’d be utterly convinced the world had gone completely off its meds if it weren’t for you.
And this:
Matalin was on some jabber head talky show saying “they” Dean, Pelosi, supers, et al are so SCARED of the BO bullies that they are making sure he gets the nom even though they KNOW he will lose by McGovern proportions to McCain in Nov. She said they don’t care about the WH because they are certain they will control the house and Senate and hope to keep a grip on McCain.
I think is likely true. Except I think it’s not so much that Dean, Pelosi et al are scared of the Obamanation as much as the fact that they want his money at any cost. They know they can’t elect him, but his donors will keep giving for another few months, until they realize they’ve been taken for the proverbial ride.
If what you all predict happens then I would be agreeable to jump ship from the present Democratic Party under these same idiots of Brazile/Dean and would be in complete favor of forming a third party. I see little future in an “Obama Unity” party performing under the umbrella of the DNC. He can stay separate with his base and those college students who have bought into the hype. As soon as they are degreed they will soon join the Repubs who will vow to keep their future profits intact anyway.
This party and nomination is being hijacked and as paranoid as I may sound I truly believe this to be the case. The Obama surrogates are putting undue pressure onto those superdelegates and deliberating infusing race into the conversation to produce guilt. Those of us not on the bandwagon are sent to the sidelines because we truly believe that this man lacks the credentials to be president and for no other reason. Hopefully, if it comes to that, I will not be alone in proclaiming myself no longer a lifelong Democrat and will find my allegiance and support elsewhere. Everyday brings another sickening reason to pull away.
So, just to be clear, your saying that more Florida delegates = more SD’s for Clinton. I think i see what your saying but it’s still sort of a moot point since we all know SD’s are not bound by anything really in how they vote. Some vote with their constituents because it’s politically wise to do so, others vote their own preferences. In either case the arguement here seems to rest on the perception that that the delgate count is closer and therefore Clinton is more viable. I really don’t think it would work out that way. SD’s will (just my opinion here) go more for Obama regardless because he has a greater impact on the downticket vote. He brings in young people that history has shown wouldn’;t otherwise show up. He brings in more Independents than Clinton. Once registered as Dem’s all those ‘extras’ will be added votes for Dem’s down-ticket. That’s what the SD’s are looking for.
Now whether the DNC’s decision to not count FL and MI will cause those states to lean Red as a result… I guess only time will tell, but there’s not much either Clinton or Obama can do about it currently. Certainly I would rather see them not be disenfrachised, but I can only hope they remember where the fault truly lies… with the Republican legislature that gave them the shaft in the first place.
Ohio - you should do it… i hear they have spectacular donuts in those early morning congressional sessions.
As to MI… I do think the Obama campaign had some valid concerns there. As you pointed out, lots of Obama Dems voted in the R primaries for various reasons and they would not have been allowed to participate in the proposed revote. In the end though Obama himself didn’t stop anything but rather the Michigan Democratic Part declined to pursue any of the options available, terming them “not practical,”
I’m late to this thread, but I’m really mad about this. WTF!! And bluestategirl can take a flying leap back to the orange cheetos place.
“orange cheetos place” - heh. I’m new around here but already know this refers to DKos, just kinda curious as to where the term derives from. The orange I get, but cheetos?
Really, RD. Must you try to reason with the illogical? It’s a very simple logical construction:
If Obama thought the FL and MI elections were illegitimate, then he should have allowed revotes. Obama did not allow revotes. Therefore, by elementary logic, Obama believes the FL and MI votes were not illegitimate (i.e. they were legitimate). Until Obama allows revotes, then he believes the votes were legitimate. Either that or he wants to deliberately disenfranchise voters.
The logic is very simple. Either Obama thinks the votes are valid as is, or he is being vomitously cynical and denying the votes of millions of Democrats. He claims not to be vomitously cynical and I’ll take him at his word. Therefore one option remains.
Well, obviously the DNC doesn’t listen to me. I e-mailed Howard Dean this week and told him I was not giving a dime to the DNC or the DCCC until they figured out a way to seat FL and MI delegates. I also told him every time I heard him asking the Super Delegates to make up their mind now, I was going to donate to Hillary’s campaign. I also told him he was supposed to be non-partisan until THE PEOPLE picked a nominee. So much for listening to the people.
Billd: Great! So I assume you’re on board with getting Florida and MI counted since you could easily vote for either candidate. Hillary is a great candidate. Glad to have you onboard.
I don’t know why any of you are complaining about bluestategirl’s comment: We all know us rednecks go commando.
The last comment, rather unnecessarily dismissing me as ‘illogical’, aside I’ve enjoyed our discussion today folks. Thank you for making me welcome and thank you also for the reasoned arguements. Certainly I’ve learned a few things I didn’t know before. I’m out for now, but will check back for any follow up tomorrow. Take care all and happy birthday once again katiebird!
Davidson: How did you know?
Billd: Stop by any time. You were very polite. Er, BlueStateGirl might be destined for the spam bucket however. We’ll see how that goes.
Eleanor A: “…but his donors will keep giving for another few months, until they realize they’ve been taken for the proverbial ride.” You are on the trail, Inspector Eleanor! Yep, that is exactly right. Because Dean has nearly bankrupted the DNC and they badly need the money. They all hate McAuliffe, but he took a financially deeply wounded DNC and raised tons (over $500 mil if IRC) of cash and took them out of the red. Dean gets the keys to the place, now they have about 5 mil in the bank. Is it true they are worried about having enough money to even stage the convention?
ufa: Yep, that is true. It was in the NYTimes The Caucus pages. They haven’t raised all of the money for the convention and they were about to miss a deadline (this was from a couple of weeks ago). They are bleeding money like crazy because they won’t seat FL and MI and donors are incensed. The anger is only going to get worse with this latest move but at least the tap will be on again full blast with all that lovely soft money.
rd: Doesn’t she have her own blog - BlueState Girl?
Pat: I don’t know but I’m not linking to it. OTOH, she seems rather miffed, wouldn’t you say? Is it something I said?
only hope they remember where the fault truly lies… with the Republican legislature that gave them the shaft in the first place.
Bill, I can only assume you live in a solidly blue state, most likely Massachusetts. Otherwise you’d know this kind of game plan is a regular for the GOP playbook - here in Tennessee, they often try to cram politically-radioactive lightning rod social issue Constitutional amendments onto the ballot in an election year. (See 2006’s Senate race with Harold Ford, the African-American Dem candidate, not only being prevented from embracing anything to do with civil rights but also forced into actually campaigning for the odious gay-marriage ballot amendment - also forced down the throats of voters, pretty much, by the GOP.)
You know, it’s one thing to blame Democratic voters in states where they’re vastly outnumbered by Republicans for their own foibles. It’s another to suggest that the national Party should not - and has no obligation to - help them out when it can.
Obama has shown that he can win all the Democrats except the Democratic base.
They think they can pull this nomination and subsequent election off without working class whites, Catholics, Latinos, most white men and WOMEN.
Can you believe it?
I ask-what has the Democratic party done for us lately?
[...] This is so not right (by riverdaughter at The Confluence) Obama’s campaign and the DNC have made a deal to do joint fundraising?!… The fundraising entity would enable big money donors to contribute up to $28,500 with the majority of that money going to the DNC. In other words, Oprah and her friends can get over that pesky $2300 rule and donate 10 times that amount to the DNC. But they’re going to want something for that money. There is no quid without a pro quo. The DNC is going to have to dance to their tune. This stinks big time. [...]