Can anyone tell me if the Clinton supporters were making a big

[Bread and Circus]

deal out of the Florida and Michigan problem all the while or is this just a "recent conversion" spurred on by the Clinton campaign in what amounts to a bait and switch?

I keep reading their pleas to "have every voter heard" but it rings to me as a very disingenuous attempt at voter empowerment. In my opinion it is all about Hillary empowerment.

Now, I will agree that we have some huge problems with our primary system. I live in Michigan, I had my voice taken away from me by what seems like frank incompetence on the part of state and national party leaders. However, my disenfranchisement was sanctified by Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the others. I can't say I like it one bit.

But it is not fair to go back and fix these "non elections" by assigning delegates. In my state, Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ticket. I had NO chance to vote for them. In Florida, real campaigning (and the CNN ads or Hillary's outdoor appearance do not constitute real campaining) has not occured. The voters of Florida have not had a chance to have the sorts of meetings, rallies, town hall Q and A's, and message dissemination that would allow for the candidates to be put on an equal footing and give the chance for the voters to see first hand the candidates and their views.

As I've been on this board for a while, this call to "voter justice" in regards to the MI and Florida delegates only seems like a recent phenomenon and not one of heartfelt conviction. I dare say that if Hillary didn't stand to make hay out of this she wouldn't make a deal of it at all. This seems especially true as she was one of the original people to pledge to essentially disenfranchise the Floridians.

Also, Obama's "campaigning" in Florida, if you can call his national ads that, would only benefit him if he wanted to change the rules and break his pledge. However, he doesn't. It's not his intention to garner support in Florida and reverse the decision that they had all agreed upon. Rather, it was to his disadvantage that the ads were to be an all or none phenomenon as this has been twisted and exaggerated to give Clinton political cover to pull the shenanigans she is now playing out with the media.

It's the sort of game Clinton is playing that A LOT of people want to get away from.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Bait & Switch. B&S. BS.

[JuniperLea]

2. I see it as one of the few very positive gesture from the Clinton camp

With so much talk of Florida being sans delegates due to their going against the party and changing their primary date, Clinton is stepping up and reaching out. I don't see anything negative about that. Some of the print ads are strange, but the gesture seems sincere to me. Why waste her time?

[Bread and Circus]

11. really? you really believe that? after all this time, why now?

is there a "c'mon you are pulling my leg" smiley because that's the one I want to use right now.

[JuniperLea]

23. I have no idea what you're talking about...

After all this time? WTF is that about?

[george_maniakes]

39. because to not say anything while iowa and new hampshire were going on,

not a peep, and then right before florida say "oh my God! will someone think of the florida voters!" (yes im paraphrasing) seems very ingenuine.

[Skwmom]

3. Well Walmart was the biggest bait and switch every pulled on

the American Public and since Clinton was Walmart's little lady, I vote for bait and switch.

[Skinner]

4. Of course they are doing it for their own self-interest.

This primary is now a delegate battle, and every one counts.

[robbedvoter]

7. Thanks for the broad brush. I happen to care for voting rights over the primary results.

[Skinner]

15. To be clear, the "they" I was referring to in my post is the Clinton campaign.

I meant no disrespect to anyone here.

[robbedvoter]

27. Still an assumption not based on any facts. Look at the consequences of this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4269492&mesg_id=4269492
I am crying as I type this.

[joshcryer]

38. Are you endorsing Obama here?

It seems you are misled about Clinton's intentions with her statements about seating the MI and FL delegates. She would never go against the DNC with regards to how they get seated. At most she can implore the others to seat them if she doesn't have a majority vote, but the likelihood of it actually mattering (ie, making her the nominee in the event she has to plead to have them seated) is completely nill.

THEY WILL BE SEATED! I've been screaming it loudly for two days now! OMFG!

[Skinner]

47. No, I'm not endorsing anyone.

I'm just stating what seems obvious to me.

In case anyone assumes I am criticizing the Clinton campaign... I am a former campaign hack, myself. As such, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing when campaign does everything they (legally) can in order to tip the scales in their favor. This is politics, after all.

[Glorfindel]

9. Thank you, sir...a sane and much-needed reminder

for all of us about what's really going on.

[Bread and Circus]

12. Thank you. Just reading a little sanity here soothes my frazzled nerves.

[joshcryer]

30. Skinner, Hillary never said she wanted those delegates to count toward her nomination.

And anyone who says as such is a liar.

[Skinner]

48. Of course she didn't.

She isn't going to come out and say she is motivated by self-interest. She isn't stupid. But I think anyone can see what is going on here.

[Deep13]

5. I don't know what we are supposed to do...

...when we have national primary elections with state parties making the rules. You're right that assigning delegates is not fair, especially for Michigan where other names were not on the ballot. On the other hand, punishing the voters of those states for institutional fuck-ups is not fair either. I really don't know what the answer is.

Everything a candidate does is going to be calculated for that candidate's advantage. That is an unpopular, but typical, part of the process. In this case HC not only wants delegates in Denver, but she wants to be able to tell FL voters that she opposed their disenfranchisement in November.

[Bread and Circus]

13. But won't you admit that when making her pledge chose to

disenfranchise them in the first place? This has all occured, in part, by her hand.

And don't you also realize, that the reason Clinton, Obama, and the rest all did this was to "look good" and curry favor with the early voting states (i.e. Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina)?

Doesn't it strike you as being pretty unethical to wait until those 4 states are out of the way to reverse the pledge you had made to them?

Please, restore some faith here in my about my fellow DU'ers.

We can't be all that cynical and coy...

/beg

[Deep13]

16. How is it unethical unless all electioneering is unethical?

Yeah, they changed their minds. Maybe they hoped Michigan and FL would back off. I guess I don't see the point of accusing politicians of being politicians.

[Bread and Circus]

25. Ok, then I take your words to mean you agree this is a political

ploy as opposed to being one of justice and conviction.

I don't blame politicians for being politicians as long we can recognize this as that and then argue it in those terms.

[papau]

22. Was it cynical and coy for Obama/Edwards to wait to last hour/day to ask to have Mich remove names?

there was no rule that required them to do that - and they did not do that in Florida - but Michigan was seen as Hillary, and Florida was "competitive"

One gets tired of one side pretending more ethics and morality than the other - when the evidence does not support either side claiming more than the average amount of ethics and morality.

[joshcryer]

33. You really don't understand the situation. She basically promised to seat the delegates, just as...

...Obama did today. People, get with the fucking program here.

[rinsd]

6. I have always thought the FL & MI delegates would be seated.

If Hillary won the nomination handily, she would seat them.

If Obama won by enough that they would not impact the final tally, he would sit them.

I was assuming that Hillary would win these states based on the national vs local campaign angle.

As far as people here? Wyldwolf,Democrat Since Birth and several other Hillary supporters have been talking about FL's impact since at least November as a discussion of its coverage leading into SooperDooper Tues(momentum etc). MI has been discussed as well though its impact was blunted by her not sharing the ballot with Edwards or Obama.

[Bread and Circus]

14. funny, because I don't remember the outrage until IA, NH, NV, SC were out of the way

convenient, no?

[rinsd]

18. What do you mean outrage?

The only outrage I see is the overreaction of Obama fans to Clinton's statement she would seek to have those delegates seated.

The discussion of what would ultimately happen with the delegates and those races potential impacts on the overall primary have been discussed for quite some time.

[Bread and Circus]

24. The fake outrage that this is all about "voter enfranchisement"...

yeah... that outrage.

My outrage is about how Clinton, who signed the pledge to disenfranchise voters, now wants to change the rules of the game midstream because it personally benefits her.

It's like saying "hmmm....you beat me to 10 in this game of of pickup basketball, now we are going to play to 21 and my friend Sam from Florida is now on my team. I know we agreed the game was just 10 to begin with and Sam had to sit out because my kid cousin from Iowa really wanted to play but It's not fair of me to not let Sam play too. I think everyone should play".

It's just inherently wrong to change the rules midstream only because it suits you.

That's exactly what occurred in Florida 2000 and we were all incensed by it, and still are. Finally, the SC stepped in and made the rules suit them in a 5 to 4 decision. We all know it wasn't fair and it was all about the politics of power and not the politics of justice.

[rinsd]

26. Poor analogy.

A better one would be

"You and I are playing a game to 100, you are up 2 points with 10 point decided. You have now asked that after the game is over if we can allow 2 players contributions to be officially recognized though they were not officially part of the game."

Also she has done is announce a statement, she has filed no legal papers or done anything beyond that.

As I have said, there have been whispers of the delegates being seated that the convention every since they were stripped of their delegates? Why Because the party can't afford to totally anger MI & FL dems with the general election looming.

What Hillary has done here is smart politics.

She has sewn up FL in both the primary and GE and forced Obama to repeat that FL doesn't count which just looks bad.

If you want to discuss changing rules, Obama negotiated a nat ad buy that he knew would reach FL voters before today. He could have waited until tomorrow. Instead he gambled and sought and exemption so he could advertise in FL without being penalized.

[Bread and Circus]

28. Meh...I'm actually one of the Dems who should be angered...

I'm one of the Dems who are totally disenfranchised because I never got to vote for Obama at all.

However, I wouldn't sit on my hands in November because of it and I know living in the state no one ever threatens they will.

What might anger people though is cheating and changing the rules mid game is cheating.

This is not about November really, this is about delegates and who gets them, Just like Skinner said.

And I think my analogy is much better than yours, but that's subjective.

[joshcryer]

37. Since delegates are brokered, your 40% uncommitted will likely be done so at the convention.

Be there to raise your support for your candidate and you will get the percentages of delegates you are after.

[joshcryer]

35. Actually, FL asked Dean and Pelosi fall of 07 whatwould happen to those delegates.

They both answered that they would be seated, most likely.

[joshcryer]

36. Also, the outrage comes from irrational Obama supporters saying FL and MI don't count.

When clearly they serve as political points, not only now as the race is going on, but at the convention, especially since both of them have the interesting (but unlikely scenario) of being played by Obama (by disenfranshising those voters) in a way that would keep them from being seated and guaranteeing him the nomination.

They are in play regardless of what the Obama supporters will like to think here, and I have put a shitload of effort defending the basic principles behind these ideas.

I'll admit I was originally against the whole process myself, until I understood that the delegates would in all likelihood actually be seated (in other words, they *do* matter). Then I became fine with it.

[george_maniakes]

40. actually didnt the obama campaign say they would be in favor of a florida...

vote later where the candidates could participate AND florida delegates would matter? From what i can see, obama is keeping his word of support for iowa and newhampshire being first (not saying that i agree with that) while clinton waited until after iowa and newhampshire to being a believer in florida voters again. What an ingenuine attempt at caring about voters.

[joshcryer]

41. He came out today saying he would seat those delegates if he was the nominee.

A wise decision.

Dean and Pelosi did not say that they could not support seating the delegates at the convention, the key is that the delegates CANNOT be used toward EARNING that nomination, which is the MISINFORMATION that Obama supporters have been spreading about Hillary. That she WANTED those delegates for her NOMINATION, which clearly is not happening. It's against the rules, and even Hillary isn't stupid enough to go against the rules.

Like I said, many times, the only way those delegates wouldn't be seated is in the unlikely event that they matter to the vote, and the one who wouldn't seat them would be Obama (this seems to be Magic Rat's favorite outcome).

[george_maniakes]

43. so those delegates will be at the convention but wont vote....

is that it? and who or what is a magic rat?

[DJ13]

8. The Clinton campaign looked at their delegate totals won vs Obama and panicked

What better way to obtain a lead than by seating delegates from two uncontested states that voted Clinton either because she was the only serious candidate on the ballot (Mich) or had an early vote state (Fl) where name recognition would snag a large majority of the early votes cast before her opponent(s) became better known?

[Deep13]

17. I guess I can't picture HRC ever panicking about anything. nt

[EFerrari]

19. She's so defensive just under the surface, I can. n/t

[rinsd]

20. LOL a 2 delegates lead with 3100 up for grabs to go when she announced it.

Even now after Obama's win in SC, she's all of 15 delegates behind in voted delegates.

She is up 78 delegates overall (when superdelegates are added) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

[joshcryer]

32. You're lying, Clinton never suggested seating those delegates for nomination.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Also, Obama's "campaigning" in Florida, if you can call his national ads that, would only benefit...

...him if he wanted to change the rules and break his pledge."

I think that the opinion of a million Florida voters counts for a lot; that will be more votes than all prior contests combined in this primary season to date. Especially with Super Tuesday almost upon us and everyone hanging on every opinion poll that gets released between now and then. And Florida, unike South Carolina, conceivably could go Democratic in 2008. Who the voters can get enthusiastic about there is relevent. I have no doubt that Obama would love to significantly exceed expectations in Florida. And campaign ads could help that happen.


I dare anyone who thinks otherwise to refrain from discussing any political opinion polls that come out between now and Novembers election if you disagree with me on that.

[Bread and Circus]

21. I agree with you that Obama would welcome a groundswell in Florida

who wouldn't if they are campaigning.

And further, Florida will be electorally important come November. Agreed.

But I think it is a huge stretch to say Obama bought his national ads to curry favor in Florida especially considering he has been against breaking the pledge they all made.

I'm seeing Obama's national ads on CNN here in Michigan (after the non-primary is over) and they are really good ads by the way. However, I was puzzled why the heck I was even seeing them until my wife reminded me it was part of the national buy.

But the question I raised is why anyone would buy the insinuation that this is about voter enfranchisement when it's only being fretted about after the four initial states are out of the way and it's being raised by someone (i.e. Clinton) who signed a pledge to disenfranchise Florida voters in the first place.

[johnnydrama]

29. obviously

In NV, Hillary thinks she was supposed to get the culinary union's support, so until they supported Obama, it didn't matter how and where they voted.

As for MI & FL, Hillary thinks she was supposed to run away with the nomination, so now that it's a tough race, it does matter what happens to their delegates.

Timing is everything.

Don't sign pledges, and agree to rules and change your mind when it's most convenient for you.

[joshcryer]

31. It never came to my attention until Hillary pointed it out. She wants to seat the delegates...

...at the convention. She can do this on her own if she is nominated (has the majority delegates), or they can do this collectively. She calls for a collective seating of these delegates, because she knows that in the unlikely event that they would actually matter, the other candidates would essentially disenfranshise these voters. Causing a debacle never before seen in the history of our party.

Obama has come out today basically reiterating what Clinton said the other day, in support of seating the FL and MI delegates.

The issue is not actually that complicated.

[joshcryer]

34. OK this thread is hopelessly lost, I cannot reply to all the misconceptions, here:

It's fucking as simple as this. Hillary never said she wanted the delegates for her nomination.

Delegates come to convention. Delegates are counted. Majority winner gets to make decisions about what to do about MI and FL. Hillary, if she has the majority vote, seats the delegates. Obama, if he has the majority vote (and there is no margin of contention) seats the delegates. How hard is this to understand? Please someone help me here.

[george_maniakes]

45. instead of denying floridians of delegates, why cant the party just move the darn primary till later

...and that way everyone gets what they want?

new hampshire and iowa are still first.
floridians get delegates.

its a win win for everyone.

[Maven]

42. Psst. Obama hints he'll seat delegates at Tampa fundraiser

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

[Auntie Bush]

44. Funny how Clinton is just selfish and self serving when she does something to win.

But when Obama does something to win, he's passionate and a good patriot American citizen. Funny how that is. :shrug:

It's funny how when Obama attacks Clinton...it's all's fair in love and war and it's just politics. No scrutiny or criticism by the media!

It's funny how when Clinton criticizes Obama she is pure EVIL, has secret motives, is self serving, is RACIST and besides Bill did this or that... fill in the blank.

Funny how that is!

[george_maniakes]

46. just for the record im against attack-dog politics....

and i think obama is too. mind you, i think hillary was to before iowa. Everyone seemed respectful.