Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

[Jon]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/21/obama-willing-to-‘go-more-than-halfway’-on-fl-mi/

This is really disgusting.

He is offering her half-way, knowing good and damn well that ALL the votes should count. And he knows she is not going to take a compromise. He will then turn it on HER and make it seem as if she is the one holding the voters in those states back.

He really disgusts me. CHANGE we can believe in? This is the same old dirty politics I've always known.

 

[Ravi]

What's more than halfway? 3/5? So Florida voters count as 3/5ths citizens?

So ironic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's more than halfway? 3/5? So Florida voters count as 3/5ths citizens?

So ironic.

You must be aware that the last time 3/5ths was used was Slaves ( good play there Ravir)

 

[Care4all]

If they do not come to a fair agreement and it goes to the DNC rules committee on May31st, then the selection of the nominee could go all the way to the convention in August, is what I heard last night.

This May 31 committee, has procedures and a timeline schedule to follow, in order to resolve these rules issues writen in to the bilaws that would bring this nomination to the convention.

Hillary has this in her favor to bargain with.

There is no way in my opinion that Obama wants it to go all the way to the convention....

Politically, the favorable decision for him to do is to count all of Florida and Michigan imo...maybe splitting the michigan votes between him and hillary as a compromise, so he can appear to care about the disenfranchised voters....

And then, let the Primary contest go from there....more than likely Obama would still be leading, and will still win the delegate count to win the nomination.

Care

 

[MsWikia]

Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

 

[Care4all]

Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

Obama withdrew himself from the Michigan ballot, thinking it would help him politically, because he was going to lose it I would suppose? This is a political contest, thus my thinking it was a political decision....

He did keep his name on the florida ballot by choice.

Who knows why he made these political decisions and what he was thinking when he and his team of advisors made them.

It is NOT Hillary's or the people of Michigan's fault that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, and leave it on the ballot in Florida is it?

Very early on, when there was time for a recount, Hillary offered up such, but Obama balked at splitting the costs of it....his team advised him NOT TO give these states a recount i suppose?

I am not certain it is as clear cut as you seem to think it is...Wikia.

And for Michigan, maybe obama should be given 1/2 or 1/3 of the delegates, but this would be guessing and taking away from the people of Michigan that did vote for Hillary...perhaps?

I think the two teams will work it out before the May 31st cut off, Obama will not want to continue this contest and bring it to the convention imo.



Care

 

[Larkinn]

Obama withdrew himself from the Michigan ballot, thinking it would help him politically, because he was going to lose it I would suppose? This is a political contest, thus my thinking it was a political decision....

He did keep his name on the florida ballot by choice.

Who knows why he made these political decisions and what he was thinking when he and his team of advisors made them.

It is NOT Hillary's or the people of Michigan's fault that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, and leave it on the ballot in Florida is it?

Very early on, when there was time for a recount, Hillary offered up such, but Obama balked at splitting the costs of it....his team advised him NOT TO give these states a recount i suppose?

I am not certain it is as clear cut as you seem to think it is...Wikia.

And for Michigan, maybe obama should be given 1/2 or 1/3 of the delegates, but this would be guessing and taking away from the people of Michigan that did vote for Hillary...perhaps?

I think the two teams will work it out before the May 31st cut off, Obama will not want to continue this contest and bring it to the convention imo.

Care

So if I rebut this crap again, will you actually respons as opposed to just saying the same shit on other threads?

The bullet points:

Obama withdrew from MI as a sign of good faith (so did Edwards).

He legally COULD NOT withdraw from FL.

You are advocating a continuance of the crap primary system we have.

You don't change the rules AFTER the vote has been held. Thats just dishonest.

 

[Care4all]

So if I rebut this crap again, will you actually respons as opposed to just saying the same shit on other threads?

The bullet points:

Obama withdrew from MI as a sign of good faith (so did Edwards).

He legally COULD NOT withdraw from FL.

You are advocating a continuance of the crap primary system we have.

You don't change the rules AFTER the vote has been held. Thats just dishonest.

You don't seem to understand Larkin, IT IS IN THE RULES.

When there is a situation like this, if it had not been settled by the candidates and the DNC by the May 31st date, the rules committee meets and starts the process IN THE RULES to settle these disputes to determine the fate of unseated delegates....which is on a specific schedule that leads to the convention. THESE ARE THE RULES, they are not outside of the rules Larkin....which will just drag this thing on.....giving the candidates a reason to come to a compromise before that process starts.

As far as in "good faith" crud for him withdrawing from michigan, malarky!!!

It was done because it was in his best political interest, for the people of the USA NOT see obama lose to the front runner, Hillary at the time.... and to think otherwise is politically naive imo. I am not trying to "have one up " on ya Larkin, but this is just simple logic.

How did Edwards and Biden and Richardson and Kucinich and all of the other candidates manage to take their names off the ballot in Florida, they were still legally in the contest at that time... Larkin....since it was illegal, the others should be charged with a crime for doing such....?

His decision WAS A POLITICAL decision Larkin....a bad political decision. It has also been a political decision of his, to Balk and Postpone Hillary getting the delegates due to her through a compromise until this point....it has been to his political advantage to not have the media reporting the total delegates of Hillary's with Florida in it, that's for certain....sooooooooo, he played politics, as expected, in a political race, i would suppose...?

But it is down to the wire now and he needs to make a decision to compromise.

the leaders of the DNC need to be fired over this fiasco.

The people of Florida and Michigan FOLLOWED THEIR LEGAL RULES and voted the day their state delegated according to LAW....they should have never been disenfranchised of their votes, the DNC should have compromised upfront and settled the dispute when it happened last march-may of 07...they FAILED at their jobs of ensuring their members, ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS, get a chance to vote.



care

 

[Larkinn]

You don't seem to understand Larkin, IT IS IN THE RULES.

When there is a situation like this, if it had not been settled by the candidates and the DNC by the May 31st date, the rules committee meets and starts the process IN THE RULES to settle these disputes to determine the fate of unseated delegates....which is on a specific schedule that leads to the convention. THESE ARE THE RULES, they are not outside of the rules Larkin....which will just drag this thing on.....giving the candidates a reason to come to a compromise before that process starts.

I'm aware of that. Its also the rules that these delegates should NOT be seated. They might change those rules, which is unfair and stupid.

As far as in "good faith" crud for him withdrawing from michigan, malarky!!!

It was done because it was in his best political interest, for the people of the USA NOT see obama lose to the front runner, Hillary at the time.... and to think otherwise is politically naive imo. I am not trying to "have one up " on ya Larkin, but this is just simple logic.

Obama isn't an idiot. The media counted hillary v. no candidate votes and assigned those to Obama. He surely knew that was going to happen, so how exactly did this help him politically again?

How did Edwards and Biden and Richardson and Kucinich and all of the other candidates manage to take their names off the ballot in Florida, they were still legally in the contest at that time... Larkin....since it was illegal, the others should be charged with a crime for doing such....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008

Candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson dropped out of the presidential race before the Florida primary. However, they remained on the ballot.

His decision WAS A POLITICAL decision Larkin....a bad political decision. It has also been a political decision of his, to Balk and Postpone Hillary getting the delegates due to her through a compromise until this point.

You are aware that it was HILLARY who said no to Michigans solution, right?

By the way, tell me your version of a fair compromise.

...it has been to his political advantage to not have the media reporting the total delegates of Hillary's with Florida in it, that's for certain....sooooooooo, he played politics, as expected, in a political race, i would suppose...?

As opposed to Hillary, right? Do I need to remind you, again, that Hillary supported not counting the delegates until she needed those states to win?

But it is down to the wire now and he needs to make a decision to compromise.

the leaders of the DNC need to be fired over this fiasco.

Hillary needs to compromise as well. Actually it doesn't really matter what they think, since the DNC will decide on May 31st, and then Hillary will lose this election.

And no, the leaders of the DNC did nothing wrong. The state reps of Florida and Michigan played chicken with their peoples votes, and lost. Not the DNC's fault.

The people of Florida and Michigan FOLLOWED THEIR LEGAL RULES and voted the day their state delegated according to LAW....they should have never been disenfranchised of their votes, the DNC should have compromised upfront and settled the dispute when it happened last march-may of 07...they FAILED at their jobs of ensuring their members, ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS, get a chance to vote.

care

Thats not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to set up a system to decide who will be the democratic candidate in the general. They can do that however they want.

 

[Care4all]

Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

He wasn't the Leader at the time either.

He CHOSE to leave his name on the ballot in Florida, while other candidates managed to remove their names. He chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan because it was politically benefitial to him, there is no other reason than a political one imo.

There absolutely was NO PLEDGE to the 4 early states by the Candidates to take their names off the ballot and for people to claim such is simply not true.

There was also not a pledge: to not have fund raisers and a team working in said states....before that stuff gets thrown out AGAIN at us....both Hillary and Obama held fund raisers in Florida and had campaign teams working there and Obama spoke to the press in Florida and he also ran ads in florida...supposedly by mistake for the press conference and on the Ads he ran, he said he could not pull them from the florida region, it was a package buy or something like that....?

Care

 

[Care4all]

I'm aware of that. Its also the rules that these delegates should NOT be seated. They might change those rules, which is unfair and stupid. yes and no. It is in the rules not to seat them IF THE CANDIDATES do not come to a compromise before the May 31st date, it is also in the rules for them to hear the State's case and a number of others and then decide how the delegates will be distributed or seated, or not seated. In everyone's mind, they know and have known, that some sort of compromise would come in to play and the RULES allow for that compromise to come in to play.

So the contention that Hillary is "changing the rules" midstream is absolutely ridiculous...but go ahead and continue disparaging her for her stance to have all votes count.



Obama isn't an idiot. The media counted hillary v. no candidate votes and assigned those to Obama. He surely knew that was going to happen, so how exactly did this help him politically again?

HOW did he KNOW that the "no candidate" votes would be counted for him at the time he withdrew his name Larkinn? Obama was not even a front runner at the time? And as I said, it was HIS POLITICAL decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan and i don't know WHY he chose to do such, i can only guess it was because he was not the front runner, and this is why.

It certainly WAS NOT BECAUSE he made a pledge to take his name off the ballot.....you certainly can figure that all out on your own if you let yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008

Candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson dropped out of the presidential race before the Florida primary. However, they remained on the ballot.

Thank you. I did not know this, but now i do so i will report it correctly from this point onward. I can't believe these guys really dropped out before the first few primaries.....sheesh.


You are aware that it was HILLARY who said no to Michigans solution, right?

By the way, tell me your version of a fair compromise.

No, i did not know this Larkinn....I would need a link on that from the main stream media. What was the compromise? Giving Hillary her fair share and Obama taking ALL of the no candidate votes when some of them could have been support for other candidates like Edwards, who got 14% in Florida's primary, I believe....and you say he was out of the race by then..... so if Obama got all of the "no candidate" votes it actually would be giving him more than what he probably really got...

All of Florida should be counted as the votes came out.



As opposed to Hillary, right? Do I need to remind you, again, that Hillary supported not counting the delegates until she needed those states to win?

Actually, I would need proof of this....I know the candidates agreed to sign the pledge to the 4 early primary states not to campaign in those states which they agreed to larkin...

HOWEVER, there was no pledge to the democratic party from these candidates to not seek the seating of these delegates. Even Obama in his little press meet suggested to the press that the delegates of Florida will be seated by the convention. It would have been POLITICAL SUICIDE for these candidates to pledge to the Democratic party that they would seek the disenfranchisement of millions of voting members of the party and citizens of the united states.



Hillary needs to compromise as well. Actually it doesn't really matter what they think, since the DNC will decide on May 31st, and then Hillary will lose this election.

The DNC, I found out, does not decide on the 31st, they START the process in the rules to make the decision and there is a schedule to follow, that could bring it to the convention.

And no, the leaders of the DNC did nothing wrong. The state reps of Florida and Michigan played chicken with their peoples votes, and lost. Not the DNC's fault.

The DNC did PLENTY WRONG....by insisting the 4 early states take priority over other states without hearing the cases of other states to vie for that spot....and by not coming to a decision on this issue with Florida and Michigan BEFORE the primaries began, to ensure that every democratically registered voter in the united states had the right to vote in their primary.

.

Thats not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to set up a system to decide who will be the democratic candidate in the general. They can do that however they want.

It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise. Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic

 

[Jeepers]

He wasn't the Leader at the time either.

He CHOSE to leave his name on the ballot in Florida, while other candidates managed to remove their names.

Care with all due respect your making stuff up.. which of these candidates that appeared on the florida ballot managed to remove their names...

Florida Candidate Votes Percentage National delegates
Hillary Clinton 870,986 49.77% 0 [105]
Barack Obama 576,214 32.93% 0 [67 (69)]
John Edwards 251,562 14.38% 0 [13 (11)]
Joe Biden 15,704 0.90% 0
Bill Richardson 14,999 0.86% 0
Dennis Kucinich 9,703 0.55% 0
Christopher Dodd 5,477 0.31% 0
Mike Gravel 5,275 0.30% 0
Totals 1,749,920 100.00% 0 [185]

He chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan because it was politically benefitial to him, there is no other reason than a political one imo.

Nope.. I actually think he would have beat her had his name been on the ballot..

There absolutely was NO PLEDGE to the 4 early states by the Candidates to take their names off the ballot and for people to claim such is simply not true.

guess its coincidence that just Hill and Kucinich were present...didnt hill plege that the votes in FL and Mi wouldnt be counted?

There was also not a pledge: to not have fund raisers and a team working in said states....before that stuff gets thrown out AGAIN at us....both Hillary and Obama held fund raisers in Florida and had campaign teams working there and Obama spoke to the press in Florida

O speaking to the press was a disengenuous comment.

and he also ran ads in florida...

Nope.. another disengenuous comment...

supposedly by mistake for the press conference and on the Ads he ran, he said he could not pull them from the florida region, it was a package buy or something like that....?

Care

Christ Care.. that was no press conference on any scale and .. you know that the ads were part of a nationwide ad..

You hill fans sure know how to grasp at the thin straws, ignoring the facts while manufacturing false controversy.. If hill takes this fight past June 4rth she will have successfully commited political suicide.. I will now pledge to move to NY and actively support any campaign against her...

 

[Jeepers]

It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise. Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic

Dont be so obtuse Care... I know you understand that in floridas case it is their own lawmakers to blame. Why is it that the DNC has these primary date rules.... read this quote below from the NYT.

"...But officials in other states said Florida’s move would only create more chaos around the nominating process, which has already been upended by other states’ decisions to hold earlier primaries. New Hampshire may move up its primary as a result — possibly even to this year — and in South Carolina, Republican officials said they, too, would advance the date of their primary.

“South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South,” said the party chairman, Katon Dawson. “It could be as early as Halloween and our version of trick-or-treat, if we have to....”

 

[Care4all]

Dont be so obtuse Care... I know you understand that in floridas case it is their own lawmakers to blame. Why is it that the DNC has these primary date rules.... read this quote below from the NYT.

"...But officials in other states said Florida’s move would only create more chaos around the nominating process, which has already been upended by other states’ decisions to hold earlier primaries. New Hampshire may move up its primary as a result — possibly even to this year — and in South Carolina, Republican officials said they, too, would advance the date of their primary.

“South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South,” said the party chairman, Katon Dawson. “It could be as early as Halloween and our version of trick-or-treat, if we have to....”

As I said Jeepers, they should have settled this BEFORE the primary campaign went full force. florida's Majority republican congress made this decision to move the Primary up last March of 07 and Michigan was early on too, and many other states talking of moving theirs up....

The DNC Neglected their responsibility and shirked the states and the citizens of all states by not facing their problem head on and come to a NEW SCHEDULE to make ALL states happy.

This could have been a ROTATION of the First Four early states.

The DNC FAILED bigtime to consider ACTUAL CITIZENS and their VOTES, and they failed to address this problem and tried to put it off for the next leaders of the DNC on the next election....that is unacceptable and as said, a failure to be LEADERS on their part....imho!

care

 

[Larkinn]

yes and no. It is in the rules not to seat them IF THE CANDIDATES do not come to a compromise before the May 31st date, it is also in the rules for them to hear the State's case and a number of others and then decide how the delegates will be distributed or seated, or not seated. In everyone's mind, they know and have known, that some sort of compromise would come in to play and the RULES allow for that compromise to come in to play.

No, actually its the State Democrats and both parties that have to come to an agreement.

So the contention that Hillary is "changing the rules" midstream is absolutely ridiculous...but go ahead and continue disparaging her for her stance to have all votes count.

Really? What did Hillary think of FL and MI's votes last October Care?

HOW did he KNOW that the "no candidate" votes would be counted for him at the time he withdrew his name Larkinn? Obama was not even a front runner at the time? And as I said, it was HIS POLITICAL decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan and i don't know WHY he chose to do such, i can only guess it was because he was not the front runner, and this is why.

*shrug* this is mere speculation either way.

No, i did not know this Larkinn....I would need a link on that from the main stream media. What was the compromise? Giving Hillary her fair share and Obama taking ALL of the no candidate votes when some of them could have been support for other candidates like Edwards, who got 14% in Florida's primary, I believe....and you say he was out of the race by then..... so if Obama got all of the "no candidate" votes it actually would be giving him more than what he probably really got...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080508/pl_cq_politics/politics2719785;_ylt=Agx9HUKqgJWCk4v_7C3X7xOs0NUE

Considering Hillary was running unopposed, she likely got more than she would have gotten otherwise as well.

Actually, I would need proof of this....I know the candidates agreed to sign the pledge to the 4 early primary states not to campaign in those states which they agreed to larkin...

Honestly? You don't seem to know anything negative about Clinton, where do you get your news, from the Clinton campaign website?

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985

It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runner—by some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, "It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything." Clinton was unwilling to take her name off the Michigan primary ballot, as Obama and her other significant rivals did, but like them she agreed not to campaign in Michigan or in Florida before their primaries.

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

HOWEVER, there was no pledge to the democratic party from these candidates to not seek the seating of these delegates. Even Obama in his little press meet suggested to the press that the delegates of Florida will be seated by the convention. It would have been POLITICAL SUICIDE for these candidates to pledge to the Democratic party that they would seek the disenfranchisement of millions of voting members of the party and citizens of the united states.

Yeah, it would have been. Unfortunately, because Florida and Michigan fucked up bigtime, and their leaders should be held responsible for this debacle.

The DNC did PLENTY WRONG....by insisting the 4 early states take priority over other states without hearing the cases of other states to vie for that spot....

Theres a limit to how much they can fix the primary system at once.

and by not coming to a decision on this issue with Florida and Michigan BEFORE the primaries began, to ensure that every democratically registered voter in the united states had the right to vote in their primary.

They DID come to a decision. You don't seem to realize that the DNC can't force Florida or Michigan to have a primary on a certain day, they can only threaten them in other ways. Well not after this fiasco. So much for trying to fix the primary system, its fucked from here on out.

It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise. Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic

Its THEIR party, they get to make the rules, not the states.

 

[Ravi]

Obama spoke to the press. He broke the rules. Funny how the rules are only applicable to Clinton.

 

[Larkinn]

As I said Jeepers, they should have settled this BEFORE the primary campaign went full force. florida's Majority republican congress made this decision to move the Primary up last March of 07 and Michigan was early on too, and many other states talking of moving theirs up....

The DNC Neglected their responsibility and shirked the states and the citizens of all states by not facing their problem head on and come to a NEW SCHEDULE to make ALL states happy.

This could have been a ROTATION of the First Four early states.

The DNC FAILED bigtime to consider ACTUAL CITIZENS and their VOTES, and they failed to address this problem and tried to put it off for the next leaders of the DNC on the next election....that is unacceptable and as said, a failure to be LEADERS on their part....imho!

care

So instead of disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, it would have been disenfranchising Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, etc, etc. Because you know damn well those states weren't going to give up their front runner positions.

 

[Larkinn]

Obama spoke to the press. He broke the rules. Funny how the rules are only applicable to Clinton.

The rules apply to BOTH candidates. The delegates should not be counted because if they are, we will have a fucked primary system next year. That and its obviously patently unfair to have a set of rules where Obama wins, and mid-course change those rules so Hillary wins.

 

[Ravi]

The rules apply to BOTH candidates. The delegates should not be counted because if they are, we will have a fucked primary system next year. That and its obviously patently unfair to have a set of rules where Obama wins, and mid-course change those rules so Hillary wins.

Which is exactly why they should have disqualified Obama in Florida when he broke the rules.

It isn't rocket science.

 

[Larkinn]

Which is exactly why they should have disqualified Obama in Florida when he broke the rules.

It isn't rocket science.

Wow, thats quite a harsh punishment you want to mete out for one press conference.

Oh, and by the way, not campaigning isn't a DNC rule, it was a voluntary pledge by the candidates.