Democrats & Liberals Archives

Notes from the Obama Campaign in Ohio

Although my primary residence is in Michigan, I have a second residence in Ohio so I have had the opportunity to participate in Obama’s campaign.

IMO, it is a scandal that the Democratic candidates (including Obama) did not participate in the Michigan primary. Michigan of course, is being spanked for moving our primary too far forward but it is time that someone challenged the stranglehold of New Hampshire, Iowa, and North Carolina on presidential politics. It is true that several small states should be allowed to go first in order to allow second and third tier candidates a chance - but it does not always have to be the same small states. The 15 smallest states in the nation should be divided into 5 groups of three - each group representing different regions of the country and each group alternately getting its opportunity to go first - once every 20 years. The remaining 35 states should be similarly divided into 5 groups of 7 states with each group alternately being allowed to go second once every 20 years. This would give all states in the nation a fair chance to influence presidential politics once ever 20 years.

Thanks to the problems of the domestic auto industry, John Engler, and George Bush, Michigan is emblematic of the problems faced by America's middle class and the failure of Democratic candidates to campaign there is a scandal.

Fix Michigan and you fix America.

Hillary left her name on the Michigan ballot in a cynical attempt to scoop up Michigan's delegates for free - but she did not campaign there - she did not spend any money there - she did not address our problems, our needs. Neither did any of the rest - accordingly - Michigan could be lost to the Democrats this time...

So I voted in the Michigan primary against Hillary but had no opportunity to participate in a campaign (Doing that to an activist is just wrong).

Ohio is a Clinton stronghold but do not count Obama out. We fight a mighty machine of Washington insiders. They did not become insiders for nothing. They are "cunning, baffling, and powerful." The corporate elite favor Clinton with money. The corporate media favors Clinton with coverage. The corporate media have tried to tell us for over a year that she was the inevitable nominee - in spite of the fact that it was blatantly obvious that it was not true. They still give her disproportionate coverage. Clinton wins; she gets the headlines... Clinton loses, she gets the headlines... Her picture will be more prominently displayed and they will pick a better picture. Faux News has already tried to Swift Boat Obama with that lying email that you have probably received. So obviously Faux News supports Hillary. In the face of that awesome corporatist adversary, somehow, against overwhelming odds, Obama has managed to create a movement, a ground swell, a grass roots army of people who are tired of being manipulated by the rich and powerful corporatist elite.

The Clintons play the political game the same way that Rove does. It works. Will it work on you? They have been push polling against Obama here in Ohio just like Bush did against McCain in North Carolina in 2000. I spoke with a lady today who received a call from an independent polling company. They asked her: Given the fact that Obama accepted a bribe, would you be more or less likely to... She confronted them on their lies - they back peddled... Anybody who plays a game like that is a low life scumbag just like Bush and his evil twin Rove...

You can be a part of the grassroots army that confronts the corporatist elite Washington insiders. Go to the: Barack Obama Action Center. You can phone bank from home, raise money, or reach out to your friends. If all of you could even just make a few calls, it could push Obama over the top. It is easy. A suggested script is provided for your convenience. You probably have free long distance on your cell phone. You can do it at your convenience. You could be a part of the movement. You could make a difference in the political future of our country.

Why Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul supporters should vote for Obama:

Confession is good for the soul - so - I must confess - I like Mike Huckabee. I am not sure why. He is anathema to much of what I believe. I think that the reason is his heart. I think that he is true Christian in the best sense of the word. The meaningless slogan; compassionate conservatism would actually mean something to him. I think that he is a conservative in his head and a liberal in his heart. If you support Mike Huckabee you probably do not like John McCain. You also probably do not like Hillary. Many of you will vote for Obama in the general election if McCain becomes the Republican nominee. Obama is a moderate, more moderate than I actually prefer, but he is not sold out to big money special interest, so he is free to look honestly at issues and to do the right thing, and he certainly matches Mike's compassion. Be realistic, Mike has no chance of winning the nomination, Obama does. If you want to have a real alternative to John McCain in the general election, vote for Obama now.

The same goes for Ron Paul supporters. Don't throw your vote away. Support someone with a real chance of winning - a real chance of bringing some real change. Because that is one thing that we all agree on. We all agree this country needs real change. Obama is a moderate and can be an honest power broker of change.

I have worked on a number of campaigns including; Al Gore's, John Kerry's, and Senator Debbie Stabenow's. Barack Obama's campaign is the best run campaign that I have ever worked on. This guy could win it - even here in Clinton's stronghold. It is an up hill battle here - fighting a 20 point spread - we need your help - but he could win - even here.

Posted by Ray Guest at February 18, 2008 1:15 AM
Comments
Comment #245587

Ray
Take a deep breathe. HC is not the devil.She is not the best candidate.Niether is Obama. The best potential president already dropped out BUT if HC gets the job she would be about a million times better than the dodering militarist the Reps are running. She will not pack the NLRB with union busting schills.She will not pack the Supreme court with anti-choice revisionist. She will not direct the Justce Dept.and EPA to obstruct tighter state emmission standards.She will not forbid the DOL from doing its job.The list goes on.In relatively small to great matters that effect the lives of real people,not only in the US but worldwide,she will,if nominated,deserve the support of every Democrat. Don’t do the Reps job for them.Second hand slander is their MO.

Posted by: BillS at February 18, 2008 3:21 AM
Comment #245594

Bills

Well said.

Posted by: Carolina at February 18, 2008 7:32 AM
Comment #245599

Ray,

I have blogged a couple of times about the predicament of Florida Democrats, so I feel for you as follow Dem trapped in a state that had a “rebel” primary. It looks like the best solution at this point is for the two states to schedule new primaries or caucuses that the DNC will be willing to count. I think it would set a horrible precedent if the voters of our two states our ultimately disenfranchised because of decisions made by others.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2008 9:08 AM
Comment #245602

Hey, on a lighter note, check out this wonderful Obama site: http://obamawill.com

Posted by: Bill Vroom at February 18, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #245609

Why are you saying that voting for Huckabee or Paul is a wasted vote, jus because they will not get elected? So in other words vote for the lesser of two evils? The only vote wasted is the vote not taken. Yes I might vote for Huckabee or Paul or write in one, but doesn’t mean just because they don’t win it is wasted. It will show that maybe this country needs more then just the two main parties, or maybe the main parties will look toward the everyday person instead of the money(yes Obama wants the money and he is not a grass roots).

Sorry to hear you worked for Debbie, now there is a wasted vote.

KT
(Living in Michigan, for now. The last person who leaves please turn off the lights)

Posted by: KT at February 18, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #245612

KT,

Thanks for your comment. I am disappointed in Debbie Stabenow at the moment over her support for unrestricted spying and telecom immunity. I am suggesting that Huckabee and Paul supporters that want an alternative to McCain create one for themselves.

Bills, Carolina,

Good points. But… I will join the vote wasters and go green if Hillary is the nominee. I agree the best candidates dropped out. I agree that she is better than McCain. She is certainly better than Huck - I like the guy - but he wants to inject the Bible into the Constitution - that is really dangerous… I do not believe that she can win. She will motivate and mobilize the base on the other side for the simple reason that they hate her for no good reason. Hillary will uninspire much of our base - a few sexist, anti-dynastic traditionist, people like me who feel that she has played politics with the war and has sold out to corporatism. Obama will also motivate the racist base on the other side but he he will inspire more enthusiasm on our side. He will also uninspire some on our side - there are a few racist in the Democratic party as well. Like KT, I am tired of choosing between the lessor of two evils. Obama is inspirational. If Hillary is the nominee, I think I shall have to stand neutered… er neutral… I am sure that you are correct and that we should support her - I don’t think I can.

Woody,

There is no good solution to this mess. The first primaries were not real but, a do over would be unfair to the people who won the first time. They all had their chance to campaign in Michigan and Florida. They will seat our delegates and it will serve Obama right for not campaigning there if Hillary becomes the nominee as a result. He will have no one to blame but himself. IMO, we will all suffer in that event, but the votes are cast and we must honor them - no matter what.

The super delegates need to shut up, mind their own business, and honor the will of the people.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 18, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #245613

The truthiness and wikiality of the Obamites can not be contested, but Obama would actually be better off if there was a third party candidate from the right wing.

On Michigan, our concerns should be the people, not the auto industry, which has done nothing except waste resources for the last 30 years.

On Florida, there used to be a slogan “the rules are different here”. I guess they finally got a little too different. Obama’s supporters will not want their delegates seated at the convention.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 18, 2008 12:20 PM
Comment #245618


I think that what we might be seeing in this election is the begining of the end of the two party system.

Posted by: jlw at February 18, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #245619

ohrealy,

The domestic auto industry has certainly made many mistakes but they have also been fighting and now benefiting from unfair trading practices with Japan, China, and Mexico for the last 35 years.

They have also been handicapped by government policies that benefit new start ups like the transplants i.e. the lack of national single payer health care which gives a major “legacy” advantage to new startups. The American people are shooting themselves in the foot because of the domestic content gap. The domestic companies, especially GM, have closed the quality gap. People buy foreign cars because of the perceived quality gap. They think that driving a foreign car makes them look smart. The truth is just the opposite. They are flushing their own prosperity down the toilet. American workers who do not have jobs, don’t pay taxes, don’t shop at their businesses, and so on. Broken unions do not set labor and wage standards that everyone else follows. The non-union transplant workers will now be screwed even worse because the the UAW that they failed to support is broken. We will not be setting a minimum standard for them anymore and their companies will screw them in a race to the bottom.
See: Transplanted to the U.S.A.

Obama will have to agree to seat Michigan and Florida delegates or forfeit both states in the general election. It is bad enough that they did not campaign here, if they disenfranchise our delegates, they will lose these states.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 18, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #245620

Ray Guest,

There is a big difference between Michigan and Florida. In FL, all of the candidates were on the ballot and it was basically a level playing field. (It was actually my guy, Obama, who ran some TV ads.) So Clinton has an argument for making the original votes count. I still think a do-over is a more likely solution, though.

In Michigan, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot. I don’t see how you can call that a fair election by any stretch of the imagination. So a do-over is really the fair way to go, assuming the delegates could make a difference.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #245631

Please excuse me a moment … whew … had to stop laughing. Huckabee and Paul supporters voting for Obama!!! Just because a guy with almost no experience can string together a truckload of platitudes and bromides that bring a crowd to its feet does not a president make, unless, that is, a population is stupid or naive enough to actually buy into that garbage (a euphemism). Neither Obama nor Hillary have enough actually governmental experience to pick up McCain’s laundry from the cleaners, let alone run the executive branch of government.

The biggest laugh of all is Hillary claiming that she has 35 years of experience in her commercials. At what?!!! Being first lady of Arkansas, then the White House? That puts her on the same level as Laura Bush, who is least honest and likeable.

I have nothing against Obama; he is just way too liberal and too much in la-la land politically to come up with anything remotely resembling actual, workable political solutions to global or national problems. He strikes me as being the savior of Everyman — with the exception, of course, of those evil rich people who trod on the rights and pocketbooks of the oppressed poor. This from a man who has raised more than $100 million for his campaign — roughly twice the gross national product of Burundi!

Huckabee supporters will eventually cast their votes for McCain — that’s a done deal. Ron Paul voters — who knows (who cares!). Last I checked Huckabee is still a conservative Republican, so I have no idea how the author of this came up with the idea that his supporters would turn to Obama, a liberal Democrat.

Just a little reality check now and then comes in handy.

Posted by: Goombah at February 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #245632

Woody, the only reason Clinton was on the ballot as all the others(Obama), pulled his name off the ballot. He did not want to buck the DNC, so most Dem’s voted uncommitted, which allows delegates to vote for who ever they want to.
The Republicans were on the ballot, and Mitt took the primary, as a home grown son(what bs), he might have been born here, but for the last 40yrs he has live and govern in MA(sorry those from Tax-achuette). Did he get a kickback for the big dig?

Sorry off subject.

I have to agree that the Unions(i.e UAW) shot themselves in the foot, but the big 3(well big 2 1/2 now) are to blame because they thought for to long that nobody in a foreign country could build a better car..WRONG!! My family worked for GM, I bought Toyota, at the time nothing American made could beat it. I have a brother-in-law who works for GM, yet he has a Ford Pickup.

Obama talks a good talk, and if he is elected I hope he can do the walk, but I am not voting for him.

KT

Posted by: KT at February 18, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #245633

Mea culpa … I forgot, Hillary does have a lot of experience. She worked for a high-powered Arkansas law firm, served as counsel and on the board of Wall-Mart, and pushed an appalling health care plan to disaster during her husband’s first term. The author also believes Fox News et al is in Hillary’s camp. He obviously doesn’t bother to watch Fox News or he’d hear the anchors bringing up every one of Wild Bill’s antics and criticizing her for being a robot. Obama definitely gets better press … so far.

Posted by: Goombah at February 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Comment #245642

Goombah-
The real question is whether people will buy into the notion that continuing politics as it has been going the last few decades will do the Democrats or the country any good. Most of us don’t think so, and that is why Obama’s popular. Many politicians, over the past few years, have come to rely on methods that try to carve out support from underneath the other candidate, the contenders descending into a vicious fight to see who can take the most and the biggest chunks out of the other guy.

Obama seems to the be the better kind of politician, one who can eloquently express the kind of policy and political ideas they want, who can win by building demand for what he’s selling, not merely inhibiting demand for the other candidate.

And you know what? That’s pretty much what people want. They’re tired of people trying to get elected merely on the virtue of being the most vicious competitor. All that’s gotten us are leaders who are just as out of control in trying to sustain support for themselves by attacking others and the media. We want somebody who can stand on their own two feet as a candidate, and Obama, in my opinion, is the closest candidate to doing that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Comment #245643

If the convention goes to a deadlock, and Hillary and Barrack can not come ot an agreement, I think we should agree on Richardson as a compromise candidate.

End of the 2 party system? I don’t care, as long as the Rpblcns go under first.

On Florida and Michigan, you can see that Obamites only want rules enforced that get them what they want, and want changes when things do not work to their advantage.

R.G., American auto manufacturers have always been good at making bigger vehicles, it’s the smaller vehicles that seem to stump them. Henry Ford could not get his own way in dealing with the mass consumer market which drives so much of the economy, in which bigger is always accepted as a substitute for better. The article you linked actually blamed the Japanese manufacturers for the thing that has made them profitable, not reinventing the wheel over and over again.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 18, 2008 5:29 PM
Comment #245649

ohrealy-
Look, those states were told, and Hillary’s campaign agreed that those states wouldn’t count because they held their primaries so early. Now she wants to rewrite the rules to get delegates? No. It would be unfair on the merits to give Hillary delegates from states neither she nor Obama campaigned in, especially one where nobody else was on the Ballot.

Either do it over, or give them representation proportional to the delegate counts in the rest of the country.

As for Cars? The Detroit automakers have screwed themselves by letting their political clout earn them coddling on emissions and business practices. If they competed better on efficiency and product, they wouldn’t be in this position now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #245650

S.D., I don’t care if Hillary gets the delegates or not. It most likely will not help her at this point, but I agree with R.G. on the disenfranchisement of 2 states that are very important to our side. If it was Indiana and Alabama, we wouldn’t care so much, but we need Michigan and Florida to win the general election.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 18, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #245663

Well, I’ve said that all Barack Hussein Obama has is nothing but rhetoric. I was wrong. Apparently, HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE THAT!

Posted by: Duane-o at February 18, 2008 9:10 PM
Comment #245670

The stopped clock is right one time today, GMA actually led with that story on Obama and Patrick this morning:
Howard Wolfson: “If you ask voters to judge you on the basis of promises and you break them, or on the basis of rhetoric and you lift it, there’s not much else there.” , in other word, all hat, no cattle.

The Govs of WI(for Obama) and OH(for Clinton) were on Sunday mornng. The Gov of OH wants the rules committee at the convention to decide whether or not to seat FL and MI delegates. He says it is their jurisdiction. The Gov of WI disagreed.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 18, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #245693

Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in any state that was going to hold a primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008.

But, then she decided to break her pledge and participate by leaving her name on the ballot when EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE had removed theirs. When she was called on this after Iowa by all of the candidates, she then said:
“Florida and Michigan don’t count for anything.”
Then, she broke her word again by saying that of course those states should count and of course those delegates should be seated. She said this ONLY because she was beginning to lose.

The Clintons seem more than willing to tear the Democratic Party apart in order to win at any cost. To allow her to steal the election in this manner would be a crime, and it could actually mean the complete destruction of our party.

I know that I would not vote at all in the general election if the nominee broke their signed pledge, and went back on their word, thus, had to cheat in order to secure the nomination. And I truly think that if the DNC actually allows this to be the way it is won, they fully deserve to have our party melt down and dissolve into nothing.

Every one (including me) who doesn’t want cheating to be the way the Democratic nominee is chosen believes that 1. either they throw out the delegates as originally planned, or 2. they should hold new caucuses, or 3. they should re-do these votes entirely.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 19, 2008 2:52 AM
Comment #245699

I thought of a sports analogy for the Florida and Michigan primaries.

Let’s suppose that the Colts and the Patriots schedule two games against each other, but the NFL says in advance that the two games are merely exhibitions that won’t count. For the first game, the Colts don’t even show up, so the Patriots play and beat the IU football team. AFTER winning, the Pats claim this dubious victory should count, and the next game should too. The Colts show up (=on the ballot) for the second game, and they lose.

Game 1 is of course the Michigan primary. In this case, the Pats/Clinton don’t really have a leg to stand on. True, the Colts forfeited in some sense, but it was reasonable because they were told by the governing authority that it didn’t count.

In Game 2, the Pats/Clinton have a sliver of an argument. A real contest took place*.

For either game/primary, though, the Colts/Obama have a good argument that the results shouldn’t count because the governing authority said in advance that they wouldn’t.

Now the conundrum is the the Pats and Colts may be tied going into the playoffs. The cleanest, fairest solution is to play over. But as a Colts fan I won’t squawk too much if Game 2 counts.


*I don’t buy the argument that the candidates have to physically show up and campaign to have a real election. We do get cable TV and the Internet in Florida.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 19, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #245710

Pledges mean nothing at all to the Clintons. Now they are targeting delegates already pledged to Obama.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

Desperation laid bare. This is NOT about Democrats winning in November. This is ONLY about the two headed Clinton entity and their insane lust for power — the cost to our party be dammed.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 19, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #245711

Sorry, forgot to give the link.
Clinton targets pledged delegates

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 19, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #245718

“the cost to our party be dammed”

And yet, at least 90% of the Dems will vote for this “clinton entity” for President, simply because they are Dems.
Go figure.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #245721

Goombah,

Thanks for your comment. In the calls that I made for the Obama campaign, I talked a Huck supporter who said she intended to vote for Obama in the general if McCain was the Repub nominee. She agreed to vote for Obama in the primary since Huck did not stand a chance. So the “reality” is that there is at least one…

You are correct. Faux News does not like Hillary, of course the love of their heart is all things Repub, but I think they like her better than Obama…

ohrealy, Stephen Daugherty

GM makes more vehicle models that get over 30 miles per gallon then any other manufacterer. Many of them are excellent vehicles, fully competitive on price, quality, and style.

Duane-o,

Not going to bother responding to that comment.

veritas vincit,

As someone who does not want Hillary to be our nominee, I feel your pain, but, the votes were cast. Redoing them is unfair. Not seating the delegates is political suicide. As I see it, there recognize and seat the delegates - no matter what. It is not fair but it is the only option. The super delegates could nullify the unfair effect in the interest of protecting the actual will of the people. But if the super delegates override the people’s will, that will tear the party apart…

Woody,

I understand that it is not fair. The super delegates could openly choose to level things out as mentioned above to protect the will of the people. The candidates had their chance to leave their names on our primary and campaign here. The votes are in. It is done - period. The super delegates probably won’t do that, but they could. That would be a proper use of their super powers…

Thanks all for links and comments.


Posted by: Ray Guest at February 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #245809

Ray, I can’t agree.

All of the Democrats who live in Michigan and Florida had to know that by moving your primary up you were breaking the rules, and flinging the gauntlet down on our entire Party. It seems silly to cry now about the fact that the swords have come out, and that a drop of your blood may end up being spilled.

Look, Hillary breaking her signed pledge when all the other candidates honored it, was inexcusable. Claiming that breaking that pledge had been acceptable after the fact because it didn’t “count for anything”, was also inexcusable. Saying that those delegates must be counted now is complete and total BS. And to reward her with these delegates after all of these things have taken place is simply criminal.

The only way to make this right now is to have these states play within the rules of fairness, and in some way, do your vote over.

If Michigan and Florida are so desperate to vote first in the nation before Iowa and New Hampshire, then I think they should be able to fight in order to make it happen. But until it has been officially accepted by everyone, it seems ridiculous to complain about what has happened during this particular primary.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 20, 2008 2:11 AM
Comment #245850

veritas vincit,

We did not move ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. We just moved ahead of Super Tuesday. I have presented a solution that would be fair in the future. I believe that the other candidates were happy to sit Michigan out because they thought that Hillary would win and gain momentum. They may have been correct. Michigan’s delegates may be less important than the number she would have gained from Michigan momentum otherwise. In other words, it may have been even better for Hillary if they had stayed in.

That said, thanks for pointing out Hillary’s duplicity in the matter. If Hillary becomes the nominee, I will have to do some serious souls searching, but I think that Obama will win in spite of Michigan and Florida and that our delegates will be seated.

I doubt if the fair solution that I suggested above, involving rotating primary order, will ever catch on, so as a Michigander, I would prefer that we stand our ground, even if our delegates don’t get seated, because in the next cycle we will have staked our claim on this position and as the first big state, we will have some influence on Presidential politics. If Americans insist on having an unfair system - Michigan is going to play to win. Disenfranchise us this time at your peril, but we are claiming our position of influence in this unfair system. Candidates have made their choices. The votes haver been cast. They must be counted - period.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 20, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #245886

Ray Guest is entirely right on Michigan, but is crediting Hillary with cynical motives which are not applicable. When her name was put on the ballot, she was the favorite, and probably thought it would be a bad idea to neglect Michigan. This should all be decided by the rules committee at the convention. The DNC is claiming rights that it does not have.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #245906

ohrealy,

Thanks for your comment. Point well taken. I suspect her motives and said so - but no one can know what is in another’s heart. I should have prefaced my comments of that nature with: I think, or, I feel, or, I believe. Still, it looks cynical to me…

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 20, 2008 9:08 PM
Comment #245916

Ray:

We did not move ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. We just moved ahead of Super Tuesday.

I’m aware of that, Ray. I was just saying that because in my view, if any state wants to challenge the traditional first in the nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s something that I think should be allowed to be formally addressed and debated on.

I have presented a solution that would be fair in the future.

But not a solution that will be fair in this particular election. Problem with that is the fact that Democrats have now been through two previous elections since 2000 where there was too much that has appeared unfair and invalid. This will make the third election, and that’s simply asking too much.

I believe that the other candidates were happy to sit Michigan out because they thought that Hillary would win and gain momentum.

That is absurd. Why would the other candidates be happy to allow Hillary to gain momentum?
Every single candidate signed that pledge not to campaign or participate. None of them expected that Hillary would actually stoop so low. If they had, they’d have all made sure to see their names put on that ballot.

I doubt if the fair solution that I suggested above, involving rotating primary order, will ever catch on, so as a Michigander, I would prefer that we stand our ground, even if our delegates don’t get seated, because in the next cycle we will have staked our claim on this position and as the first big state, we will have some influence on Presidential politics.

You really think that Michigan staking this claim right now is more important than making all the candidates - all of whom signed a pledge — to play by the exact same rules for this primary?

If Americans insist on having an unfair system - Michigan is going to play to win.

Whether you believe this is true or not, most people think that it matters HOW a win occurs. Your state damn well knew it was breaking the rules this time around, so it doesn’t seem unfair to most of us that the DNC would have asked all the candidates to sign a pledge to make your state pay a penalty for it.

Disenfranchise us this time at your peril, but we are claiming our position of influence in this unfair system.

This strikes me as the same exact mindset that has professional, and even high school athletes shooting themselves full of steroids in order to gain an advantage.
Look, it does matter how you win. If you want to change the rules, that’s fine, but first you have to have all the others agree to go along with it. This time these states didn’t bother, and now you all want to complain about receiving a penalty. I’m sorry, but it’s ridiculous.

Candidates have made their choices. The votes haver been cast. They must be counted - period.

I don’t agree. Next time, maybe so, (if you can get an agreement to changing the rules), but not this time. It’s too unfair to all of those who chose to abide by the rules.

Ohrealy:

crediting Hillary with cynical motives which are not applicable. When her name was put on the ballot, she was the favorite, and probably thought it would be a bad idea to neglect Michigan.

That’s bunk. Hillary Clinton signed her name to a pledge, broke it, claimed it didn’t matter, and now claims those delegates do matter - and only because she needs them.

It really does matter HOW you win.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 20, 2008 10:46 PM
Comment #245920

In wikiality, there is too much confusion about the order in which things happened, but it sounds truthy. Truthiness is victorious.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #245932

ohrealy,
The order in which what “things happened”?
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you just give us all YOUR version of “the order in which things happened.” Then we can compare notes.
I’ve got the distinct impression that once again, you’ve got nothing - well, nothing but SNARK that is.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 12:50 AM
Comment #245951

In reality, there are not “versions” of the order in which things happened. You have been using Scaife/Gingrich/Drudge/Limbaugh/Coulter rhetoric like, “the two headed Clinton entity and their insane lust for power” and expect to have your opinions respected by Democrats. You do Obama more harm than good, because people might confuse your opinions with his. We are supposed to “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger” here.
Your message if offensive. Your sources are the same old liars. Is your penname intended to be ironic?

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 9:09 AM
Comment #245988

ohrealy:

In reality, there are not “versions” of the order in which things happened.

Exactly so. And I gave that order, using the New Hampshire Union Leader as a source to back it up. This you term “wikiality” and “truthiness.” You also accused me of being “confused” So, I asked you to clarify exactly how I am confused about the order of how things happened. I’m still waiting to hear.

You have been using Scaife/Gingrich/Drudge/Limbaugh/Coulter rhetoric like, “the two headed Clinton entity and their insane lust for power” and expect to have your opinions respected by Democrats.

I call the Clinton’s a two headed entity because that is how they have always sold themselves to America. I said they have an insane lust for power, because they seem to be willing to tear the Democratic Party completely apart in order to win this nomination. They are even willing, according to Politico (a political journalism organization based in Washington), to try to steal Obama’s pledged delegates in order to win. In fact, Politico quoted “a senior Clinton official” stating that this was the case.
I think most Democrats are able to tell the difference between those on the right that hate the Clinton’s, from those on the left who no longer respect them.

You do Obama more harm than good, because people might confuse your opinions with his.

No, I don’t believe that most people are that stupid.

We are supposed to “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger” here.

Right, and I’m critiquing the message that the Clinton’s have been sending to the Democratic Party.

Your message if offensive.
It can only be offensive to those who are unwilling to criticize the Clinton’s. If such criticism is offensive, I’m afraid that’s too bad, because this blog is about “political news, opinion, and commentary”, and that means everyone is entitled to post all of the above here.
Your sources are the same old liars.
My sources in this thread were The New Hampshire Union Leader and Politico. A newspaper and a journalism organization are sources you consider “the same old liars”? Interesting, because I consider them to be entirely acceptable, and I’m doubtful that many others would find them all that objectionable.
Is your penname intended to be ironic?

Not at all. I believe that the truth, even when it seems inconvenient, or makes some people uncomfortable, should always prevail.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #245996

I’m not going to go through everything you wrote, since most of it is just like this. From one of your blind links, which I would never even open when using my own computer at home: “Local leaders of her top competitors’ campaigns say that when she kept her name on the ballot in Michigan on Tuesday, while their candidates removed their names, she clearly broke the written promise.”

IOW, her competitors say that she broke her promise. That is an opinion, not a fact, not the truth, not a source of information, and certainly not any wisdom coming down from the mountain. They are complaining that she did not take her name off the ballot. Why should anyone do that? It sounds really foolish to me.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #246012

ohrealy:

I’m not going to go through everything you wrote, since most of it is just like this.

Ah, I see. You claimed that my listing of “the order of how things happened” was “confused” but then you can’t tell me how, or why. Just as I suspected, aside from the snark, you’ve got nothing.

From one of your blind links, which I would never even open when using my own computer at home:

You might want to learn how to protect your computer if you’re that worried about opening posted links.

“Local leaders of her top competitors’ campaigns say that when she kept her name on the ballot in Michigan on Tuesday, while their candidates removed their names, she clearly broke the written promise.”

Right. A written promise which she signed her name to stating that she would not “participate” in those states.

IOW, her competitors say that she broke her promise. That is an opinion, not a fact, not the truth, not a source of information, and certainly not any wisdom coming down from the mountain.

No, it is not an opinion since she broke a signed pledge by participating. That she did participate is indeed a factual truth because she did not remove her name from the ballot. Every other Democratic candidate but her did uphold their pledge by removing their name. The source that outlined this was the Union Leader.

They are complaining that she did not take her name off the ballot.

Of course they are complaining, because they were upholding a pledge that they believed all of them had agreed to, and signed on to. Hillary was the only one to break that pledge.

Why should anyone do that?

Because when a person signs their name to a pledge, it means all who signed it are agreeing to play by the same rules. Hillary signed, but then didn’t choose to do that. Then she tried to make the excuse that it really didn’t matter because it wasn’t going to count. But, now she is going back on her word that they don’t count. All of the above means her word can’t be trusted or taken seriously.

You see, to most people it really does matter HOW one wins. And maybe that’s why Obama is seeing such incredible momentum now.

It sounds really foolish to me.

Only to those who refuse to understand that signing on to uphold that pledge and then actually upholding it was the really the only honorable thing that any of the candidates could have done.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #246023

Let’s see if I can do a post as sloppy as yours:

“Ah, I see. You claimed that my listing of “the order of how things happened” was “confused” but then you can’t tell me how, or why. Just as I suspected, aside from the snark, you’ve got nothing.”
Someone else already did that for me. Try reading the thread.

“You might want to learn how to protect your computer if you’re that worried about opening posted links.”
You are posting blind links. If I don’t see a suffix, I don’t open it, except when posted by the originator of the thread, and there are 2 of them that I don’t trust.

“Right. A written promise which she signed her name to stating that she would not “participate” in those states. “
She didn’t. Also notice that in this silly newspaper article, from a silly amateur newspaper, the source is not named.

“No, it is not an opinion since she broke a signed pledge by participating. That she did participate is indeed a factual truth because she did not remove her name from the ballot. Every other Democratic candidate but her did uphold their pledge by removing their name. The source that outlined this was the Union Leader.”
How is a newspaper a source? That does not even make any sense. Try critical thinking and logic instead of hate-filled invective.

“Of course they are complaining, because they were upholding a pledge that they believed all of them had agreed to, and signed on to. Hillary was the only one to break that pledge.”
Hillary was the only one who was not an inexperienced lightweight. Since you claim to know the truth, what was Obama thinking was going to happen? A 48 state nominating convention? My opinion is that, at the time, he was probably relieved to have 2 less states to campaign in. Remember, Hillary was the frontrunner then, you know, like in the order that things happened.

“Because when a person signs their name to a pledge, it means all who signed it are agreeing to play by the same rules. Hillary signed, but then didn’t choose to do that. Then she tried to make the excuse that it really didn’t matter because it wasn’t going to count. But, now she is going back on her word that they don’t count. All of the above means her word can’t be trusted or taken seriously.”
Sounds more like the DNC was being foolish to try to punish 2 states. Read the posts by the people who live in those states.

“You see, to most people it really does matter HOW one wins. And maybe that’s why Obama is seeing such incredible momentum now.”
The momentum has more to do with Rpblcns choosing him as their opponent. One wins by persuading more delegates to vote for you. Hillary was way too polite about Obama, and let him bloviate on nothingness without responding for too long.

“Only to those who refuse to understand that signing on to uphold that pledge and then actually upholding it was the really the only honorable thing that any of the candidates could have done.”
The pledge was not to campaign. She didn’t campaign. Get over it.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment #246030

The pledge stated that the signatories would not “campaign or participate” but Hillary participated. The source that I used to determine that this is what the pledge stated was the Union Leader article, which I linked to. In that article, it quoted what the spokesmen for several of the other candidates were saying at that time. I have no reason to believe that those spokesman wouldn’t have known exactly what the pledge stated, especially since they were all complaining about it in exactly the same way.
If you’ve got proof that this is not what the pledge stated, they why don’t you bring it.

Try critical thinking and logic

Try some yourself, ohrealy. If you were thinking critically and logically yourself you’d at least make an attempt to back up what you’re claiming here with some sort of source.
My own critical thinking and logic demands that I make an attempt to back up what I say, and that I never take someones word for something just because they keep demanding that they have to be right.

instead of hate-filled invective.

Yes, I’m absolutely vicious, aren’t I? It’s got to be hate-filled invective to call the Clinton’s on their obvious lack of ethics and transparent lust for power at any cost.

Give me a break.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #246031

The people writing articles for your Union Leader with their unnamed sources in the campaigns of unnamed opponents of Hillary Clinton must have gone to the Samuel Beckett school of journalism, like in the Unnamable, “I had to chose between those things not worth mentioning and those even less so.”

If you like Obama so much, please go to work for McCain.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #246032

Okay ohrealy, here is the wording of the pledge that all of the candidates signed, but that only Hillary Clinton broke:

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

Source:
McClatchy Election 2008 blog

And Hillary Clinton signed that pledge. At the time her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, issued this statement:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”

Source: Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #246033

Thanks for proving that your posts were lies. It says nothing there about anyone taking their name off anything that happened before the pledge.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 7:39 PM
Comment #246036

And thanks for proving that you are as honest as Hillary, and willing to make up excuses when it suits.

The DNC’s pledge required all of the candidates who signed it to stick to their nominating calendar, and abide by their rules.

Hillary broke that pledge.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 21, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #246039

Your last statement is as nonfactual as everything else that you posted, but I am sorry to hear that you think that Obama should be an obedient servant of the DNC. I agree with them that NH should come first. I disagree on IA, and I think it is the silliest thing in the world that SC has such a prominent early place, since the state is usually in the Rplcn column. The NV caucuses are even worse than IA, if that is possible. FL and MI are more representative of the nation than SC and IA. The DNC should have disqualified IA instead.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #246059

orealy,

You wrote:

Hillary was way too polite about Obama, and let him bloviate on nothingness without responding for too long.
Obama has plenty of policy positions on his website.

You wrote:

It says nothing there about anyone taking their name off anything that happened before the pledge.
Perhaps, but if she wanted to honor the true spirit of pledge why did she leave her name on the ballot? To me, it sounds like: “voting for it before you vote against it.” She said at the time that she did not want to make the Michigan voters mad for the general election. In other words she wanted to participate in our primary election so that we would not be mad during the general election. She did not want to dis us, but she pledged to dis us. She wanted to have it both ways. Her “reasons” did not ring true at the time. My gut instinct says that it was a cynical ploy to scoop our delegates. It just seems disingenuous, two faced, and forked tongued to me.

I not sure if it would have swung me all the back into the column of Hillary supporter, but I would have respected her if she had just said: You know what? Michigan is in trouble. Fix Michigan and you fix America. I am going to campaign there and I intend to get their delegates seated at the convention if I can. The Democratic Party cannot afford to throw Michigan away… I would have respected that. I might even have became a supporter of hers again. But this seems two faced to me.

On the other hand, if Obama wanted a do over now, that would seem two faced to me - to want a do over now that the momentum is in his favor… But Obama is not going to do that nor would Michigan let him. We have had our primary. We expect our delegates to be seated - period - and they will be - Obama will want them seated - and he will be our nominee.

By the way, Senator Levin is talking about setting up the same kind of a rotating primary system like what I mentioned above - great minds think alike…

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 22, 2008 12:30 AM
Comment #246063

veritas vincit,

Thanks for posting here on this issue. Rather than worrying about Michigan’s delegates, go to: Barack Obama Action Center and make calls. Take delegates away from her in Texas and Ohio. Level the playing field that way.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 22, 2008 12:43 AM
Comment #246107

Disingenuous, two faced and forked tongue sound like phrases right out of Gingrich’s instructions for using language as a key mechanism for controlling the voters. It is sad that people on this side have adopted the rhetoric of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Michigan has been in trouble for a long time. I thought it reached the low point when Coleman Young was trying to have public school students in Detroit declared mentally challenged to try to get additional federal funding.

Look at a map. Michigan is a dead end, out of the way place. Other than trade with Canada and tourism, they have the auto industry, which has been in trouble for a very long time. I live in Illinois and probably have not been in MI more than 3 or 4 times in my life. I have spent more time in Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Alberta and British Columbia than in MI.

The agricultural sector in MI is probably better than in most other states, specially IA, where all they can think of is growing more corn, and making everyone buy it whether they want it or not, in fuel or food, and blackmailing all the politicians every four years. No one stands up to them and says to try growing something other than corn, except Dukakis in 88.

On the primaries, SC is only there as a gift to Jesse Jackson, since he was born there, and he could get more votes there because people don’t know him as well as they know him in Chicago. There is no longer any reason for SC to be an early primary.

There is a logical disconnnect between wanting an early primary in MI, and blaming Hillary for keeping her name on the ballot. Did you expect everyone to write in the candidate of their choice? Weren’t they still able to do that with her name on the ballot? The DNC does not have the right to disqualify your delegates, but it’s really Hillary’s fault?

Good luck in TX.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #246197

ohrealy,

As I have stated, I cannot “know” Hillary’s motives, however I trust my gut instincts and this does not pass the smell test for me. I feel that Hillary should have gotten in or gotten out. I would have respected either decision, although my preference would have been that she and everyone else got in, all the in.

As I sit here thinking about this, this probably has more to do with her pro-Bush hawkish stand on Iraq and Iran. Once a politician loses your trust, they can’t do anything right. I oppose her Iraq for sticking to her guns for too long. I oppose her on Michigan for flip flopping / waffling / equivocating. She keeps retooling her message and reinventing herself. I think she seems like Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 23, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #246198

ohrealy,

See, there was a point when I started to trust Hillary. She took a hawkish position on the war and I perceived it as selling out to Bush and playing politics in order to position herself as Commander and Chief. But she stuck with it and I started to think maybe she really believed it and had political courage, but the antiwar movement was killing her, so she waffled and I lost faith in her. McCian did a shrewd thing. He is a nut job, but he took position and stuck with it even when it killed his campaign. He showed political courage and won.

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 23, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #246306

Acknowledging receipt of your transmission. Hillary’s changes are pretty similar to the changes in most people’s attitudes over a period of time, whether on the war, or her own status as frontrunner. Obama is running on “change”, but Hillary is not supposed to change at all, because she is a target that people want tokeep shooting at, no matter what she does. All you really seem to be saying is that she is not stubborn enough to stick with something when it is not working. I hope the next POTUS is more like Hillary, and less like her detractors.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 24, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #246345

ohrealy,

Point taken, but I have to trust my gut instincts…

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 24, 2008 10:43 PM
Comment #246364

“Truthiness is the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic. It is the truth that is felt deep down, in the gut. It can’t be found in books, which are all facts and no heart. It is absolute, and can only be infallibly known by the gut of Stephen Colbert. “
from

http://wikiality.com/Truthiness

Posted by: ohrealy at February 25, 2008 7:39 AM
Comment #246599

ohrealy,

Ha, Ha. I see what truthiness comment is about… Thanks for the definition - still trust my gut instincts…

Posted by: Ray Guest at February 27, 2008 8:46 PM
Post a comment