Hillary's Florida Flip

posted by John Nichols on 01/28/2008 @ 01:51am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (71)

Subscribe Now

Hillary Clinton has decided to rewrite the rules of the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Like other candidates, she pledged not to campaign in Florida after the state jumped ahead on the schedule of caucuses and primaries set by the Democratic National Committee. She had to make that pledge if she hoped to compete in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, as Iowa and New Hampshire zealously guard their starting status on the political calendar.

But Iowa and New Hampshire are history and, after a landslide loss in South Carolina on Saturday, Clinton needs a win.

So she has begun appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.

Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.

That's the raw political reality of Clinton's move, even if she is spinning it as an embrace of participatory democracy.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday.

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign's dismal showing in South Carolina that, "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5."

"Efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians"?

Obama's just abiding by the pledge. Admittedly, it's a foolish pledge. None of the campaigns should have taken it, and they all should have agreed to drop it. But in the absence of such an agreement, Obama is not ignoring Floridians. He is remaining true to his word.

Of course, Obama is surging, while Clinton is desperate.

How desperate? She says she'll be back in Florida Tuesday night, presumably to claim a win like the one she hailed after beating "uncommitted" in a Michigan primary that the other major candidates skipped.

After Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries to dates that were unacceptable to the Democratic National Committee -- in hopes of gaining a more meaningful role in the nominating process for big states -- the DNC announced that delegates chosen in the rouge primaries would not be seated at this summer's party convention.

It was always assumed that once a nominee had been identified, he or she would pull rank and reverse the DNC's decision to exclude delegations from the two states. Michigan and Florida have historically been battleground states in November elections, and no nominee wants to offend a battleground state.

But it was expected that this exercise would play out after the primaries were done.

Clinton is now rejecting that politeness along with the no-campaigning pledge.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," she declared before arriving in Florida. "Democrats have to win Michigan and have to try to win Florida and I intend to do that. The people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a candidate for president of the United States."

That may sound like a high-minded embrace of democracy -- or at least realism regarding the fall campaign -- but it's really nothing more than the latest political gambit from a Clinton campaign that is developing a reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules. Having "secured" Michigan, Clinton is now playing her Florida card. If she wins big in the Sunshine state and then succeeds in qualifying delegations from Michigan and Florida for the convention, the senator will get the bulk of the close to 350 delegates from the two states. That's more than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined will send to the convention.

No wonder Hillary Clinton is laughing all the way to the Florida primary.

Her arrival is Sarasota was timed so that she could be photographed with palm trees behind her. "It is a perfect day here in Florida," declared a bemused candidate who officially was not campaigning in Florida as she posed for the classic Florida campaign photo.

Comments (71)

But Iowa and New Hampshire are history and, after a landslide loss in South Carolina on Saturday, Clinton needs a win.

So she is appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.

Just like Bill's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman", Hillary is trying redefine campaigning as "not" campaigning. It shows complete disrespect to the party rules, as allowing Florida and Michigan to move up primaries would have caused a mad scramble from other states to do the same, causing chaos in the primary schedule.

Also, just like Bills's oath swearing to tell the truth meant nothing to him, Hillary's pledge to the Democratic party means nothing to her, and pretty much settles it that her word means nothing as well.

If you can't trust what a candidate pledges to do in the campaign, how can you trust them to do what they say if they were president?

Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 02:09am
More proof that Hillary is just a politician. She doesn't care about what she gave her word to only what will allow her to win. If she can't keep her word on a simple pledge like this just so she can come out with a win, should we trust her to keep her word on anything she says she will do, or is she just saying it so she can win?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/28/2008 @ 03:05am
Promise? What Promise? Why should something she said that long ago be binding on her now? The end, winning, justifies ANY means, right? Some evil guy said that a while back... or was it Karl Rove?

Posted by sjduskin at 01/28/2008 @ 03:17am
Forget Hillary. Let's go, Jimmy Carter, it's your turn ... a good time this week for you to step up & endorse Obama, arm in arm. The Clintons were publicly rude to JC & dissed him. JC, step up to the plate now & help retire Billary from the field. Let Obama start running asap against the Bush Republicans, like Romney & Cheney's daughter.

Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 05:32am
It should also be noted, that Hillary's campaigning in Florida is a slap in the face for those February 5th states that decided to follow the party rules by staying put and not moving their primaries up like Florida or Michigan.

Every voter in one of these February 5th states should punish Hillary for trying to give these states that broke the rules an advantage over other states! The best way to punish Hillary and let her know that encouraging rule-breakers is not acceptable is voting for Barack Obama on February 5th!

Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 06:19am
I've tried and tried, as people constantly advise, not to let personality get in the way of the "issues" as I watch this race and think about whom to vote for.

But, man, I'm really getting what it is about the Clintons that so many people dislike them. They are low-down and dirty players.

Frank, how do you defend this? I'm not asking whether it's right that Florida delegates are excluded--that's a question worth debating. But how do you defend her breaking her word like this? How does it look to you like anything other than a desperate and pathetic grab for delegates and some positive media coverage?

I'm just plain disgusted.

Posted by Rintrah at 01/28/2008 @ 07:02am
Will the 1st Black president stand up...

Author Toni Morrison to Endorse Obama

January 28, 2008 7:23 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison -- who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation's "first black president" -- is endorsing Barack Obama for president today, an Obama campaign source tells ABC News.

This comes as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., also announces his support for Obama on Monday, at a rally in Washington.

In an October 1998 essay in The New Yorker, Morrison wrote: "Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/author-toni-mor.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 08:13am
Not to be coy but in truth, who didn't see this coming?

She's not campaigning, she's just doing closed door fundraising and making a few speeches that happen to be at places where the media is. Pffffttt.

My question about this is: What is the response to this from the DNC? (crickets chirping)

Posted by FritztheCat at 01/28/2008 @ 08:18am
Uh, Mr Nichols...I like a HONEST hit on Her Majesty as much as anybody but....

You're attacking her for breaking her pledge to not campaign in Florida and....

BLOG | Posted 01/24/2008 @ 2:14pm DNC Should Encourage Democrats to Campaign in Florida by John Nichols!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 08:48am
To hell with the rules, the Clinton's obviously know what is best for the country…Billary in the white house.

We just had a president whose arrogance and willingness to play loose with the facts have severely damaged our country. Four more years of the same would be disastrous.

Posted by REB at 01/28/2008 @ 09:11am
tic tic tic tic tic

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 09:15am
Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 08:48am

well, mr. nichols does say this:

Obama's just abiding by the pledge. Admittedly, it's a foolish pledge. None of the campaigns should have taken it, and they all should have agreed to drop it. But in the absence of such an agreement, Obama is not ignoring Floridians. He is remaining true to his word.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 09:28am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 09:15am

hey there! just thought i'd intervene on a orthographic note (inglish is sooooo stoopid) -- people could misconstrue, you know.

tic |tik|

noun

a habitual spasmodic contraction of the muscles, most often in the face.

• a characteristic or recurrent behavioral trait; idiosyncrasy : I began with the kind of generalization that was one of my primary tics as a writer.

ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French, from Italian ticchio.

************************************************************************

tick |tik|

noun

1 a regular short, sharp sound, esp. that made every second by a clock or watch.

• Brit. informal a moment (used esp. to reassure someone that one will return or be ready very soon) : I'll be with you in a tick. 2 chiefly Brit. a check mark.

3 Stock Market the smallest recognized amount by which a price of a security or future may fluctuate.

ORIGIN Middle English (as a verb in the sense ‘pat, touch' ): probably of Germanic origin and related to Dutch tik (noun), tikken (verb) ‘pat, touch.' The noun was recorded in late Middle English as [a light tap] ; current senses date from the late 17th cent.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 09:33am
So Florida called the DNC's bluff. Get over it.

The state is too important in the general. All the candidates should campaign there.

We can try to address the system for 2012.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 09:35am
We can try to address the system for 2012.

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 09:35am

maybe 2112.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 09:39am
All the top tier Democratic candidates came to Florida at one time or the other for private fund raisers. Sen. Obama has been the only Democrat advertising here for about two weeks. All three have grassroots efforts here. My phone and email has received more solicitation for Obama than Clinton. The only campaign I haven't received a call from is Edwards. Sen. Clinton is coming after the polls are closed. Which is worse? Advertising for two weeks or coming for a rally after the polls close.

They are all politicians who try to out manouver each other. None of them are saints.

Posted by Lady Eagle at 01/28/2008 @ 09:57am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 09:33am

My clock is very old and lost the harsh backend sound of a new clock's tic'k'... one could easily say that its indeed developed a phonic repetitive 'tic'

then again not to be confused with: Tick - small bloodsucking parasitic arachnids of the family Ixodidae, many of which transmit febrile diseases, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 09:58am
I can't believe the posts I'm reading here, I'm from Michigan and the people of Michigan and Florida should not have their votes taken away by some party hacks. Why do they call temselves the DEMOCRATIC party? Its bad enough when they have a caucus that is not democratiic at all, more like an electoral college deal because the people are too stupid to be trusted with the actual vote. Clinton gets 10% more votes than Obama in Nevada but gets 1 less delegate? In Florida Obama is the only DEM on TV running ads, I saw Craig Crawford from "Congressional Quarterly" on TV a few days ago. He was IN FLORIDA and said Obama was running as many ads as Romney. The media never asks anyone in the Obama camp about this, MSNBC talked to David Alexrod on "Morning JOe" this morning but NEVER asked him about that,it doesn't go with the NBC/MSNBC spin. They ALWAYS talk about the Clintons playing the race card, but they didn't think Obama and Oprah were playing the race card on their roadshow. Oprah gets out there in her best "Color Purple" dialect talking about "They say he's not ready, they say he's got to wait his turn" but that wasn't playing the race card, give me a break. The eastern elite liberals don't like the Clintons and they are doing whatever they can to spin things against them.

Posted by hank48188 at 01/28/2008 @ 09:58am
Hank-I've never lived on the east coast and am not an elitist,but I'm tired of the Bush and Clinton families as are many others like me..

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/28/2008 @ 10:05am
So Florida called the DNC's bluff. Get over it....The state is too important in the general....

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 09:35am

Right you are. On this, Clinton does something right, for the expert Politician she is.....A couple of simple "closed" fund raisers thar generate gobs of free PR vs. Obama's paid-TV commercials. 6 or Half-a-dozen.....both are campaigning. Outside of FL, who knew anything about Obama's ads? Now, everybody knows that Clinton is mounting a power play against the DNC......to some folks, Clinton supporters or the undecided, that's Leadership. She is out to WIN!

Don't blame a bit her for `bending' her pledge....unless "No campaigning" was spelled out as to mean, No Campaigning by any means!

Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:19am
When has the word of either Clinton meant anything?

Since we just had a "non partisan" group say that Bush has lied more than 900 times---I guess we can add one more to the list of Clinton lies!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Len Mosse at 01/28/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by METTEYYA 01/28/2008 @ 02:09am

So flooding the airwaves with TV ads doesn't violate "the oath?"

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 10:55am
Can we really trust Obama???????

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 10:56am
Obama keeps talking change and puts 'change we can believe in'. The question is what change has he brought to American politics? What change did he bring to Illinois State Senate? What change did he bring to US Senate? Is 'present' a change? Is not voting a change? Come on, a new graduate can talk about change without experience to support. For a 40's guy with many years in politics, just talk? Give me a break. When you conduct a job interview, can you believe in a talk without anything in his resume to support?

Obama is a bubble.

Posted by GetReal at 01/28/2008 @ 11:10am
It's ridiculous that the DNC would take it's ball and go home in Florida and Michigan just because they have 'unacceptably' early primaries, it's stupid and divisive.

Posted by jaguarxjs at 01/28/2008 @ 11:16am
I believe those most qualified to lead never go near govt

Posted by JOMAMMA 01/28/2008 @ 11:32am

I disagree with that and think Obama is qualified to lead and would make a good president. At this point, I think I am even voting for him on the 5th.

My comment was directed to the over-the-top adoration some here seem to have for Obama -- that he will usher in some new wave of progressive politics (let's all talk again in 2010); and that he is not campaigning (physically) in FLA even though his ads seem to be all over the state.

Still looking for more substance behind the uplifting speeches, but after all (sigh) this is a political campaign.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:40am
I believe those most qualified to lead never go near govt

Posted by JOMAMMA 01/28/2008 @ 11:32am

I disagree with that and think Obama is qualified to lead and would make a good president. At this point, I think I am even voting for him on the 5th.

My comment was directed to the over-the-top adoration some here seem to have for Obama -- that he will usher in some new wave of progressive politics (let's all talk again in 2010); and that he is not campaigning (physically) in FLA even though his ads seem to be all over the state.

Still looking for more substance behind the uplifting speeches, but after all (sigh) this is a political campaign.

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 11:40am

(sorry, time warp)

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:41am
Hillary has proven that she has no character and will do whatever necessary to win. It may or may not be right to have taken away Florida's (and Michigans) delegates. But there was an agreement to stand by this action and not campaign there. Now she act all high and might as if she were a champion of democracy. She is a champion of shady tactics. If she wins the nomination I will do whatever I can to help the Republican win (and I hate Republicans).

Also, anyone who thinks Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature are shady, you should understand what they really meant and not just be fooled by any 'ole attack from Hillary:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

Posted by rasalula1 at 01/28/2008 @ 12:01pm
Well John, you have gotten on the Obama bus. It may crash on you. Like the neo-con swift boaters, you too can show how EVIL the Clintons are, but like most good-ol-boys, you don't want to seem sexist. I think most americans will not give Obama a free ride just because he's black, and won't villify Hillary because shes a woman, and may be smarter than they are.

Posted by papabob at 01/28/2008 @ 12:07pm
And what if ... in spite of the actual Blessed Presence of Her Imperial Majesty ... Obama takes FLA?

Think she'll make a gracious concession speech? Or even withdraw? Or pretend nothing happened, as in "I did not campaign in that state, in FLA."

Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 12:16pm
Obama keeps talking change and puts 'change we can believe in'. The question is what change has he brought to American politics? What change did he bring to Illinois State Senate? What change did he bring to US Senate?

GETREAL,

I think it is time for you to "get real" and do your "own" research rather than listening to Hillary-spin.

A good start would be looking at his 11 year record [ontheissues.org] of fighting for and enacting progressive change!

Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 12:18pm
Obama's campaign accused Clinton, who has held a comfortable lead in several Florida polls, of looking for a reason to break the pledge. It rejected that his ads violate the pledge.

So flooding the airwaves with TV ads doesn't violate "the oath?"

HMAN23,

The ad was a "February 5th themed" NATIONAL AD that ran in all 50 states, because the network could not "exclude" Florida. There is no "targeting" of Florida voters in the ad, and the ad was APPROVED by party officials that were responsible for the pledge from all candidates:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign wanted to run a national ad aimed at voters in the Feb. 5 states, but was told by the cable networks that it was impossible to exclude Florida. He said the campaign checked with South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler, one of the creators of the pledge, who told the campaign "it was clearly not a violation," Plouffe said.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 12:25pm
Two-thirds of Americans over the age of 17 are either lazy, stupid, chicken, don't care, evil, followers and/or some variation of all. It is clear that Edwards and Kucinich represent the core beliefs of the Democratic Party and McCain and Ron Paul that of the Republican Party yet if we combine all the votes that each of these four candidates would get and give them to one of the four, Americans will probably choose someone else as the next president, someone with a plastic image, nasty background, cheating personality, crooked double talking intellect and million dollar smile.

Stupid, lazy, weak, chicken, hypocritical, whinning Americans. No wonder Jefferson did not believe the people were ready to handle one person one vote. No wonder we have a system that allows delegates to pick our winners. No wonder we have a system of two Senators per state, even though some states only have a million people in them while some cities have 9 million residents. What a joke. First thing I'd do is take away a senator from every state with less than 5 million residents and divide them up amongst the states with 10, 15 and 20 million people. This is all a joke...a depressingly sad joke.

Next, I'd outlaw forever capital punishment because hundreds of men have now been freed after being falsely convicted of sinister crimes. HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT MEN CONVICTED BY OUR GREAT SYSTEM ONLY TO BE FREED AFTER DNA EVIDENCE CLEARED THEM. HUNDREDSSSSSSS WHO MIGHT HAVE DIED HAD THEIR STATE HAD CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. SO HOW MANY HAVE DIED ALREADY? It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be killed.

Where are these chicken shit people, media, representatives and others when it comes to real issues and real answers? Out campaigning, breaking promises, making up lies and sealing the deal on their future in power. CORRUPTION RULES, FROM THE CATHOLIC POPES DOWN TO THE LOCAL PROTHONATORY. SEND THEM ALL HOME AND START OVER.

Wow, that felt good. Time to vote.

Posted by Lucem ferre at 01/28/2008 @ 12:47pm
then again not to be confused with: Tick - small bloodsucking parasitic arachnids of the family Ixodidae, many of which transmit febrile diseases, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 09:58am

oooooh, i hate those things! always wear white socks in the bush.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 1:03pm
Can we really trust Obama???????

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 10:56am

no.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 1:06pm
Posted by LUCEM FERRE 01/28/2008 @ 12:47pm

Can't IMAGINE why some politician doesn't leap on your "2/3rds of Americans" suck theory and run on that?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/28/2008 @ 12:25pm

Like I said before, they all shoudl campaign there. It was a stupid pledge.

Nice convenient excuse but Obama's ads were shown to millions of Florida voters. And, from what people say here, Clinton's events weren't open to the public (although she got press), so what is the friggin' difference? Either way you slice it, they are "campaigning" in FLA.

I must admit, it is a pretty shrewd move by Obama -- he certainly got the jump on Clinton with the national ad buy. I wager Clinton gets hers up within a day.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 1:11pm
BTW, FROSTY....

John Nichols is still contradicting himself.

His title alone "What Pledge"?....well, Mr Nichols, it's the pledge YOU advised them to break and she is, so why are you complaining?

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:13pm
Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 1:10pm

chimi would vote for him/her.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 1:13pm
BTW, BTW....if she's campaigning there, she MUST be worried.

Florida is tailor-made for Her Majesty, and she (and the campaign...and her bloggers obviously) have got to be panicking at the Obama Surge that's happening.

If she lost Florida (which I seriously doubt she will)...she'd be in deep doo-doo going into Super Duper next week, with the last vestiges of "inevitable" gone, and that's all she's ever REALLY had going for her.

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:15pm
chimi would vote for him/her.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 1:13pm

True.....after selling them an "authentic Ecuadorian hand-made knapsack" for Pottery Barn retail!

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:16pm
True, Florida does have a lot of over 65 retired white folk that Billary have won over. But then again, I bet there's more young folk having to do all the moving of them around...

BTW, anybody see this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/22319/4587

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 1:30pm
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/22319/4587----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 1:30pm

Hey, you mean Al Gore might come in and win a brokered convention?!?!? Gosh, what do you think the chances are???

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:37pm
Can we really trust Obama???????

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 10:56am

to do what? fix all the problems and implement everyone's version of utopia, all at once? behave like a saint all the time, never show any human shortcomings, always be right, and part the red sea?

can we really trust ourselves?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/28/2008 @ 1:56pm
Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 1:37pm

Anyone else other than Al, no way, but consider if Billary continue and/or increase directing their craziness at Barack-- it is a definite possibility per the bad feelings going back and forth, neither get a majority and John not even getting close to enough delegates to pull away, but enough to stay in it. Does he look like he wants to quit, nor be VP again, AG? Too soon per could make the wrong choice.

So it's as always, a possibility and a wait and see where it goes thing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 1:59pm
So it's as always, a possibility and a wait and see where it goes thing.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 1:59pm

I see.

Would it be FAIR to the other candidates, who worked hard and campaigned hard for the nomination...for Gore to simply be given it?

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 2:22pm
"Hillary has proven that she has no character and will do whatever necessary to win. It may or may not be right to have taken away Florida's (and Michigans) delegates. But there was an agreement to stand by this action and not campaign there. Now she act all high and might as if she were a champion of democracy. She is a champion of shady tactics. If she wins the nomination I will do whatever I can to help the Republican win (and I hate Republicans).

Also, anyone who thinks Obama's 'present' votes in the Illinois legislature are shady, you should understand what they really meant and not just be fooled by any 'ole attack from Hillary:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

Posted by RASALULA1 01/28/2008 @ 12:01pm"

The problem with Michigan is that neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot. So Hillary Clinton ended up getting much more of the vote than she would have otherwise. For her to take delegates from that "victory" is really unfair.

Posted by bransby at 01/28/2008 @ 2:29pm
If she wins the nomination I will do whatever I can to help the Republican win (and I hate Republicans).

Posted by RASALULA1 01/28/2008 @ 12:01pm

What a foolish and juvenile attitude.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 2:50pm
Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 1:16pm

now, don't get me involved in THAT. i've met (and been neighbour to) people like chimi describes.

the "nike" analogy just doesn't work (i hope!).

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 2:53pm
Would it be FAIR to the other candidates, who worked hard and campaigned hard for the nomination...for Gore to simply be given it?

Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 2:22pm

But you said if Al figured out how to get beyond the primaries and got the nom-- you'd vote for him... So you'll vote for McCain instead?

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 3:26pm
Ted's endorsement. Few notes, no teleprompter, no mangled English ... the old warhorse really let it rip ... if you didn't see it ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22882751#22882751

Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 3:41pm
Well, at least it appears that Obama's and Edwards' names are still on the Florida ballot, so it would be a reasonably fair primary. Other than an aversion to the leapfrog tactics played by states such as Florida and Michigan, I don't much care about punishments and the like. Michigan, let's face it, did not have the sort of primary vote where the delegates could be regarded as legitimate. For Hillary to want them counted is cheating on its face. Good grief, is that complicated?

Posted by Donald Weed at 01/28/2008 @ 3:45pm
I think if the primaries are so contentious that the candidates damage each other so much that it divides the dems enough that the delegates turn to and would rather nominate Al rather than pick any of the ones currently running per their weaken state and fear of loosing to repubs-- then the candidates pretty much shot themselves in the foot via their MADness. And Al will be looked at as a unifier especially if it's a Gore/Obama ticket.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 3:52pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 2:50pm

FRANKGRITS said the same thing in reverse...No Hillary nomination, he's voting for McCain.

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 3:52pm

"Now, back to your regularly scheduled reality. :)"

From--http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/20/112330/475

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 4:20pm
Demonizing Hillary Clinton will backfire on the Democrats. She connects with a lot of mainstream Democrats - the ones who vote come rain, sleet or snow. She is trying to win and so is Obama. He is running on inspiration and has basically no record to defend or to crow about. Clinton is battle scarred and has substantial wins and losses. Two admirable candidates who appear (to those who are not policy wonks) to have little in the way of policy differences. I am starting to think in terms of who is better able to manage Congress to get things done. In this regard, Clinton does seem to have some advantage. Kennedy's endorsement of Obama helps him make that case though. - Still Undecided

Posted by aceh at 01/28/2008 @ 4:23pm
Would it be FAIR to the other candidates, who worked hard and campaigned hard for the nomination...for Gore to simply be given it?

Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 2:22pm

But you said if Al figured out how to get beyond the primaries and got the nom-- you'd vote for him... So you'll vote for McCain instead?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 3:26pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 4:30pm
Can we really trust Obama???????

Posted by HMAN23 01/28/2008 @ 10:56am

no.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

His voting record is underwhelming and merely reflects a Democratic senator corresponding reliably, and in relative safety, to expectations of his liberal constituents. Obama has a very good voting record but considering the struggles over the past couple of years by the party to accomplish any meanigful legislative victories, he was largely invisible when when taking into account the superstar status at his disposal.

The best indication of his untrustworthiness can be found in his relatively weak policy proposals (even Clinton has exceeded Obama here) and most importantly, in how the big business community has laughed off the feel-good campaign rhetoric about 'transformative change' to the corporate/politcal system by flooding Obama's campaign trough to grotesque proportions. I thought the second funniest line of the last debate after his 'dance' assessment for Bill, was in describing how the 'bundling' of cash really comes from individuals who just happen to like his message and does not at all reflect any kind of concentrated interest among various industries. So, Goldman Sachs representing his top donor is coincidental and the large number of well-to-do bankers/investors pouring money into his campaign naturally do so because they hope Obama will save children or something.

Sorry, the enthusiasm of the very industries Obama rails against on the trail (enthusiasm backed by huge checks to the guy who says he'll stand up to them) does not give one much confidence that when the back-room negotiations proceed beyond the lights and cameras, this guy will go the distance on behalf of the working man/woman.

Posted by Oustbush at 01/28/2008 @ 4:34pm
How is visiting Florida campaigning? She, BO and li'l Johnnie have a right to visit anywhere they wish to raise funds privately. 2) Florida is critical to democrats. 3) BO is running ads there. 4)BO is running ads everywhere! What would be impressive is this news rag actually endorsed Hilary over the ad running BO. How can a news rag claim independence when they are $o influenced by BO. JJ was a better candidate, an inspirational speaker and he ran 4 years prior to Bill. JFK didn't have the finish, LBJ had to git-r-dun for him too. Competence and hard work build success and that is Hilary!

Posted by rvormwald at 01/28/2008 @ 5:02pm
Sorry, the enthusiasm of the very industries Obama rails against on the trail (enthusiasm backed by huge checks to the guy who says he'll stand up to them) does not give one much confidence that when the back-room negotiations proceed beyond the lights and cameras, this guy will go the distance on behalf of the working man/woman.

Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/28/2008 @ 4:34pm

that's what i meant. but thanks for laying it out.

alas, not much will change in the corporatocracy.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 6:00pm
Hank48188 - I live in MI, too, and have a problem with the DNC's decision. I voted "uncommitted" last week because I can't commit to dynastic politics, no matter the party affiliation. The Clinton campaign still smacks of "inevitability" and I don't buy it. Her actions speak volumes, as do those of our former President - the rules don't apply if they interfere with that presupposed inevitability.

Posted by GoCards1978 at 01/28/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 4:30pm

I'm sorry, HF...I'll try to add the caveat "in THIS universe" next time.

Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 7:37pm
Christopher Hitchens took his marbles and left some time ago. Other than taking this as a timely piece on the Clintons, one can consider it for "old times sake" ...

"How can one equal Bill Clinton for thuggery and opportunism when it comes to the so-called "race card"? And where does one even start with the breathtaking nastiness of his own conduct, and that of his supporters, in the last week?"

Full Text [slate.com]

Posted by V at 01/28/2008 @ 8:15pm
Good to see the lively debate. I don't think the DNC will let her pull the vote from Michigan and Florida, many democrats would see that as what Bush did in 2000 by stealing the election. I know I would. If she does try to get the votes it could definitely back fire on her in the general election by energizing the republican base and disillusioning many Democrats who will choose to stay home, Though with all the things the Clintons have done this far that have back fired, i don't doubt the Clintons will do anything to win.

I found a hillaryous website, www.hillarydivides.com

Posted by indep2008 at 01/28/2008 @ 8:17pm
After a voting career since 1968, mercy, I voted for Nixon, got radicalised by my year in Vietnam flying cargo (that means covering territory and young dead men) and wanting to be a part of something better, I have voted Dumbocrat ever since except for 2000, when I voted for Winona LaDuke, hoping the Greens would get 5% of the national vote and qualify for some elections funding.

My most memorable elections were when I was down and out in Houston and Detroit, when I got to vote for Barbara Jordan and John Conyers for congress. I don't believe that the Congressional Black Caucus has endorsed a candidate as yet.

I voted early in Florida, my wife and I cast 2 votes for Hillary. Now I learn that I am a demographic stastic, a white male over 59.

I have not seen a TV ad for any Democratic candidates, or noted any special appearances, and I pay attention. The Repukeblickinz are constantly airing ads. Si I don't see what the hoopla is about any Dumbocratick candidate scoring points here, and of course they want the delegates to count in the Clinton capmaign, as this may well be the only southertn state she will carry.

No she is not radical. I have my visionary circle of friends, and am encouraged by Latin America del Sur.

There are a whole lot more De,ocrats out and voting now, altho at work on Sunday, in hospital, I offerred absentee ballot applications to 30 patients and spouses and had three takers, plus two who said they'd be outa there by Tuesday.

Give em hell Hillary.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 01/28/2008 @ 9:45pm
Would it be FAIR to the other candidates, who worked hard and campaigned hard for the nomination...for Gore to simply be given it?

Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 2:22pm

But you said if Al figured out how to get beyond the primaries and got the nom-- you'd vote for him... So you'll vote for McCain instead?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 3:26pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 4:30pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 08:07am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/29/2008 @ 08:07am

Sure and I would....if he could figure out a REAL way of doing.

Plus I believe I was referring to him figuring out a way to beat Hillary IN THE PRIMARIES, not a CHEAT by which he sits on his ass and then is "annointed" with a nomination that others have WORKED for!

Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 09:26am
Would it be FAIR to the other candidates, who worked hard and campaigned hard for the nomination...for Gore to simply be given it?

Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 2:22pm

But you said if Al figured out how to get beyond the primaries and got the nom-- you'd vote for him... So you'll vote for McCain instead?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 3:26pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/28/2008 @ 4:30pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/29/2008 @ 08:07am

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 6:41pm
So Hillary is stating that she will try to seat Florida, and presumably Michigan delegates come the convention. I'm sorry but if she tries this stunt and the nomination is still up for grabs, and she heaven forbid gets the nomination, I will flat quit the party and not vote for her or anyone who actively supported her.

The fact is no one ran there, it's name recognition, hell in Michigan it's being the only person with your name on the ballot. To claim it as a victory is to proclaim yourself the greatest hockey player in all of Ecuador. The party agreed to rules and the so did the potential nominees, that's just how it goes. Was it wise to disenfranchise two swing states? No. But those were the agreed upon rules of the game.

It's cold, it's manipulative, and frankly, it's cheating. I'm a lifelong dyed in the wool Democrat and this sort of tactic reeks of the sort of 8 year shit fest that is the Bush presidency. If she wins outright, fine, but if she has to win through changing the rules, then there is no way in hell I'll vote for her.

Posted by Tzimisce at 01/29/2008 @ 11:00pm
RE: Hillary's Florida Flip

Wow who's more cynical, Hillary or Obama or The Nation, which wanted to disfranchise the GOP vote (in 2000, that is), now the democratic vote. Get out of the way.

Posted by HelenDAO at 01/29/2008 @ 11:15pm
What I wish someone would have asked Hillary ...

Why did Senator Clinton feel the need to make the request to seat Florida's delegates just a few days BEFORE the Florida primary?

Couldn't this move be seen as pandering, as an effort to skirt the "no campaigning" agreement, knowing that the request would be given widespread coverage on local news in Florida*, painting Hillary Clinton in a favorable light and as a "friend of the Florida voter"?

* I'd be interested in seeing a news story on just how much coverage this request *did* get in Florida's news media. Might it not have had an effect on the vote margin? And, if so, how close to the line of "campaigning" did it come? Was it an explicit or ethical breach of the agreement?

Consider the following sampling of news stories just 3-4 days before the Florida primary...

W FTV Orlando; Saturday, January 25th [wftv.com]
Orlando Sentinel, January 25th [blogs.orlandosentinel.com]
Ocala Star-Banner, January 25th [ocala.com]

Couldn't the request have been made AFTER the Florida primary?

I think the answer is obvious, however the campaign might respond. Chalk another one up in the "do anything" column.

Posted by plooger at 01/30/2008 @ 12:10am