-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/if-hillary-gets-to-claim-michigan-and-florida-denver-will-burn/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
But I see everybody at JJP is getting that old time religion.
That was a very powerful call to action.
By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.
Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.
The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates - including Clinton and rival Barack Obama - agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.
But no one predicted the race would still be very close this late in the year.
Ironically, Michigan and Florida could have held crucial primaries if they had stayed with their traditional later dates. They may yet do so if they decide to hold new contests as Clinton and Obama compete to the wire.
Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates. Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.
Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. "Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. "Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let's do it."
Also, forget about the delegate math, this is going to be about THE POPULAR VOTE. Obama needs to keep the lead in the popular vote...The Dems argued in FL 2000 that the POPULAR VOTE should have determined the outcome and Clinton will use that argument with the superdelegates if she overtakes Obama in the popular vote.
Obama's lead in the popular vote:
12,992,769 to Clinton's 12,406,998.
This total DOES NOT count MI & FL.
Obama will win the nomination IF he maintains a delegate AND popular vote lead. Hillary's only chance of stealing this is IF she overtakes Obama on the popular vote.
Thu Mar 06, 05:08:00 AM 2008
Send it on down, Lord!
This morning from the Washington Post:
"Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.
Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes."
"Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall."
The DNC has really made a complete mess of this entire primary season and it looks like this contest will not be decided simply on who has the most pledged delegates but a combination of delegates, popular vote and 'key states' as determined by the superdelegates and the media.
Any way you try the math, Obama will lead in pledged delegates but will not have enough to secure the nomination by the convention. I fear it is out of our hands because that's how the party set it up.
It's a joke. Obama played by the rules and is leading, but apparently he's the one with his back to the wall. He's the weak one because he didn't put Hillary away. He's leading and Clinton has the gall to say she's should be at the top of a joint ticket. The Clinton camp's tack is to paint him as the affirmative action candidate (the incessant whining about him getting a free pass, etc.), yet the bar is constantly being moved up for Obama. He had to blow her away in OH and TX or it means the race is completely re-set? Honestly, WTF?
Clinton, on the other hand, is trying to break the rules, or change them after the fact, or didn't even bother to learn them in the first place (TX caucus). If she doesn't win, something is wrong with the state, or the system or the people (read: too many blacks "voting their pride"). And if she loses, it means apparently that someone needs to be sued. Her campaign is sleazy. Yeah, politics is dirty and nasty and maybe she truly is the best one to play & win that game. Wow, what an inspirational candidate she is! /snark.
Show them this:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14797.html
‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn
Posted March 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
Just when I thought I’d gotten a handle on the so-called “NAFTA-gate” story, it takes an unexpected turn.
Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama’s campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama’s concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday’s primaries.
Now, a new report out of Toronto suggests the original story may have left out some important details.
If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.
Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being “blatantly unfair” to Senator Barack Obama.
OK, so the chief of staff of Canada’s conservative Prime Minister decided he wanted to meddle in the Democratic Party’s primary process. Clearly, that’s wildly inappropriate.
But the odd twist is that it may have been Clinton who reassured Canadians about NAFTA.
From the Globe and Mail:
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.
“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
So, let me get this straight. If this report is right, the Clinton campaign gave assurances to the Canadians not to worry about her rhetoric on NAFTA. The Clinton campaign then spent a week hammering Obama on alleged assurances to Canadians about his rhetoric on NAFTA?
Based on reporting from the Canadian Press (what is effectively the Canadian AP), Ian Brodie chatted with reporters about Obama and Clinton, but somehow, the story only ended up focusing on the prior, not the latter.
“He said someone from Clinton’s campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt,” said one participant in the conversation. The source added, “someone called us [from Clinton’s staff] and told us not to worry.”
Josh Marshall asks, “So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up?”
I guess we’ll know more as the story unfolds, and at this point, many of the details appear a little murky. That said, if the Clinton campaign effectively hammered Obama for something they themselves did, this story might end up causing them some heartburn, too.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1
Thoughts?
We'll have to wait and see which way the stupid super delegates go. There's talk that Kennedy (and others) may be forced to change over to Clinton based on her victory in Mass in order to be consistent with the argument (e.g., "following will of people") made by those that went from Clinton to Barack.
And, no, Denver will not burn, and those who decide to throw a tantrum and resort to violence - because NOW they don't like the rules - will likely wind up with their asses in jail - deservedly so.
News reports apparently mistakenly added Obama's name, when it was really Clinton surrogates who were operating with a wink and a nod.
http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2008/03/some-shady-shit.html
No, it means who has the most pledged delegates overall. If, by some miracle, Clinton pulls that off, then those supers should switch if they want.
If we are no longer slaves to the party whims, then there IS no party. If they have no party, they will also have no white liberal media to do their bidding.
Be courageous. Be independent. Be respected.
Uhhh, no, it means that those super delegates who've switched from Hillary to Barack have done so using the rationale that "I'm following the will of the constituents in my district".
Same thing is likely to happen with super delegates who were committed to Barack but whose constituents went w/ Clinton - e.g. Kennedy. This game of musical chairs is going on well before the convention.
Yes, you're right, some supers are using that as the rationale. But the Obama camp and others are equating the "will of the people" as the overall pledged delegate results. Aren't half the supers not elected officials anyway? Does that mean they should go with where they live?
FIST IN AIR.
This MUST be posted at DailyKos, MyDD, OpenLeft too.
You have to.
You simply must.
I read that article by Alter. I thought it was very interesting - he put his thumb on the scale, and STILL she came up short for Hillpatine.
Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama, discusses the foreign policy credentials of both Democrats against the tableau of Mrs. Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call advertisement about who would be best prepared for an international crisis. (While your children are safely asleep.)
“Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready,'’ Ms. Rice said. “They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.”
The clip is on NYTimes.com and it comes from a Hillary supporter via YouTube. It's obvious that it was a snippet of a longer conversation.
The Clinton's are so corrupt and dirty that it should be easy for Obama to attack her, yet he seems uneasy.
My question...what does Hillary have on Obama? I fear she has something...
If he's so clean, why doesn't he throw the kitchen sink AND the bathtub at her!
No one will hold it against him! The Clintons are nothing but a cancer.
I think Florida may not want to be seated at those prices.
She ain't never threatened me about my vote; I dare her to even try it, cause I know how to go Oaktown on her behind so fast, she'll think she's in Southeast DC.
Besides, Al Sharpton send out the warning shot to her at Tavis Smiley's Negro Super Bowl two weeks ago, and put her on full blast by saying if she tries that stunt, there will be hell to pay.
As for the CBC members supporting Clinton, and in essence, supporting a return to de facto segregation and disenfranchisement of the Black vote, they ALL NEED PRIMARY CHALLENGERS BY 2010. Period. Time to clean house.
And the way they have received Donna Edwards is so appalling, I hope she doesn't join the caucus at all. Why waste her time with these numbnuts who can't get off the Clinton bus before she slings them under it once she achieves her goal?
-----------------------------------
ahahahahahahahahaha!
Woooo!
www.natturnersrevenge.blogspot.com
BTW, Dean took the weasel's way out--do-overs fine if you agree you broke the rules, you don't break any more...and you pay for it!
PS--I think McCain's going to be the next Eisenhower, which is why the rght wingers and many of the Wall Streeters despise him.
I am strong. I am a warrior. I am now an Independent.
Who Called the Canadian Embassy? Someone Should Ask Jim Blanchard
by DHinMI
Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM PST
Someone should ask Jim Blanchard if he had anything to do with the flap about NAFTA involving the Clinton campaign, the Canadian embassy and a false press report accusing the Obama campaign of something instead done by the Clinton campaign.
Jim Blanchard was elected to Congress from Michigan in 1974. When Michigan lost seats in the 1980 reapportionment, he was redistricted out but ran successfully for governor in 1983. In 1990 he sought a third term. A diffident campaign, his perceived arrogance by many voters, and a feud with then-Detroit Mayor Coleman Young that kept turnout in Detroit severely suppressed all contributed to his narrow loss to John Engler. (He is still reviled by many Michigan Democrats who blame him for opening the door to that devastation wrought on the state by 12 years of John Engler.) In 1992 he was active with the Bill Clinton campaign. He apparently hoped to get a good spot in the administration—supposedly he coveted the job of Secretary of Transportation—but instead he was appointed Ambassador to Canada.
Blanchard is now with the Washington law firm of DLA Piper, where he chairs the firm's Government Affairs practice:
Consistently ranked as one of the nation’s top practices in the field of government affairs, DLA Piper’s attorneys and other professionals are active in federal and state legislative affairs, regulatory issues, government contracts, international trade, e-commerce and privacy, communications, anti-trust and trade regulation, energy, environment, financial services and a wide range of other issues before the federal government, state governments and internationally. The firm places a special emphasis on U.S.-Canada relations.
Jim Blanchard has extensive connections with Canadian political, business, legal and media leaders. He would understand Canadian concerns about US threats to renegotiate NAFTA, and as a former governor of Michigan, he would also understand the political fallout in a Democratic primary from being seen as "soft on NAFTA" in a struggling industrial state like Ohio. If the Clinton campaign needed someone to help them reach out to Canadian leadership, few are as well suited to do it as Jim Blanchard. And if the Clinton campaign tried to create a controversy to put Barack Obama on the defensive over NAFTA, Blanchard would be well suited to help with that as well. And while he may not have been involved, someone should ask him if he was, since he has also endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Oh, one other thing. In 2002 Blanchard tried a comeback, and ran for Governor of Michigan. He finished third in the Democratic primary, behind winner Jennifer Granholm and second-place finisher David Bonior. His pollster on that losing campaign? Mark Penn.
Shady Shady those Clintons. People wonder why there's vitriol.
If it goes down the way I pray that it does not go down, I will be in Denver with you. Wearing my "Acceptably Black T shirt" and protesting like its 1963.
If it goes down the way I pray it does not go down, I will also be changing my party affiliation to Independent immediately. Which is what it was until this election.
Yes, the sight of thousands of feral black people throwing their fists in the air in anger will encourage them to run to the polls.
"If we are no longer slaves to the party whims, then there IS no party. If they have no party, they will also have no white liberal media to do their bidding".
"Be courageous. Be independent. Be respected".
What are you talking about here?
- What plan?
- Defection of, or defection from the Democratic party?
- What liberal media?
- Ok, here's one I'm not confused about; when you say "be independent", you're actually saying "be Republican".
Sorry, but no matter how angry I am about the situation in this primary race, I'm not going to let myself be bamboozled into supporting the party I KNOW without a doubt is opposed to my aspirations.
Barack needs to call a press conference and get everything out
there instead of these daily little snippets. He need not be nasty; he just needs to be FORCEFUL! He could say he is tired of Hillary attacking his character and experience. He needs to set the agenda before the next primaries and stop letting her create the benchmarks---challenge her for a change! In the press conference he can address NAFTA, her 35 year lack of experience, her tax returns from previous years which are already completed, her campaign starting the Muslim emails,etc..... There is NO way to win when Hillary fights dirty and he remains nice! It's like playing scrabble with someone who keeps going to the bathroom to look in the dictionary and you continue to allow them to do that. He really needs to CRUSH her once and for all!
Andrew Sullivan put an item floating McCain/Bloomberg. If that happen, it would drive a truck through the Northeast stranglehold the Dems have.
The Irish fault the British for independence in the early 1900s. The revolution had widescale support. Though there was many deaths, the people have been pushed to far by British cruelty.
To remedy this, the British offered them "The Republic of Ireland" and withdrawal of most of their troops to be replaced with Irish officers. Yet, they would still serve under the dominion of the British and many of their demands weren't met.
The people were split. Many were tired of the fighting and decided to take the British offer. Yet many more felt they were being offered crumbs and if they kept going they would have something they never had before. An independent country of their own.
The resistence split, Irish troops replaced the British and now were oppessors of the land. Under orders to squash the rebellion, as former rebels they knew their "opponent" intimately. So brother vs. brother, the bloodiest period in their history began.
And the british?
The "Irish problem" was contained and they could focus on other matters. Once again, divide and conquer wins.
Lesson from history, this game as been played before. Let's go out and get ours. No more settling for crumbs, when we can have the whole loaf.
Hillary is the tool of the establishment to keep us in line and complacent. The powerful do not like when people are organizing and having an active discourse. They want us ignorant. They want us apathetic. They want us divided.
Why?
Because this way we are easier to control.
I am a new visitor to this site. I am an independent leaning towards Obama. I DESPISE THE CLINTONS.
The Clinton's are so corrupt and dirty that it should be easy for Obama to attack her, yet he seems uneasy.
My question...what does Hillary have on Obama? I fear she has something...
If he's so clean, why doesn't he throw the kitchen sink AND the bathtub at her!
No one will hold it against him! The Clintons are nothing but a cancer.
-NO!
Obama has to continue to take the high road.
If he tries to match Hillary he loses.
The media will frame it as THE ANGRY BLACK MAN WHIPPING UP ON the poor widdle woman...gee, she just wanted to talk about the issues; why is he so darn angry all the time?
No, Admiral Komack is right. Obama has to be JACKIE ROBINSON. No matter what is thrown his way, no matter how vile or nasty or disgusting or false or evil, Obama (like Jackie) wins by holding himself up with dignity and not dropping into the pig pit his enemies want him to fall into.
I think Michelle may have to think up a new strategy herself, actually, because it's becoming too easy for folks who hate to designate her as the 'Evil Black Woman'. She doesn't have to change herself, because those folks would take her saying the sun rises in the east as her being combative and anti-American.... but a little more lawyerly neutrality might help stem some damage.
Let Hillary and Bill continue to trash their legacy over bullsh*t personal ambitions and bribery access.
Obama wins by floating above it, and slapping their evilness away as so much water off a duck's back... while putting the truth out there instead.
@submariner, i'm not into rock music, but that dude in the video is amazing, he doesn't have an ounce of fat on him! i still think Obama has to be more like David Carradine, though. Patience. i have trust in Obama, he knows what he's doing, and it's working well. There's a reason why Obama supporters were willing to caucus into the night, in spite of some issues of voter disenfranchisment in black neighborhoods, while Hillary voters said 'f*ck it'.
@bandbabe, yes that way we are easier to control... which goes for everybody. the opposition is being misled, too.
but more about this McCain/Bloomberg rumor!
That's independent, not Republican. In fact, immediately aligning ourselves with any party defeats the beauty and simplicity of Ronnie B's plan. As is, we are the base of the Democratic party, they need us to carry the day. But what if we held ourselves as a block of independent voters - whichever party wanted to prevail would have to "court" us. I guarantee you, if they had to court us we would see a change in attitude and tatics right quick.
But that's Plan B - Plan A is to win this bad boy. To that end we need to make sure we spend as much time doing whatever the campaign needs: donating, recruiting, etc., to make sure we stay in this to win this. It ain't over yet and nothing good can come of allowing all HRC's negativity to sap the positive energy and momentum (yes I said MOMENTUM) that Obama has as the front runner in this primary. He's on top and we need to keep him on top - open up that lead and leave her behind.
GO OBAMA!!
Yup! And There you have it!
I am heartbroken and furious at the game the Clintons are playing and the system they are playing it to support:
The real energy and potential power Senator Obama has raised will not serve him if (when) he begins to play by her rules and mode of engagement. At that point he is essentially getting publicly remade in the image of the monster that his focus on change was opposed to.
At that point he relinquishes the true power and edge he had, the thing that scares the powers that be. The thing that moved so many people despite the similarity of many of their policy positions.
Clinton is winning by setting the terms in this ugly mode, and he will not truly win on the terms she sets. If he does succeed on those terms in winning the presidency, he will not be serving the energy he raised in the first place that has had such power.
I feel like the fight is over, doors swinging closed. I hear it in the ... word? strain? ... in his voice (started hearing it either Monday or Tuesday actually) -- the move into her terms, the place where he cannot persist as he began, where he becomes another candidate who has been processed through and made acceptable to the powers that be.
Seeing how it is has been unfolding -- I now have a sense of this whole thing as a sort of ritual of showing people how intrinsically wrong US electoral politics really is -- raising hopes and collective spirit only to show that this Black man who does this must be visibly and publicly broken, and HARD. The final insult in such a scenario will be getting his supporters to vote for him after he has been broken and remade.
And the thing is, I would still vote for him under those circumstances but it would hurt me to do it and it would be an act of deep despair.
And also, I would set myself on fire before voting for Hillary Clinton under ANY circumstances. She is a walking horror, made more horrible by the fact that she is not deviant but is playing her role for the system to perfection.
Uh . . . welcome to karma = cause and effect.
If following the rules is a sucker move in your world... if having respect for the rules is a sucker move in your world... if putting the PARTY before one's own personal AMBITIONS is a sucker move in your world....
hold up, i gotta stop, my blood pressure is going up again.
I'd push for blacks designating themselves as Independent instead of Democrat (or Republican) as the symbolic 'riot in denver'. I completely agree with Ronnie B and Jonzee and AC's posts.
THAT is a riot that cannot be used against Obama supporters and blacks negatively. It would be a riot against what the Clintons represent and what they are willing to do to the party.
Independent.
If I had the skills (and weren't banned) I'd do a political parody of Webbie's hit song on this matter and put it up on Daily Kos and DU on the thread.
I suspect those who are complaining about the post simply don't want to deal with what you have said and would rather act like Bevis & Butthead:
-Hee ,hee, hee, he said Denver burn.
Hee, hee, hee, that's not cool.
If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, get used to saying "President McCain."
McCain/Bloomberg
just one of those floated items, and IMO, if the race-baiting fear monger steals it, it would be the coup-de-grace by McCain, almost insuring him The Presidency.
Because, he wouldn't need to worry about the conservative base coming out for him - Hillpatine would do that for him.
And, between him and Bloomberg- who would substantially fortify his lack of economic policy forte,
they would drive a truck through the suburbs up and down the East Coast. ....and CALIFORNIA.
After all, now that we know it was Hillary who phoned the Canadians to say all that talk about NAFTA was just campaigning ...
there instead of these daily little snippets. He need not be nasty;
he just needs to be FORCEFUL! He could say he is tired of Hillary
attacking his character and experience. He needs to set the agenda
before the next primaries and stop letting her create the benchmarks;
challenge her for a change! In the press conference he can address NAFTA,
her 35 year lack of experience, her tax returns from previous years which
are already completed, her campaign starting the Muslim emails,etc.....
There is NO way to win when Hillary fights dirty and he remains nice!
It's like playing scrabble with someone who keeps going to the bathroom to
look in the dictionary and you continue to allow them to do that. He really
needs to CRUSH her once and for all!
I posted this previously and I certainly hope he has a PLAN!
Taking the High Road most certainly did not work for Al Gore
or John Kerry. It is great that he appeals to intelligent
people but he also must appeal to those of lesser intelligence.
If he is not willing to be more forceful in this campaign,
there are those who wonder how is he going to fight for this
country! I am behind him 100% but someone(even a surrogate)
needs to take the media back.
about an Obama/Bloomberg ticket.
http://www.armstrongwilliams.com/248066.ihtml
I also heard he would go for Gov of Illinois