PoliGazette

Given the relevancy of the caucus states , why was that sector ignored by the Clinton camp?

Not this time, evidently.  The relevancy of the caucus states in this particular debate is important because its extremely likely that the margin of Obama’s victories in these states was increased by the caucus-style vote far beyond his actual popularity in those states.

I guess because Obama supporters find their way to the cacus, go through their democratically mandated form of election which by it’s nature requires more of a public involvement than a primary system means that they should not be counted?

Only Clinton can get away with saying - we want your vote to count.  As long as it’s for us.

Only Clinton can get away with saying - we want your vote to count.  As long as it’s for us.

Actually that’s been the Democrats mantra since 2000, when Gore and the FL Supreme Court decided that it was important to count every vote in SOME Florida counties.

Claudia, it’s also noteworthy that Obama "won" in delegate counts in some states where he lost in the popular vote, and that the number of delegates banned from MI and FL is considerable.

Of course most of the fun is the irony in the shadow of the 2000 election. But the bottom line is that delegates determine the nominee, just as Electoral College delegates determine the President. Not the popular vote.

Me, I just love a circus. I saw this one coming close on two years ago, and said so loudly. Often. Repeatedly. Have some popcorn?

Because Clinton didn’t take her name off of the MI and FL ballots when there was NO requirement she do so, she’s nefariously campaigning–even though she paid for it in votes in Iowa, and Obama profited in Iowa votes. When did Obama pull his name off of the Florida ballot again, that state where thought he was competitive?

Oh yeah, he didn’t. He thought he had a chance, it came after Iowa and New Hampshire so there were no pander-votes to be gained, and he stayed on the FL ballot. In MI where his numbers were plummeting and getting off could actually affect IA or NH, THERE he bailed for advantage.

No saints there, Jason. Just a couple of sinners who made different gambles, and are now arguing about the payoffs.

Remember, the Democratic Party wants to make every vote count! Except when they don’t.

I think you are editing history to conform it to your predispositions, Tully. No candidate takes his name off a ballot voluntarily, unless doing so was REQUIRED to adhere to a commitment. Obama did so, Hillary said she was going to do so and then turned out to be lying about it. End of story.

The rules of the game at the time the primaries were held were that those primaries would not count, period. Hillary is trying to change the rules that she agreed to after the fact. Endless spinning can’t change that fact either.

Remember, the Democratic Party wants to make every vote count! Except when they don’t.

And Hillary’s wing want to make every vote count, except in caucus states.

I think you are editing history to conform it to your predispositions, Tully. No candidate takes his name off a ballot voluntarily, unless doing so was REQUIRED to adhere to a commitment. Obama did so, Hillary said she was going to do so and then turned out to be lying about it. End of story.

No I’m not, Jason. I have followed this story from the beginning, over two years now, including utilizing good sources inside the campaign organizations. There was NO commitment between the DNC and the candidates to remove names from any state’s ballots. There was NO requirement from the DNC for any candidate to do so. There was NO ruling or advisory etc. from the DNC saying that candidates could not be on those ballots, only that they could not actively campaign in those states. 

To the best of my knowledge, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards ALL abided by the DNC requirements not to campaign in MI or FL, and that was the only commitment involved for Clinton. If anyone is editing history here, it’s not me. You’re just plain wrong, whether you care to admit it or not.

What happened was that the Obama and Edwards campaigns conspired to pull their names from the MI ballot (where they were both trailing badly anyway) to make Clinton look bad, and then having agreed on that ploy offered a joint pledge from their campaigns to state party apparatchiks in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to pull their names from Michigan in return for caucus and primary support from said state party apparatchiks in the four early states–support which they received. It was done specifically to make Clinton look bad in those early states and cost her votes, and to gain extra assistance and votes for Obama and Edwards. 

Obama and Edwards did not pull their names from the FL ballot because FL fell after the four early primaries, and none of the four early states would offer them any reward for pulling off of the FL ballot. So everyone stayed on in Florida.

For obvious reasons, Clinton’s campaign was not offered a place in the let’s-screw-Clinton pact. Clinton violated no party rules and dishonored no commitments in staying on the MI ballot. She got sandbagged.

It was done specifically to make Clinton look bad in those early states and cost her votes, and to gain extra assistance and votes for Obama and Edwards.

I’ve never read this anywhere - Links Tully?

You can use all the boldface font that you want, Tully. But now that your spinning a Paulista-esque conspiracy theory, I think you’ve wandered outside the realm of rationalism on any subject related to Obama.

I also don’t think that even counting Michigan and Florida gives Hillary any lead, especially given that the “uncommitted” delegates from Michigan would almost certainly be Obama votes. (I am certain, of course, that if you just repeat the Clinton talking points, that the “uncommitted” delegates either disappear magically or are assumed to be votes for Hillary in spite of the fact that their selection was explicitly as the not-for-Hillary vote.)

I’m fairly confident that the nomination process at this point is over, Obama has won, and the continued thrashing from Hillary’s supporters is just the inevitable death throes. The flood of superdelegates to Obama is already underway and NO ONE in the Democratic Party is going to want to be perceived as “taking away” the nomination from Obama at this point. Any such action would destroy the party worse than 1968.

and she has every bit as much right to work the system in this way as he did to focus on caucus states and other means toward the nomination.)

Not if you want to give her any iota of credibility on the subject.  She cannot with one hand say now that all the votes in Florida should be counted - but lets forget that nasty Caucus bit (even though it was democratically put into place).  Course it’s Clinton, so it’s special rules all the way.  Lets count this - but not that, oh wait now that becuase we need that - but not that because that helps them.

Please, she’s ridiculous in every aspect.  

I think you are editing history to conform it to your predispositions, Tully. No candidate takes his name off a ballot voluntarily, unless doing so was REQUIRED to adhere to a commitment. Obama did so, Hillary said she was going to do so and then turned out to be lying about it. End of story.

So Clinton lied about both states and Obama only lied about one?  Are you pointing out which one is sleazier by which one lied the most?  They WERE both on the ballot in Florida.  You sure have a tendency to leave out the facts when they aren’t favorable to your view.

Gee, Jason, note that where I’m disagreeing is the part where you said I was making up history to suit myself! I’m not. As you’ve repeatedly called me a liar, a hypocrite, etc, every time I said anything you construed as even remotely critical of Obama over the last several weeks, even when it was a simple notation of established facts with no editorialism at all, yeah, you’ve reached the point of slander, approaching malice. Though I seem to have more faith in your readers to sort out the facts there than you do…if actually given the facts.

I’m also NOT, as you have repeatedly alleged, pumping up Clinton. Just noting the facts. I have said for weeks now that Obama was heavily odds-on to get the nomination, and accurately predicted how Clinton would behave along the way even if she knew she had lost the nomination race. And I’ve said for two freakin’ years that the predictable result of the MI/FL move was a chaotic primary season and convention that would handicap the Democrats. 

Even though you’re apparently unable to admit it, I did not "revise" the MI/FL history. You were just plain wrong. Fact is, with Edward’s help Obama snaked a buncha delegates out from under Clinton with their private four-state pact, but as best I can tell, none of the three candidates violated a single DNC rule or reneged on a single official commitment in the process, as you alleged Clinton did in staying on the MI ballot. There was never any DNC rule or commitment preventing any candidate from placing themselves on said ballot (and all did), nor already being on the ballot to remove themselves (as Obama and Edwards did) only to not actively campaign there (as no one did). Obama and Edwards were not "following the rules" in getting off the ballot. They were quite explicitly snaking Clinton, and the only commitment they were fulfilling in doing so was one of their own making that they designed for that sole purpose from the beginning. Legitimate tactic by the rather loose standards of campaigning, yes. Honorable behavior on their part? Heh.

Cheer up, though. You’re still batting better than the New York Times, which claimed a bit back that Obama was never on the Michigan ballot in the first place, which is also false. He was on it, and he took himself off of it for the reasons noted and with the explicit intent described.

That’s not "talking points," but the simple truth.

Tully, you need to calm down and stop exaggerating what has been said to you.  You also should realize that what criticism you have received is mild compared to what is said about Obama supporters by SEVERAL people on this site day-in and day-out, with no apparent protest from you.

If you have a personal issue, I suggest you take it to email.

Just heard on the radio: an Obama campaign official expressed willingness to concede more than half of FL delegates. Tully, you may be on the money.

You would be guessing wrong, even though you’ve not used it in ages. Still present with blogger posting privileges, never suspended, never revoked. Disagree, no problem. I’m not petty.

Not a conspiracy theory, a reality. You can google up some insider news accounts of what happened with Michigan if you disbelieve my account. Here’s a lead for you.   You can disbelieve that account as well, but I had multiple sources for the same story, some of them insiders in two of the campaigns involved. It was actually a pretty neat piece of electioneering strategy on the Edwards/Obama part, if you ignore the somewhat short-sighted nature of it.  Of course it sounds conspiratorial. Opposing campaigns categorically and definitionally conspire against one another.

but rather that it will be cost-free for him to throw her a bone now that he has clinched the nomination anyway

Not exactly cost-free but pays him what HE wants. He will go along with the deal as long as he gets the nomination cinched out of it. He has to go along–damage control in those crucial states. His required payment is the nomination and Clinton’s open support. Hers is other political compensation–and it will be considerable–and probably her campaign debt, half of which is her own money. $10 mil is $10 mil, after all. 

I’d even give odds.

To state the obvious, deal-making is SOP in the DNC (and the GOP) operating process, Jason. This isn’t any theoretical textbook version of democracy, it’s the reality of partisan intra-mural politics. You speak of moral and ethical bankruptcy, but the game has not been played any differently in our adult lifetimes. And it was even less transparent and "democratic" before the McGovern/Fraser Commission. Of course she’s a hypocrite–she’s a politician, and her lips are moving. But she kept that pledge, and did not campaign in the line-jumping states.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

When we complain about someone "breaking the rules," it’s always nice to know what the rules really are, don’t you think? Especially at the time they were "broken." I refer you to the official delegate selection rules for the 2008 DNC National Convention, as published by the party, and ask you to note Rules 11.A and 20.C.1.a, which are respectively the standing rules governing the permitted timing of caucuses/primaries for the 2008 nomination, and the party-prescribed penalty for violating same.

Do a little calendar math and you will see that the ONLY pre-Super-Tuesday state that did NOT violate 11.A was Nevada. When NH, IA, and SC moved their votes even earlier than originally scheduled in order to beat out MI they too violated 11.A, which is the same rule that MI and FL violated. They have not been penalized as called for in the rules. The Rules Committee allowed them to violate 11.A with impunity. Selective justice.

Note the penalty for violating 11.A per the standing rules for 2008. It’s the traditional 50% reduction of delegates. But when FL and MI violated Rule 11.A, the Rules Committee stripped them of ALL their delegates instead of the stated penalty of only 50%.

So, in the interests of accurate representation and reporting, please note that we have three states which violated Rule 11.A and were not punished at all, and we have two states that violated Rule 11.A and were given TWICE the penalty prescribed, a total stripping of all representation rather than a 50% reduction called for in the official rules.

Were we to be absolutely "fair" and enforce the rules as issued against all violators, five states would lose half their delegates, rather than two states losing all their delegates and three states losing none. 

The DNC changed the rules and selectively applied them with arbitrary penalty as they went along in their attempt to micromanage the primary process. As I said at the time, such ham-handed diddling portended a party determined to return to the old back-room selection process for nominees, in which insiders picked the nominee. Well, guess what’s happening today? The party insiders (superdelegates) get to pick the nominee, just as predicted. 

I also beg to note that the change in penalty to 100% was decided on and applied AFTER the FL and MI primaries were scheduled. When they scheduled early they accepted the penalty in the standing rules, a 50% reduction. The 100% stripping was the DNC spanking them, but it was a retroactive rule change and selective enforcement that permitted the other three states to go even earlier in violation of 11.A without being penalized.
 

Of course she’s a hypocrite–she’s a politician, and her lips are moving. But she kept that pledge, and did not campaign in the line-jumping states.

This sort of justification is repeated endlessly by Clinton’s defenders. Basically, her history of low standards is somehow a magic shield that protects her against any backlash due to yet another iteration of low standards.

At the point that a history of being corrupt becomes treated as a virtue, I don’t think we can blame solely the politicians for pervasive corruption. We are getting exactly what we reward. Clinton’s supporters use cynicism as a way to give her a pass on every new debasement while taking any candidate that is even SLIGHTLY more ethical to the woodshed every time that candidate falls short of absolute perfection. This is a logically and ethically perverse process of reasoning, yet it has become dominant among the so-called conservatives around here. What incentive does any politician have to even TRY to achieve a higher standard? Any shortfall of perfection simply becomes an excuse to condemn them as a hypocrite while the MORE corrupt politician gets a complete pass.

Clinton seems to me MORE corrupt than just the average politician. Her propensity to parse and misrepresent and demonize is not unique — she isn’t the only one doing it — but it is worse — she does it more and does it more severely. For example, her crusade to reverse her position on Florida just yesterday expanded to include a comparison between anyone who disagrees with her position (the fact that they agree with her old position is ignored) and the dictator of Zimbabwe.

And she gets a pass. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. The equivalent in a non-political setting would be to say that a repeat felon should go free while the first time offender should get life. Yet that is exactly the same logic that gets applied routinely to the Obama/Clinton comparison.

Bottom line: Hillary should be held accountable for her original position and her cynical attempt to hope that no one notices while she changes her position to pose as some kind of grand defender of the “disenfranchised”. And the appropriate way to hold her accountable is to deny her the fruits that she seeks to gain by being blatantly dishonest. The best solution is to go back to the 50% penalty for Florida and Michigan, which would give them representation while denying Clinton the extra votes she would use to gain leverage in support of her demands to be awarded the nomination.

It may be true that all politicians pander and all politicians are corrupt. But it does not follow that they all pander or are all corrupt to the same degree. Cynicism should not become the prime virtue of political analysis.

Unfortunately, around here it has.

best solution is to go back to the 50% penalty for Florida and Michigan

I’d agree with that on general principle, regardless of the effect on the race. Those are the rules they played under.

And I think many anti-Obamans confuse realism with naturalism. Realism states what is, but does not endorse it as a virtue. Naturalism takes what is to be what should be and rejects automatically any effort to find alternatives.

And a desire to reform is not "wishful thinking" if it recognizes the practical problems of perverse incentives and seeks ways to change those specific causal factors. The hallmark of “wishful thinking” is a failure to see the practical issues invoked by trying to make change, not a desire for change itself. A refusal to see potential for changing perverse incentives is cynicism, not realism. And I am saying that we can deal with practical problems to reduce perverse incentives that encourage double-dealing by rejecting Hillary’s attempt to use it in this instance. Whether Obama would have done the same thing in some counterfactual world is simply irrelevant to the question of whether we should reward it in the actual factual world. Does rejecting Hillary’s effort to play both sides magically create a “new kind of politics”? Of course not. The only people who would/will make such an accusation are those who want to misrepresent ALL reform as radical and naive reform because they get off on seeing the cynical status quo continue without any limit. But any single rejection of manipulation like Hillary’s is a victory, however small.

The practice of automatically labeling anything that departs from radical cynicism as "wishful thinking" is, I think, what irritates so many of us about the predominant tone around here lately. The net effect of radical cynicism is not only to describe politicians’ pandering and corruption, it is to reinforce it by insulating it against any and all criticism.