Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Craig,

I see your point on Michigan, but as long as one of the choices was uncommitted, there should be a rationale for those delegates going to Senator Obama, or whoever else would still have been in the race by this time.

I never looked at it that way.
maybe I should give it some thought.

EdvB can you deliberate some more.
Because if Uncommitted was to go to people who were not on the ballot than some of thoise should go to John Edwards.
Pffffff. Tricky...Tricky......

The aricle from Madison Powers is a must read. Just read and conclude for yourself

The problem with giving any votes to BHO is that no one knows who those voters would have voted for.

Knowing that he was going to lose Michigan by a wide margin, and knowing that losing a swing state to Clinton was going to change the entire dialogue, BHO was sure that "Uncommitted" could beat Clinton. He never thought beyond that goal.

When she beat Uncommitted, BHO immediately started trying to discount Michigan by saying he wasn't even on the ballot. Bad Plan B.

Once Michigan became a big deal and people starting asking why he took his name off the ballot in the first place, there was no logical answer and it became obvious that it was all a political ploy.

The way to count votes for BHO or HRC is if there is a "check mark" beside the name.
The fact is, HRC got votes in Michigan and for reasons entirely of his own doing, BHO didn't.

Thanks for the article, Mr. Crawford. I actually thought BHO might get away with convincing people that he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan for some high-minded reason.

Good thinking Jan!

Can someone send me a link to a speach where BO actually said that people should vote uncommitted? I am keeping most of the information, but for this specific point I have nothing....

The Obama camp is very quick in pointing out how the Clinton campaign's flawed strategy and lackluster tactics cost them the caucus states.

Now it's their turn to suck it up and accept their own responsibility for poor strategy and dumb tactics costing them Michigan and Florida.

Let Florida stand as is, and grant Mr Obama 87-pct of the uncommitted Michigan ballots.

Do not formally penalize Mr Obama for his illegal Orlando news conference.

Burrito, Jack

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11409414

I'm slowly working myself through back issues of accumulated magazines. The above link from The Economist is an extremely informative read on interest rates. A tremendous amount of knowledge in a single page.

Craig....well put..thanks for the informative article

Craig....
great TM.... although I'm sure that if Michigan is to be solved BO will receive some delegates.....

also.... in sports.... the referees wouldn't be rigging the game in favor of one team over another.....

and sports writers that didn't show favor to the home town team (or the candidate that won the state)..... would be hanged....

Many links re uncommitted votes for Obama:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vote+for+uncommitted+urges+Obama&btnG=Google+Search

Thank you Craig.
After taking his name off the Michigan ballot, Obama later refused to file as a write-in candidate. New kind of politics my butt.

Here are theMichigan Ballot Results

Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,309 55.2%
Uncommitted 238,168 40.1%
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,715 3.7%
Christopher J. Dodd 3,845 0.6%
Mike Gravel 2,361 0.4%

Delegates stripped by party.

Here is what happened in Michigan as reported in the Des Moines Register in October of 2007.

Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.

John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).

All rationale was thrown out the window when this craziness started. There is no perfect solution, particularly once you go against the agreed upon rules.
I suggest that to make the million's of voters from every state except FL & MI happy, we do not count any vote from FL & MI and let Obama rough it in November.

Morning Craig and everyone,

I like your post, today, Craig, especially how you bring out the fact that there are many myths circulating about the Florida and Michigan debacle.

You wisely point out that Obama purposely took his name off the ballot in Michigan as a political maneuver, so he should not be awarded any delegates. Period.

Hillary Clinton should obviously be awarded delegates in Michigan, however,
as well as the major share them in Florida. Since the DNC and officials in the Dem and Republican parties in Florida and Michigan are to blame for making the rules, bending them and somehow breaking them, I don't think the voters should be punished at all. Let's be honest, Camp Obama is only sanctimoniously, rule conscious, now, because Obama lost these two states by wide margins.

Craig, I have some questions. Now that DNC lawyers have decided
that the DNC was right about punishing Florida and Michigan, does
this mean that Hillary Clinton must honor whatever the DNC tells her?
Can Senator Clinton sue the DNC if she thinks they have been unfair?
Can she ignore whatever happens at the Saturday meeting if she doesn't agree with the outcome?

As has been said before.
If your only method of enforcing a rule is to shoot yourself in the foot. It is not a rule it is merely a suggestion.

Jack

mornin' all.

Flatus, exactly. (re: your 7:03) What's that old saying about not dishing it out if you can't stand to have it thrown back at you? Seems Obama missed that saying in Indonesia and Hawaii. Oh, well, Aloha, I guess.

Yesterday I had to do some driving so I got the chance tolisten to the Alex Bennet show on Sirius. If you have Sirius or Air America, and he may be on XM, although I don't know that, he's a good one to listen to for pretty clear thinking frm the left that's not distorted by a preference for a particular candidate.

Craig,

You never cease to amaze me with your fairness in telling it like it is. Honesty is so rare, that I'm bowed over every time I witness it. We have our own Dr. Phil. Thank you!

I don't know why any of this matters, but below is a link to one of the many understandings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/how-obama-ended-up-on-and_n_103132.html

Flatus
Interesting article, I noticed that one of the ways developing countries try to keep food prices in check is through price controls.This could explain some of the rice shortages. In the growing economies of Asia nonfarm jobs are booming. Why stay on the farm doing back breaking work for little money. Also, price controls would drive off capital to the more lucrative manufacturing sector. so there are no investments in new technology that would increase agricultual productivity.

Jack

"The world has become divided between people who consider Bill and
Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't." Joan Walsh

Morning everone.

Did she quit the race yet?

*Fake laughter*.

vcsmith, sam stein has been in the tank for obama from almost day one. note that he distinguishes michigan and florida's procedures, noting that FL does not have a procedure for removing one's name from the ballot, but what he fails to do is point out how one gets his name on the FL ballot. I don't know whether it is like in MI or whether a candidate has to take an affirmative action to be on the ballot there. maybe somone of our FL contingent could let us know that. to his credit he notes that obama's name was placed on the mi ballot without his consent or his objection, then lets that issue drop like the proverbial hot potato. typical one sided huffpo article.

I just figured out the answer to one of my earlier questions.

If Senator Clinton does not like the DNC decision on Saturday about how to seat
the delegates, she can take her argument to the Rules Committee later this summer for a hearing. The Clinton campaign insists that no vote should
be ignored in Florida and Michigan. And I agree.

Obama's Woes: A Tale of Three States

"If you want evidence that the Democrats are taking a huge gamble by nominating Barack Obama as their Presidential candidate, you need look no further than the current state of the race in three Southern/border states.

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush won all three states. In the current Democratic Party nominating contest, Hillary Clinton won all three states by huge margins -- 30 points or more in each case. West Virginia (3%), and Kentucky (7%) have relatively small black populations. Arkansas is just over 15% African American (in the same range as Florida and Tennessee).

Were the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the Democrats would be in very good shape even without Ohio. That is because current surveys show Hillary Clinton winning all three states by solid margins over John McCain."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obamas_woes_a_tale_of_three_st.html

Craig, I have some questions. Now that DNC lawyers have decided that the DNC was right about punishing Florida and Michigan, does this mean that Hillary Clinton must honor whatever the DNC tells her? Can Senator Clinton sue the DNC if she thinks they have been unfair?Can she ignore whatever happens at the Saturday meeting if she doesn't agree with the outcome?Posted by: prof marcia

Craig,

I'm looking forward to seeing the answer to marcia's question too. It's not really so much seeing Hillary win the election anymore, but more about the injustice that has been accepted and practiced by so many in positions of power and influence.

Anc Craig, I'm struck by the difference in the response of the posters so far today. What a good bunch you've brought out into the open.

....... thanks pogo. I've got serius and xm and have been in search of some new form of good info. I'll try Alex Bennet today.

jack and flatus - here's 2 articles about the rice shortage - it's based on a number of factors, poor crop yields being one, and SURPRISE, the price of oil being another.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0422/p12s01-woap.html

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_042408WAB_rice_shortage_world_vision_KS.969c0c82.html

the CSM article is particularly good and gives a sense of what's happening where.

"- here's 2 articles about the rice shortage" pogo

and just a couple weeks ago, when people were out buying large quantities of rice emptying the shelves at membership stores, etc. there was a big announcement that there is no rice shortage and that people shouldn't worry about it. Now this?

“In sports, that would be like giving points to a team that forfeits the game.”

Craig, since you seem to forget, they both signed on to forfeit the game. In sports you would never see anything like this happen because when one team gets ahead they do not change the rules for the other team to win. You, just like the witch, will try anything to get her elected which, IMO, will destroy the Democratic Party. Actually, I believe her intent is to destroy Obama so she can say “See, I was the better candidate”, while, in fact, it is she who is destroying him. She can rot in Hell as far as I'm concerned. I loathe her.

notice how the "tone" changes when an obama supporter signs on..........?

I can understand a network "shading" the truth for their favored candidate, but how do they get away with outright lying?

Ridley Scott and Mika on MSNBC this morning talking about "why did Sen. Obama allow himself to be labeled 'elitist' when he was from the south side of Chicago and as a child he was raised in poverty by a single mother on food stamps?"

Say what? (1) His mother didn't raise him. - His father dumped him when he was two. She remarried when he was about five, and she dumped him on his grandmother when he was 10. (2) The food stamps at most was a two year period between daddy leaving and mommy remarrying (3) The stepfather was an executive. The mother became a bank executive. The grandmother was a bank executive. (4) He attended one of the most prestigious private schools in Hawaii. (5) His university career was from the most prestigious schools in the U.S. (5) In Chicago he teaches at another great university and marries a woman with an exceptional income.

Is it any surprise, that those who are trying to support this man keep feeling weird about it. If his supporters can't tell the truth about him, what are we supposed to believe?

and sports writers that didn't show favor to the home town team (or the candidate that won the state)..... would be hanged....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/05/obamas-michigan-forefeit.html#comment-90280

Renee said so much in that one sentence.

apparently Karolenna didn't read the following part of the CQ article. Again it is a case that if the Obama folks repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. Unfortunately, they seem to be right.

"Four days before the Florida primary on January 29, and just two weeks after her 55 percent share of primary votes cast in the Michigan primary in which neither Edwards nor Obama were on the ballot, Clinton announced that she would ask her “Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.” Perhaps the rest of us did not pay much attention at the time, but Florida Democratic Party officials took immediate notice and extended to her their thanks for her promise of support. "

Wow
Jamie All the info you just gave in your last post validates why I feel no connection with OBAMA!!! As a G.M. UAW autoworker for most of my life he just doesn't speak to me Hillary does its just that simple!!! In this campaign I have seen his side thanks in large part to y-tube and the blog do the most unsavery things so I simply don't trust OBAMA there you have it everyone my reason for note voting in Nov. unless McCain changes my mind?

Sturgeone,

You are so right!! It was like a tidal wave of mean-spirited attacks
on Hillary, suddenly. Can you imagine if a Clinton supporter ever
wrote things like this about Obama:
"just like the witch... (warlock)" "he's out to destroy her" "I loath him."

I would never write those sorts venomous words about Obama even
though I could never vote for the man.

Jamie,

Your post is great. Ridley Scott and Mika are a hate Hillary team. It's difficult for me to watch either of them anymore.

chloe, seems to depend on where you are - my poker table math tells me that the supply of rice on the world market is down, with exporting countries being in pretty good shape (we are one) and importing countries going wanting. The dramatic feature is the rise in price for rice, which effectively makes it unavailable to many who would otherwise buy it asa a staple or to distribute to the starving.

In case you want to keep an eye on what the GOP will be throwing, here is their website

http://gop.com/

The one being pushed now is the counter showing how long it has been since Sen. Obama has been to Iraq?

"why did Sen. Obama allow himself to be labeled 'elitist (from Mika, msnbc) Jamie

Don't think he allowed it. It was more of a discovery by many.

Elitist is defined as a person who is or who believes himself or herself to be a member of an elite group.

And elite is the group or part of a group selected or regarded as the finest, best, most distinguished, most powerful, etc.

I don't see anything in that definition that has to do with how he was raised. You don't have to be rich to be arrogant. It's a state of mind. And the DNC has demonstrated that they do find Obama to be their finest, their best, their most distinguished and they do hope that he will soon be their most powerful.

Pogo

Last fall James Fallows posted (on his blog over on the Atlantic website,) pictures of farming in China. He had also post pictures of eastern China with its new highrise buildings. It was a stark contrast for a farm boy like me. The rural pictures show an agriculture sector that was 200 years behind the gleaming industrial sector. If we returned to the peracre production levels of 200 years ago we would be a bit hungry too.

Jack

pogo, thanks for the heads up.

I didn't see the significance of the Huff Post at the time, but now see that there are many theoried agendas and Mr. Stein was giving his slant.
At the time of the FL & MI primaries, I thought that not counting for anything was the dumbest thing I had ever heard. But I'm in NJ, so what can one do? As for the conversation of disenfranchised voters, for me it has been going on for years.

more on the food crisis.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-05-28-food-crisis_N.htm

Can you imagine if a Clinton supporter ever wrote things like this about Obama: "just like the witch... (warlock)" "he's out to destroy her" "I loath him." Posted by: prof marcia

It's so puzzling that some kinds of hate or prejudice are completely acceptable and other types are rightfully condemned.

vc, no prob. I swore off huffpo for a couple of months and have quit reading it with any regularity at all because of it's strongly pro-Obama, anti-Clinton editorial bent, which extends to its selection of news articles and banner composition. Stein is one of the worst offenders.

Chloe,

It wasn't the label that bothered me. It was the string of lies to deny the lable.

I find nothing wrong in someone being accomplished, well educated, or receiving the rewards of their efforts. "Elite" used to mean those of the greatest achievements. It was at the heart of "To whom much is given, much will be required." The extension from that was "nobless oblige" - a giving back to the community and to those with less.

It has come to mean a kind of unearned snobbery - the old line about being born on third base and when you succeed thinking you hit a home run.

Neither Sen. nor Mrs. Obama seem to be in the second group. They have both done good things for their family and their community. I would find those people well worth supporting after more public service. What we get instead is the pulled up by boot strap, practically born in log cabin myth and that makes you question what is real and what is phony and who is creating the image?

More Clinton shilling from Craig this morning.

The problem with your argument is simply this: why should Obama be punished for withdrawing his name from the ballot when everybody knew in advance the votes wouldn't count. Until Clinton began to beg for votes, everybody knew the states were null and void. Why waste your time when it's merely for show? Also too, by not including your name, you are showing solidarity with the rules committee.

All of this populist, "let the voters" rhetoric is really beginning to upset me. Rules are rules. Leaders in these states (both republican and democrat) chose to put themselves in a position where they knew they would be punished. If voters are angry, they should direct their anger at the state leadership, not the DNC or the candidates.

Finally, if we allow even a single vote to count then the rules system of the DNC is pointless. What's to stop future violations? Nothing.

tonyb39
You have to vote in the general election. There will be other candidates. the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Prohibition Party, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the and of course the Independents.
If nothing else is attractive, then we MUST promote the idea and need for more than the dominance of the current 2 party system.

jack, yep, the contrast between the farmers and industrialists (and other non farming businessmen) in Asian countries is startling. It's probably a bit of an overstatement, but to an extent it's the 15th century (picked randomly) versus the 21st. I'm sure there is some industrialized rice farming that takes place in those countries, but there is also farming as it's been done essentially forever. The export restriction and price increses are the big problem as I see it. And I imagine that drought and flood are also contributing.

And the ammunition for the flip-flop campaign has begun:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obama-v-obama.html#comments

Another "pressed the wrong button," "wasn't there, "didn't see the memo" moment from Senator Obama.

It wasn't the label that bothered me. It was the string of lies to deny the lable. Jamie

Thanks Jamie,
I get it.

It's not hard to get off track when you have so much garbage thrown at you. But then, maybe that's the point.

Should have said: And the ammunition for the flip-flop campaign has "been provided"

Ally,

So there isn't plenty of ammo against HRC in the flip-flop wars.

I don't want to be too partisan for Obama here, but I think this flip-flop stuff is terribly dangerous for the political process. It's (usually) a right-wing tactic, a shorthand for anti-intellectualism. When the inconsistencies are going to have a real impact on how the candidate will govern, that's one thing. I just worry that too often putting a candidate in the "flip-flop box" denies him/her the right to legitimately change their mind on an issue. See: John Kerry.

PoU. Nice try. The DNC granted waivers to SC & NH to move their contests and denied the same requests from FL & MI. Rules are rules? only for IA, NH & SC apparently. The penalty under the rules is to lose 50% of the delegate seats. The DNC went a step further and stripped them completely - not according to the rules, but to punish FL & MI further. A challenge was foreseeable, in fact inevitable. Obama isn't stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen. He gambled on MI - he'll be stuck with the results of that gamble. This is a problem of the DNC's making. In the end it probably won't change the outcome, but it may swing the popular vote count recognized by the DNC to Clinton. Tell me, will you complain if the superdelegates decide to make Clinton the nominee "according to the rules"? I'm betting you will.

I can understand a network "shading" the truth for their favored candidate, but how do they get away with outright lying?

Posted by: Jamie | May 29, 2008 8:59 AM

Jamie: One thing occurred to me following the "Vogue Vogue Vogue" incident on the press plane and then the sweetie remark to the reporter:

Obama now believes his own bullsh*t.

And the media has bought off on it hook, line and sinker.

PoU, you are exactly right about the flip-flop issue. GWB is a prime example. It's the old humorous definitionof insanity - doing the same thing time after time and expecting a dfferent outcome. Hell, I want my leaders to change their approach based on the facts available to them, and if something doesn't work to do something else.

Pogo,

The state's you mentioned worked with the DNC. That's the difference. The popular vote is meaningless in this equation, by the way.

Neither Sen. nor Mrs. Obama seem to be in the second group. They have both done good things for their family and their community. I would find those people well worth supporting after more public service. What we get instead is the pulled up by boot strap, practically born in log cabin myth and that makes you question what is real and what is phony and who is creating the image?

Posted by: Jamie | May 29, 2008 9:36 AM

Morning, Jamie,

Might be valid except for the the presidents that achieved much with little public service.

Just can't argue that Abraham Lincoln was ready for the Civil War with just 8 years service in the Illinois state senate. Just an example.

You, me, one one will know who is great enough in a crisis with this kind of logic.

PoU: The flip-flopping argument against HRC is moot, isn't it? Obama will be the nominee. Hence my reference to the flip flop on Obama's part. And the flip flop tactic was a very effective tool against Kerry in the 2004 election. It goes to the issue of authenticity. (BTW: McCain is a serial flip flopper but will Democrats use it against him? Probably not.)

"why should Obama be punished for withdrawing his name from the ballot when everybody knew in advance the votes wouldn't count." Politics of Utopia
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/05/obamas-michigan-forefeit.html#comment-90315

Utopia,
I still don't get it. How can counting peoples votes hurt him.
The numbers will still work in his favor. He'll still win.

So why not give the voters a voice and prevent them from feeling dissed? The outcome of the nomination won't change anyway. There's a lot of people in those states and to ignore their will just seems morally wrong, especially since it will not change the outcome anyway.

When do we get to the point where we convince EVERYONE that they have been treated fairly, so we can move on to unite.

Or am I missing something?

To lighten the mood this morning with a link that has nothing - or perhaps *everything* - to do with politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/alien-video-to-be-reveale_n_104043.html

I thought South Dakota was a easy win for Obama but not according to this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/south_dakota_primary

tonyb39....
let me echo the sentiments of getting you to rethink not voting in November....
and anyone else on this list considering the same option....

remember... the election is not just about choosing a president.... it's also about choosing Senators and Congressmen..... and there may be ballot initiatives in your state that you truly care about.....

if you can't bring yourself to vote for a president..... so be it.... leave it blank....
but who represents you in Congress can have a much more direct effect on your life than who is president.....

just something to think about..... the choice is your's.....

pogo
I have about a dozen sites that I visit at least once a day. Its more about keeping up with current issues and events than tying into all the different agendas.

Speaking of flip-flops, here's what Chris Matthews had to say after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment (it appears Bush also caused a thrill to run up Chris's lag):

"He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. ... He looks for real. ... [H]e didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does. ... We're proud of our president. ... Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president."

And actually flip flop may not be an accurate description for how McCain will use the issue against Obama. Because it really was just a gaffe on Obama's part (mainly due to his green-ness). They might just use the old inexperience argument against him on this one. Hard to say.

I think there is some misinformation here.

Obama has said many many times that he will accept anything the rules committee comes up with.

If they come up with seating all the delegates for Clinton, Obama will accept it. Now put that in your Funk & Wagonal.

Just not a vaild demonization for some of you in my book.

Let the process finish.

chloe,

I can see your argument, too. My problem is that (and upon further review I take pogo's comment seriously) somehow the rules need to be observed to some degree. Also, living here in the godforsaken state of Florida, I know many Obama supporters who didn't go out to the polls because they knew their votes wouldn't be counted. It's a sticky situation. I guess the half-vote compromise that the DNC lawyers are recommended might suit everybody. Your thoughts?

Chef,

Maybe there's an inconsistency here, but I have heard dozens of times that the Obama camp will accept the ruling as long as it's a "fair" ruling, which, one would assume, would preclude HRC getting all the delegates.

Good morning peeps.
She quit yet?
Craig you planning on joining the demonstrators on Saturday at the rules committee meeting?

Murdoch weighs in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html

PoU, yes, the popular vote is meaningess in the sense that the candidate wins by receiveing more delegate votes at the convention - of course Obama repeatedly touted having received more popular votes, along with winning more states (a similarly meaningless measure) in addition to the only metric that in the end matters - delegate votes. You may find this difficult to accept, but Obama has not yet won enough delegate votes to claim the nomination and the number may change depending upon the outcome of this weekend's meeting.

Brian,

I think Craig will lead the charge. Maybe we'll get a Trail Mix webcast out of it!

". I'm sure there is some industrialized rice farming that takes place in those countries"

It doesn't help that the population of the earth is such that farm lands to feed them are over run by places to put all the bodies. It took from the beginning of recorded history to 1800 to reach one billion people.

It has only taken 50 years to go from three billion to more than six billion. They all want to eat. There is a choice. Reduce the number of mouths or go on a very severe diet.

"Four days before the Florida primary on January 29, and just two weeks after her 55 percent share of primary votes cast in the Michigan. . . . Clinton announced that she would ask her Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.' -Jamie

Wonder why she would do that?

*scratches head*

Oh. . maybe because she lost her ** in Iowa and knew she was about to in SC. And as a result of close contests in NH and NV, she was behind for good in the delegate count.

How bout that show of solidarity with the FL/MI voters.

Brian , I already asked if she quit the race. Sorry! LOL!

Politics of Utopia,

I guess its how your heart is slanted. I respect that those who are emotionally invested in this process are hearing differently.

I voted in Michigan and the information was garbled until just a couple of hours before the votes. Many didn't get the real gist on how to vote.

Many people voted for Clinton because they wanted to have their votes count, but were very upset because they wanted Obama. Many wrote his name in and then were told that it would not count at all....I was one of them.

Having Obama say that he will accept the ruling with no argument is fair. Don't read into it for anymore than it is.

There is no Conspiracy here.

Obama now believes his own bullsh*t.
And the media has bought off on it hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: Ally

Ally,
I have wondered about that for a long time. Racked my brain about "why?". They must have started believing it way before Iowa. Because it wasn't until about then that I tuned in. I was totally lost trying to accept all the things they were trying to feed us.

chloe & ally,

would you define bullsh*t in this context? i'm not trying to stir things up, i just don't understand what you are referring to.

Obama now believes his own bullsh*t.
And the media has bought off on it hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: Ally

Now how can ALL of you say that you do not slander our candidate????

Just pointing out the obvious. Would like some understanding when the mud slinging gets out of hand.

Alley, I'm sure your are civil most of the time. But this type of expression is seen as mud slinging to us.

Follow jamie's example if you want to take the higher road. Her word plays are far better.

Since Murdoch is leaning towards Obama does that mean the FOX Noise channel will lean towards the left down the road. Will Murdoch change the network because the Dems will then be in charge of the House and Senate and he can get better ratings by appealing to the majority. They may have to change one show to Colmes and Hannity and let Colmes run the show. I can't see Hannity praising Obama or Clinton like he does Bush.

Again yesterday Hannity was teasing the listeners with this so called tape that he may or may not have. He can play this game for so long before it loses it's luster. I can't stand these talking heads that do this kind of thing just to get people to listen to them. If you got something then report it or keep it to yourself and not play around with it.

I guess the half-vote compromise that the DNC lawyers are recommended might suit everybody. Your thoughts?
Posted by: Politics of Utopia

Utopia,
I don't think my thoughts matter.
Anymore than those who did go out to vote did.

Obama has said many many times that he will accept anything the rules committee comes up with.

and yet he has objected to every plan including the revotes. Say one thing for the public and act another in private. Obama is the reason there was no revote.
There were offers to raise the money for the revotes but Obama said NO NO NO I don't want a revote
because he knows he would have lost.

I would like to suggest a new name for Craigs Blog.

In the Tank for Clinton Trail Mix brought to you by Craig Crawford and his merry band of Clintonistas ---All Clinton All the Time.

that makes it clearer to the casual observer as to what is really going on here.

¡yo soy Horsedooty!

hmmmm. Politics of Utopia and Chef Sheila.

Hand across the aile in Bipartisanship?

5-29-08 - Added DNC Gail Rasmussen (OR) for Obama

44 more delegates needed for Obama to claim victory!

Utopia Florida and Michigan have been a very big issue for Craig for a very long time. I would fully expect him to join the demonstrations. I only worry for his safety, it's going to be a very ugly mob of middle aged women and I worry for the safety of any male who might be in the area. I'm so glad Obama has asked his supporters not to attend, I think he was worried for their safety.

"with just 8 years service in the Illinois state senate."

And only one term in Congress. Of course that was preceded by more than 20 years of traveling throughout Illinois, heavy involvement in the creation of a new political party, a series of lectures on anti slavery and abolition and a long schedule of multiple hour debates with his chief rival. Competition with some of the most accomplished and famous men of his day all in the midst of a national crisis even before the election.

You might like to read the speech that made a president: Lincoln at Cooper Union

http://jdurward.blogspot.com/2008/02/lincoln-at-cooper-union.html?showComment=1202846100000

Chef,

Gladly! : )

"I only worry for his safety, it's going to be a very ugly mob of middle aged women and I worry for the safety of any male who might be in the area."

Brian swats the hornets nest again! lol

Brian,

As long as he keeps his pockets full stocked with Werther's Originals to fend off the kooky oldsters, I think he'll be fine.

: )

OK. A nicer way to put it would be this:

Obama believes his own hype. And what I refer to as Hype is the story that he has created about this past (this was in response to Jamie's allegation that the story of his impoverished background is overblown.)

"Believing your own BS" is not an uncommon term used to describe people who lack humility. I surely am not the first person to accuse Obama of being arrogant and I doubt I will be the last.

Florida and Michigan May See Delegates Halved
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/politics/29dems.html

"Mathews: The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president." Posted by: Patsi

Tweety manages to diss women one more time-more to come.

Jamie,

But Lincoln didn't understand the southern strategy and it took a "Learn as you go" kind of atmostphere to win. He had GREAT Judgement though. That kind of reminds me of someone I am voting for.

Some times voting is a leap of faith aft er weighing the options and the facts.

Wise Utopia, very wise. I can easily imagine Craig yelling at the top of his lungs "I have hard candy!"

LOL

Brian you know if Obama needed FL and & MI he would want his supporters to be there. It makes sense that he does not want anybody there and Hillary wants as many people as she can get to be around. So I would not make him out to be a great person for not wanting anybody around. This is pure politics 101. Yet he wants to be a different type of politican and change Washington.

several weeks ago, one of the national news magazines wrote a story on what went wrong with the Clinton Campaign. Earlier than all the other major gaffs, the first mis-step was to not run for Senator from her home state Ilinois. If she had won there then there would not be US Senator Obama and most likely she would be the Democratic candidate for President of the US.

¡yo soy Horsedooty!

Rez I never swat at hornets nests, just bee hive hairdos!

LOL

"Believing your own BS" is not an uncommon term used to describe people who lack humility. I surely am not the first person to accuse Obama of being arrogant and I doubt I will be the last. Posted by: Ally

Ally,

There are some here that are too high minded to allow us to use "common terms".

That way they can pass along an insult, hoping it will rid them of the differing opinions.

And Sheila: Enough with the wounded thing. I am pretty even-handed in this race so please avoid lumping me with the other mudslingers. My response to Jamie was directly with regard to her comments about the media perpetuating untruths. My point is that if you tell a story long enough, you start to believe it. And if enough people tell you you are wonderful enough, you start to believe it. Obama is used to people fauning over him. Sorry but that's the way I see it.

vadaryl that's not why Obama has told his supporters to stay home, he wants all the media attention focused on the band of Hillary hysterics that will be showing up. Let the world see that which we've been witnessing for months.

vad, Murdoch is selling soap ads. He ain't changing anything as long as he sells more than the other cable newsers and for more money per minute.

That secret tape thing is a schtick for Hannity - he does these extended setups for "blockbuster" news - then the news is BS.

"Lincoln also appointed his political rivals to high positions in his cabinet to keep in line all factions of his party-and to let them battle each other and not combine against Lincoln." - Wikipedia

Hillary Clinton is a robot.

And with that pugnacious shot, I'm off to do some work. Take care!

Brain it's politics! The leader always wants to be shown as a good person and use the media to expose the person losing. Nothing new here.

Chloe: Yes, we Clinton supporters are a pretty low-class bunch. Sorry that I hurt feelings this morning.

"Bizarre" is an apt term to apply.

But it would be equally bizarre to seat any delegates following a process that was officially disqualified by the party in advance.

The fact is that all strategic planning by both campaigns, as well as the individual decisions made by citizens regarding whether and for whom to vote were predicated on the expectation that this primary was solely a 'beauty contest'. Any ex post facto change to that status has to be seen as a formal, expedient party process, essentially unconnected from the result of the poll.

So, although it would be "bizarre" to seat Obama delegates, it is also bizarre to seat Clinton ones or, for that matter, any delegates at all.

We need to see this decision for what it is, an intra-party, administrative move to maximize unity and improve its position for the general election in November. Guidance for that decision will be drawn from a number of sources including the votes cast in the disqualified primary, the current standing of the candidates and the wishes of party leaders from the state.

"Now how can ALL of you say that you do not slander our candidate????"

Sheila
Are you seriously trying to tell me your man doesn't bullshit? Come on , lets get real. The question for a lot of us is what of his attacks does he believe and what are just politics as usual. From my point of view, after New Hampshire Obama ran a standard Urban campaign where one candidate is black and the other is white. He repeatedly accused Clinton of racism to bolster his black vote.
I want to know how much he really believed and how much is politics as usual. If he believes Clinton to be racist he has a serious reality problem.IMO

Jack

Corey,

Does that mean Hillary Clinton as the VP nominee is a foregone conclusion for the Senator from Illinois whose supporters think he is the second coming of Lincoln. He has said that Team of Rivals is one of his favorite books.

Chloe: Yes, we Clinton supporters are a pretty low-class bunch. Sorry that I hurt feelings this morning.Posted by: Ally

Yes we are Ally.
And if you don't believe it, just ask a few of the kind people here. But don't worry about their feelings. They've accomplished their goal.

Jamie, please answer this question, and it is a “yes” or ‘no” question.

Did Clinton sign on NOT to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated? Now, “yes” or “no”. No if, buts or anything else needed.

It was ONLY after she realized that she was not going to win that she wanted those delegates seated.

Brian, I know I have it here someplace, but would you please post the link to the video clip (or clips) of Clinton saying that the delegates were not going to count for anything? I want to see that it gets to some locals. Thanks.

"Obama has said many many times that he will accept anything the rules committee comes up with."

Well maybe, maybe not. Inconsistency, judge for yourself.

Obama in his own words:

3-14-08 NPR interview in response to proposal for a re-do of the FL & MI primaries:

"Our position consistently has been that the MI & FL
delegations should be seated (at the Dem. National
Convention) & that we should come up with a system
that is fair to all the parties involved"

Then, a 3-19-08 interview w/Anderson Cooper cnn--the Illinois senator hit back at Clinton's claim that he is standing in the way of revotes in Fl & MI.

"I want the Michigan delegation & the Florida delegation to be seated. And however, the Dem. National Committee determines we can get that done. I'm happy to abide by those rules.

Alley,

Wasn't mud slinging at you. However, you repesent your faction, this is a public forum, and that was a comment that could be easily misconstrude.

Politics of Utopia saw that same thing.

just pointing out what makes this blog rock in a nasty way and since everyone wants a more peaceful blog, I thought it was a good place to start.

I agree that Obama believes himself. ;0) so does Clinton.

I also believe that he is as humble as Clinton. Great qualities all for candidateship.

If you don't believe Obama's Belief in himself, so be it. There are plenty who do.

I want to know how much he really believed and how much is politics as usual. Posted by: whskyjack
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/05/obamas-michigan-forefeit.html#comment-90376

Maybe we could ask Rev. Wright.
Since he may be the one person who know him best.

Karolenna

NO

All the candidates agreed to "NOT CAMPAIGN" in Floriday. They neither said or did anything in relation to "seating the delegation". That was always up to the DNC.

On Michigan, her WHOLE statement says that she hopes a way will be found to count the vote. Unfortunately, the broadcasters and Obama supporters only perpetuate her first sentence.

Just part of the web of slant and lies from the Obama spokespeople and media.

He just might do it , Jamie. You never know. Heck , JFK picked LBJ as his running mate and fellow Democrats hated that decision. Although rumor has it that JFK thought LBJ would decline the offer. But , others say JFK offered the position to LBJ to help him win the southern states. Supposedly RFK went to LBJ and told him the offer had been rescinded and LBJ didn't believe him.

Besides , look who GWB picked as his VP and he still won 2 elections!

Posted by: Karolenna | May 29, 2008 10:42 AM

you are an idiot who asks stooooopid questions

Michigan and Florida are not the same.

you already won

And you promised not to post here EVER AGAIN
and yet here you are.

Prior to the quoted part of the interview below, Hillary reinforced the difficult position the people of Michigan are in ("they are flat on their backs") and then she went on to say this:

"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008. I'm not going to campaign there before the you know deadlines and the February 5th window. I'm not going to spend any money there. But I did not believe that it was fair to just say "Goodbye Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January of 2009."

NHPR interview, October of 2007

Chloe: Yes, we Clinton supporters are a pretty low-class bunch. Sorry that I hurt feelings this morning.Posted by: Ally

Yes we are Ally.
And if you don't believe it, just ask a few of the kind people here. But don't worry about their feelings. They've accomplished their goal.

Posted by: chloe | May 29, 2008 10:42 AM

Ok.....Walking out the door. You guys don't want good talk, you want to take your anger out on someone.

I was really NOT upset Alley. You are trying to make it an issue for the day and so instead of helping you,

I'll see Ya'll later.

No Bipartisanship here yet.

Oh and PS, Jack, it so happens I agree with you. Clinton and Obama and McCain are all full of BS, just some use it better.

But I really happen to think my candidate is trying very hard to keep a sense of integrity.

While your candidate is using the BS strategy through her husband very well, I this Clinton is in the Intgrety side as well.

I hope that clears things up for you. now take a Blood Pressure pill and please enjoy your day!

Its a mac and cheese lunch day and a Copper River Salmon day as well.

Sheila: Believing your own hype combined with a lack of humility is an unsavory combination in my book. Personally, I believe the hype and faun is undeserved. This is just my opinion. This is not an issue of having self-confidence.

So, I choose not to believe in Obama's Belief in Himself. I did not and do not insult any other member of the blog or the host. I am critical of the candidate. The tone and tenor of the blog is mostly with regard to people who choose to hurl insults at each other (in my opinion.)

"I did not and do not insult any other member of the blog or the host"

She knows that.
But it doesn't fit into her plan to intimidate you.
We have to stop defending ourselves from these attacks.
We can't allow others to attack us for what we believe.
I we allow them to silence us, then we lose out on a lot of really good information.

Sheila: You speak of Sen Obama's judgment, as does the candidate -- frequently. We all know that he spoke out against going to war in Iraq at a Chicago rally of war protestors. Those of us who have heard her speech on the Senate floor (as also Kerry's speech) know that Sen Clinton also spoke out against going to war.
But I'll give you that Sen Obama had correct judgment in the matter of the Iraq war, with the caveat that it is usually good judgment to agree with one's constituents.
That being the case, in what other areas has Sen Obama shown superior judgment? I am not trying to be flippant or argumentative, but generally speaking one would expect judgment to rest on more than one statement.

Now how can ALL of you say that you do not slander our candidate????

Just pointing out the obvious. Would like some understanding when the mud slinging gets out of hand.

Alley, I'm sure your are civil most of the time. But this type of expression is seen as mud slinging to us.

Follow jamie's example if you want to take the higher road. Her word plays are far better.

Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun | May 29, 2008 10:15 AM

I was really NOT upset Alley. You are trying to make it an issue for the day and so instead of helping you,

I'll see Ya'll later.

Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun | May 29, 2008 10:53 AM

Sheila: The next time you are not really upset, don't use 4 question marks and then go on to tell me to take the high road. I believe your defensiveness and anger should be directed to other members of this blog. I rarely engage in petty discourse but I believe your attacks on me personally today were undeserved. Again: I make my remarks about the candidate, not the poster.

Here you go karolena:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow

In her own words:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI&feature=related

I'm sure your are civil most of the time. But this type of expression is seen as mud slinging to us.' Sheila

Define "us".

chloe...

"I did not and do not insult any other member of the blog or the host"

"She knows that.
But it doesn't fit into her plan to intimidate you.
We have to stop defending ourselves from these attacks.
We can't allow others to attack us for what we believe.
I we allow them to silence us, then we lose out on a lot of really good information."

Sheila never has insulted anyone here since I've known her.

Yet now you accuse her of intimidation. Isn't that a personal attack against her?

That's how it looks to me.

Back to lurking, go on now with all your fun.

God Bless.

"Does that mean Hillary Clinton as the VP nominee is a foregone conclusion for the Senator from Illinois"

I wouldn't put money on it.

Craig: I am really disappointed with you on this column.

Does not tack with NPR's take last night, but NPR is probably one of the vast Obama-promoting media too.

Had you said why every other candidate took their name off the Michigan ballot as well, save Madame Clinton?

Sheila never has insulted anyone here since I've known her.
Posted by: anon-paranoid

Did someone accuse her of insulting anyone?

Maggie

"But I'll give you that Sen Obama had correct judgment in the matter of the Iraq war, with the caveat that it is usually good judgment to agree with one's constituents. "

Which probably explains why he removed that position from his web page when running for statewide office and then ALL of his votes in the Senate to go along with his party to finance the war he supposedly opposed.

Thanks Chloe. You would think I said something really controversial earlier. Obama arrogant? Obama believing his own hype? Obama worship on the part of the media and his fellow Senators? I thought these opinions were part of the national dialogue by now. Apparently I was mistaken.

chloe...

Define "us".

She means those of us who support Obama.

Ask Jamie about Sheila if you don't believe me.

Maybe I be back after work. Have a nice day.

God Bless.

Dog's Eye

Not all of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot. See the election results above in the thread.

The reason "Uncommitted" got such a large percentage was that both Obama and Edwards encouraged their supporters to vote that way so that when the delegation was finally seated (as they all believed they would be), the uncommitted would be free to vote against Clinton.

Had you said why every other candidate took their name off the Michigan ballot as well, save Madame Clinton?

Every other candidate did not take their name off
more lies and idiocy from the Obama bots

Do you believe this crap you post

You would think I said something really controversial earlier. Obama arrogant? Obama believing his own hype? Obama worship on the part of the media and his fellow Senators?Ally

It's all old news.

Dog's eye view: Not every other candidate. Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel also remained on the ballot. It has been reported that Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson agreed to remove their names from the MI ballot. Three of them did so at the last possible moment, but Dodd reneged.
It has also been reported that Sen Obama tried to remove his name from the FL ballot, but the law in FL is that if one is running (or even mentioned as a candidate), the name goes on the primary ballot.
It has further been reported that the reason for removing their names from the ballot was that internal polling showed Sen Clinton set to win the state by a wide margin. That has also been reported as the reason that Sen Obama's campaign lawyers argued against a re-vote in either state.
I do not know the truth of these reports, since I am not a campaign insider. Given the fact that Sen Obama began his political career by sweeping his competition from the ballot by technical maneuvers, it sounds about right ... in other words, it's all just politics.

Which probably explains why he removed that position from his web page when running for statewide office and then ALL of his votes in the Senate to go along with his party to finance the war he supposedly opposed.

Posted by: Jamie | May 29, 2008 11:12 AM

Jamie: I agree 100%. Actually, Kucinich was the only real anti-war candidate in this race.

Dog,

When you get a chance to read through today's posts, you'll see that not every other candidate took his name off the Michigan ballot. I can't remember who posted it, but they mentioned that several in the media have mis-reported that.

Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the ballot along with Senator Clinton and "uncommitted".

Do you believe this crap you post
Posted by: Clintonian Brian

They not only believe it.
They repeat it and expound on it every day.

chloe...

"But it doesn't fit into her plan to