Two points
1) Even though Michigan and Florida violated the DNC rules most people expected the delegates to eventually be seated at the convention. Additionally, Florida's change in the primaries wasn't at all due to any actions of Democrats in that state.

2) Obama and his supporters were the ones who were against a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, which would have been a reasonable solution to this situation. What principled reason did he have for opposing a re-vote? Most likely it was to prevent Hillary from winning those two states and their delegates. Does anyone doubt Obama would be arguing Michigan and Florida should count if he won? Of course not.

Posted at May 19, 2008 12:03 PM in response to The Idea Hillary WON in Florida and Michigan is LAUGHABLE!

Until his "fairy tale" comment, the mere sound of his voice or glimpse of him on TV truly comforted me.

Has anyone who criticizes Bill for the "fairy tale" comment actually send it?> there's nothing racial at all in the remark in any way you interpret it. The comment was about Obama's position on the Iraq War. When did everyone decide that a spouse can't campaign for their spouse to win? this rule seems to have been made up just for Bill C.

Posted at May 13, 2008 6:09 PM in response to Weirdest, worst, and best moments from the primary campaign

How can you say that Hillary is the more conservative candidate when her positions were pretty much identical to Obama;s?

Posted at May 11, 2008 12:37 PM in response to How Hillary lost this liberal

Right on dude. Just because someone doesn;t support a particular candidate doesn;t mean it needs to be full on nuclear war. Hillary and Obama agree on almost every policy position for heck sake.

Posted at May 10, 2008 2:43 AM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

That was a U2 video. How is a U2 video somebody's signature issue? Was that a joke/

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:40 PM in response to So how does Obama graciously NOT name HRC VP?

She has earned the ear of the DNC but NOT the right to be the VP to a nominee who is seeking to status quo.

Who started this idea that Hillary represents "the status quo"? Her policies are similar to Obama's in almost every respect and represent a great deal of change from the Bush years. Even going back to the way things were in the 1990s under Bill C. would be a vast improvement over the way things are now and a change from the status quo.

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:28 PM in response to So how does Obama graciously NOT name HRC VP?

Quick, someone name Clinton's signature issue that animates her run for President. (Besides her own ambition, I mean).

Totally bogus. Whatever anyone thinks of Hillary it is fair to say that she is concerned about expanding access to health care as one signature issue. Why is she considered more ambitious than Obama who is running for President after only 2 years in the senate? What signature issue animates his run for President?

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:25 PM in response to So how does Obama graciously NOT name HRC VP?

Tom: The mistake you're making is your assumption that because someone supported the political causes of the 1960s, as Hillary certainly did many times, they cannot condemn the methods used by the most radical groups of the era like the Weather Underground. Many people of that era who supported the broad causes of ending the Vietnam War and promoting social justice at home drew the line at bombing civilian targets. Despite the certainty of anyone's cause violent methods are simply beyond the pale and counterproductive to the cause. This is something that Gandhi understood, but William Ayers never did.

It's also an entirely separate thing to think that all people including black nationalists deserve a competent defense than it is to attend a church for 20 years whose leader has stated without evidence that the United States created the HIV virus and that the September 11th attacks were part of the "chickens coming home to roost" because of the United States' foreign policy.

Do you personally agree with the statements of Jeremiah Wright or with all the actions of the Weather Underground? And if you don't, what is wrong with a candidate for office in 2008 saying that although she supports many goals of the 1960s she does not associate herself with the most radical people from that time?

Posted at April 23, 2008 7:51 PM in response to Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream

Not counting the caucus states as much as the primary states for a popular vote count actually favors Obama rather than Clinton. He has consistently underperformed in primaries versus caucuses. If all caucus states had used primaries, then Hillary would have a greater share of the vote than she does now. The pledged delegate count is not a more democratic measure than using the popular vote because it overcounts certain congressional districts rather using the idea of "one person, one vote." For example, Obama won the pledged delegate count in Nevada despite winning less votes. How is this the more democratic outcome? Clinton is not "changing the rules in the middle of the game." The superdelegates were always allowed to vote for Obama based on any criteria they chose. Can an Obama supporter tell me where it says that the superdelegates should decide whom to vote for based on the pledged delegate count rather than the popular vote count or why this is fairer?

Posted at April 22, 2008 9:49 PM in response to Hillary Adviser Terry McAuliffe: It's The Popular Vote, Stupid!

Monster? Well, at least despicable, just like her husband. (I am fast moving the DNC to this category, as well.)

It seems that there is a certain consensus that Hillary has acted despicably somehow in the last few weeks. Many people here think that they wouldn't even vote for her if she got the nomination. But what exactly is it that she has done that is so out of bounds for a primary campaign? Most political observers who have followed this campaign have said that her statements and ads are fairly normal for a primary campaign. See this piece by John Dickerson at Slate for example http://www.slate.com/id/2185819/. If you want to see what a more nasty primary campaign looks like check out some of the ads that Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean ran against each other in Iowa or some of the ads that Mitt Romney ran on the Republican side. Is it so wrong to ask which Presidential candidate would best respond to a crisis like Hillary's 3 AM ad? And if this ad is evidence that Hillary is some kind of a monster, what about Obama running his own version of the ad the next day?
So the amount of vitriol toward Hillary seems out of line with anything she has actually done. People who followed politics while Bill was President got used to Republicans playing by the "Clinton Rules" where everything either one of them did was assumed to be done of ill intent. It was certainly expected that Republicans would do that to Hillary this time, but what is the excuse of so many Obama supporters? Whatever Hillary and her supporters have said about Obama they haven't implied that he doesn't genuinely have good motives as Obama's supporters have. This kind of black and white way at looking at the race makes it ok for Samantha Power to call Hillary a monster , but not ok for Bill Clinton to say "fairy tale." Have some perspective people.

Posted at March 8, 2008 2:45 PM in response to Infuriated by Hillary? This will help!