Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Earth to the Obama campaign: just winning isn't enough.
I had hoped the party would stick with the rules. I thought that the best way to answer Hillary's negative attacks was to simply win.
And I applaud your efforts for doing just that. But your party is enabling the Clintons and all her supporters to throw away the rules, and block your nomination.
On May 31st, a rules committee is going to consider their proposal of awarding all the voters and delegates of Michigan's illegitimate primary to Hillary. Including "uncommitted". In addition to certifying the illegitimate FL primary as is.
Why can't we hear you saying how outlandish that is and that you will absolutely unequivocally not stand for that?
The big problem with all of this, aside from the obvious unfairness of it all is that your voice remains comparatively silent on these issues.
The louder their narrative gets, the quieter your campaign becomes. Maybe you can continue to do that and reap success. Maybe that is the smarter way to fight this.
But have you entertained this:
The longer you just count on the math to hand you this nomination, the greater the chances are that the Clintons will steamroll right over you until the convention, at which time, they'll try to overturn the decision.
You'll point to the math and say "But we won.."
Is that enough?
You want to change the way things are done in Washington? Change the way things are being done right now in your own party.
Comments (14)
I think the Super Delegates are taking care of that, as you type.
May 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't change something if you don't admit you are part of the problem... Obama is simply NOT the outsider he pretends to be.
Did you know that Obama won his first elected office by playing a dirty political procedural game---bouncing off the ballot the very person that suggested he run?
May 13, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I did know that. He talks very frankly about it in his second book, but, surprisingly, you've distorted the story just a tad and I don't really see how what he did was "dirty." The lady in question decided she was going to run for a higher office and suggested Obama run for her seat. He did so, got his campaign going and then when he was well into the campaign, when she realized she would get her ass handed to her in the race she was interesed in, she decided she wanted onto the ballot in the race she got him into after all. Obama's campaign challenged the signatures on her ballot petition and (shocking though this may be in Chicago) they found that many of them couldn't be verified as being the signatures of actual living people who lived in her district.
What exactly was it that was "dirty" about that? Once the guy was in, he was in to win. He played by the rules and insisted that she do likewise. Ohhhh, wait, now I see your problem.
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sound bitter. Cheer up.
May 13, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
(snicker)
May 13, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am bitter about what I see happening. But bitter isn't always a bad thing as long as I'm not always that way.
May 14, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really truly and totally do not understand how Hillary can stand up in front of a cheering crowd and suggest that the only fair way to settle this election is by seating MI and FL delegates. Yes, I am very frustrated that Obama isn't speaking out more strongly against it.
May 13, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, sweetie...the math, the facts, the rules and the truth are doing the speaking for him.
May 13, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha.. thanks. I needed to be reassured. Maybe I just need to turn off CNN.
May 14, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I turned off CNN last month (or was it two months ago?) and now I only watch MSNBC. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow keep it real.
May 14, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, and I turned MSNBC off three weeks ago. Except for Keith. I feel so much better now that I did.
May 14, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do watch MSNBC more but at the moment they are not doing much better. I flip back and forth. I know this kind of behavior puts me in danger of throwing things at my tv, but I keep watching. I figure that if the "regular folks" are watching anything it's probably CNN. If all I watch is Keith, Rachel, and Jon Stewart how will I know how to talk to "Real Americans?"
May 14, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the rules committee will award full delegates even if Obama decided he didn't need to oppose such an idea. DNC members still know the importance of not giving in entirely on MI and FL. Delegates will be seated from those states, and it might be according to the illegitimate vote results in FL (I think a 50/50 split is more likely in MI), but I'm guessing they'll end up cutting the number of delegates in half.
The DNC knows it has to recognize FL and MI and seat some delegates, but it also knows it needs to impose some version of a penalty.
May 13, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any sort of seating rewards them for effectively saying "F... you, DNC! We are gonna set OUR rules and you and the other 48 states are not as important as we are, so YOU have to listen to US!
They broke the goddamn rules!! What kind of president wants to start their presidency by breaking their own rules?? This will give the Reps huge bragging rights, like: "See? They can't even keep to their own rules once they set them!" and they will raise such a stink that Bush' setting aside the Constitution will seem like nothing in comparison. McCain and Karl Rove will milk this issue for all its worth. They haven't got anything else, and nothing to lose, so ....
Howard Dean clearly explained on CNN why this was done: to mix it up, to give small states the idea that their votes counted etc.
Why award rule breakers? Besides, they're red states anyway ....
May 14, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment