I'll grant you blowing off over 300 delegates, 2 million Democratic primary voters, and 6 million Democratic presidential election voters is simple. However, in terms of the cost, I'm going to question your logic in writing off this substantial number of voters and delegates while the Party is trying to nominate a consensus candidate who will prevail in the general election.  Why don't you think this through a little more?

Monica, thanks for that link re. Air Force budgets and thanks for your ongoing commentary on military spending, military cyberforces, etc. Good reading and something we should all be aware of.

JudyforDean, thanks for the article upthread:

Bereaved Iraqi mother vows revenge on US
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

I am sick at the thought of what this administration has done to destroy the lives of so many innocent people. Any one of us would feel exactly as that poor woman in the article feels.

Lastly, JudyforDean, thanks for reminding us re. The Circular Firing Squad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...

9:14 AM EST

They say that HD will be mandatory by Feb 2009.

I say, for democracy's sake, it's been mandatory since Spring 2003.

Nice to see a nice guy come first.

From Rich Kolker at the end of the previous thread:

I was just talking to someone at work about work matters, and it seems to me there's a parallel.

In the longer run, it's not about Obama and Clinton, it's about how we want to do politics in this country.

In business, as in politics, there are several theories of how to do it. There's "win at all costs", there's "cover your ass", and on down the line is acting honorably, "do unto others..."

I think Obama began this campaign (or at least he publicly said) trying to "do unto others..." Yes, politics is about drawing contrasts, but that can be done honestly and honorably. I think all the Democratic candidates pretty much went along this path for a while.

Now, the stakes are higher. It's one on one, and both remaining candidates can see the finish line -- that big desk in the funny shaped office, and it becomes tempting to transition to the Al Davis mode "Just win baby!" Even more so for the staffers whose public faces are effectively invisible but whose private "name" will be made if they help a winning Presidential campaign. So they start recommending to the candidate moving off the golden rule to win at all costs, and keep repeating "we're not going negative" or "politics ain't softball".

Who loses? The people. The nation. Anyone who thinks governing the "last, best hope" is about more than a game with winners and losers.

Some may call that attitude naive. I call it patriotic. More than that, I call it necessary.

Rich also turned that comment into a recommend-able post. End of previous thread. I think it's front-page worthy. Please recommend it if you think so, too.

Off to work. Hope you all have a great day.

Michigan can have credentialed candidates at no cost by allocating national delegates with a head count at the District Convention, if they release all delegates as unpledged instead of pledged. reason, that straw poll farce of a primary will never lead to them being seated

Florida is a slightly different case in that the vote was fair even as it violated rules.

rich wrote "Some may call that attitude naive."

Not naive, but the concern is overblown.  I regret the imposition of race and gender as prominent issues in a Democratic nomination process, but it seems in retrospect that it should have been predictable under the circumstances.

Having said that, I agree with Dean that the campaign has been no less civil than others have been. If Democrats don't come to coalesce around the candidate who eventually wins the nomination, there will be little historical precedent to foreshadow it.  Even after the astonishing conflagration at the 1968 convention, the general election turned out to be a very close contest in which Democrats turned out for Humphrey.

Obama needs to insist on a closed, absentee ballot in Florida. flooding the state with a ballot for anyone is a prescription for a third world outcome. I just hope Obama people are flooding every meeting of every local party gathering in Florida.

Phil wrote "Florida is a slightly different case in that the vote was fair even as it violated rules."

Fair with no candidates campaigning in the state?  With the imposition of sanctions casting a pall over the entire proceedings?  I am continually amazed at the number of people who imply or suggest that a candidate selection contest provides a reliable barometer of the feelings of an electorate who who are directly led to believe before it's held that their vote will have no consequence on who will eventually chosen as the nominee.

Having said that, I agree with Dean that the campaign has been no less civil than others have been

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That might have been true when he said it, but Clinton has chosen the low road since then.

I'll grant she is a better person than her campaign has been, but this trend leads to an easy McCain win in November Tom.

Florida was "fair" as compared Michigan, Tom. 

Phil wrote "That might have been true when [Dean] said it, but Clinton has chosen the low road since then."

I think it was true when he said it.  He said it this morning.

... hoping that this will hop to the top. Since Tom was robbed of it, and he's right about this one thing.

Howard Dean is first here.

Howard and I disagree then Tom. Olbermann had it right.

I have no horse in this race, but I have reluctantly (and against my better judgment) decided that I will vote for Obama as the "lesser of evils" if he is the Democratic nominee.

Not so, HRC. I won't vote for McInsane of course, but I'll find someone (other than poor old Ralph--who, like Kucinich, is right on the issues) to support.

If Hillary and the Democratic establishment steal the nomination, blacks and progressives will desert in droves.

McCain will win, and America will be doomed.

9:38

Phil wrote "Florida was 'fair' as compared Michigan, Tom."

Florida wasn't fair, but I agree with you that it was fairer than Michigan. 

Four of the eight candidates chose to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, despite the State Party Chair's decision to include them.  I assume the same four would have removed their names from Florida if there was an avenue to do so. 

John wrote "I have no horse in this race, but I have reluctantly (and against my better judgment) decided that I will vote for Obama as the 'lesser of evils' if he is the Democratic nominee."

I am so proud of you.  It's taken months of counselling, but I think we may have really turned the corner on this. 

Michigan has no chance of being seated as the deciding delegation without Obama having been on the ballot. Florida would be more problematic for the Credentials Committee and my guess could well be seated (again if they are not the difference of who the nominee is). I would be working hard in Florida to make sure I had full representation of the delegates Obama did win in the selection process of the actual individuals going to Denver just in case.

It seems to a hick, that the defrocking of the voters of Florida and Michigan is not in the best interest of the Democratic nominee in the long run.

Howard has said recently that there is a way to reinstate their delegation, that should be the priority of both campaigns.

Barrack has done well enough in every contest to not need to fear any FAIR process to elect those delegates from those two states.

If those processes were to cost him up to a third of his February intake, but assures no negative in November, that is the course he should take.

... again, just a bumbling hick.

Phil wrote "Howard and I disagree then Tom. Olbermann had it right."

I totally agree with Olbermann's special comment.  I'm not condoning what Clinton has done in this campaign, but I thought Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman were way off base commenting on Dean in 2004.  

1968 is a terrible example.  The Democrats never came together after 1968.  I don't mean before November 1968 (although they didn't), I mean ever since then.  Humphrey was running aginst Richard Nixon, and he still lost.  The "Clean for Gene" folks stayed home.  Most of the RFK folks stayed home.  People disgusted by what happened in the streets of Chicago stayed home.  People who had been Democrats but opposed the "hippies" moved to the GOP.

That this primary campaign has "been no worse" than others, even if accepted as a premise, doesn't make it right.  We the people of the United States deserve better.  We should demand better.  Unfortunately, it looks like too many of us respond to the worst, rather than demand the best.

Deaniac

hicks must think alike, must come from living out in the sticks, I agree both states must have some representation in Denver

Good morning!

It's my day at the barn Phil? Hold on, I'll be right there. Have to find my mittens and earmuffs :)

Dean took a similar beating in 2004, so I can see where he is coming from, but that process lead to a loss, so I'm hoping the Party learned from that.

rich wrote "That this primary campaign has 'been no worse' than others, even if accepted as a premise, doesn't make it right."

That attitude is naive.

I am sick at the thought of what this administration has done to destroy the lives of so many innocent people. Any one of us would feel exactly as that poor woman in the article feels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

chal,

If I may........perhaps you should retrace western foreign policy in that region say, since 1940 or thereabouts..........Im afraid there are alot of Mothers, brothers and sisters that feel that way about us and our "allies"..............yet somehow we always make ourselves out to be the injured party or good guys of you will...............

Theres alot of history out there for the asking......Americans should take time to pause and reflect........."Mirrors are often ugly and mean."- Dr lao

so I'm hoping the Party learned from that.  

Phil,

Dont hold your breath..................

More than geographic location, Phil, i've learned from raising children (and bird dogs) that at some point you have to forgive. You have to re-intergate those who have, even selfishly, done a misdeed and show them the love.

I've seen the results of endless angst, noone wins.

I'll let you know Denise. we have melting snow today, but mittens or gloves would be smart.

responding to rich

I think process is important, my saying "If you get the process right the product will follow."

I'm impressed with how this mix of 50 different sets of rules, but all fair, has allowed for a fairly orderly battle between the progressive grassroots and the DLC status quo to play out. The candidates aren't far apart on many issues but their camps are antithetical so conflict was inevitable and so far has been relatively civil. Had Florida and Michigan stayed within the rules we would still be in a contest.  If we are lucky we are turning a page.

bbl

re-integrate... oops

later

Love ya'll, mean it!!

Let's see where this gets buried by the nincompoops.

My e-mail to Olbermann:

I agree 100% with your take on the Ferraro fiasco, and Clinton's tepid response.

Well done!

ps  I'm lukewarm about Obama too. There is no progressive left in this race.

10:03 am

Deaniac

dog people herding cats, keeps it interesting

Trying to make Dean the scapegoat.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm...

Gov Dean says that the campaign has been no less civil than others have been. Well, true, but there has also always been the call for civility that Rich makes and for the reasons that he cites. I might be inclined to dismiss his concerns if our Party were winning elections despite this lack of civility.

Nor do I see anything productive, really, coming out of it. Most folks make up their minds early on and stick with their guy/gal. Mudslinging isn't the best way to vet the candidates, imo.

The Republicans do not eat their own. At the end of the day, they really don't. We DO.

Other factors:

- The Republicans are always better-funded than we are.

- Indeed, the Republicans are far better positioned, financially, going into this General Election.


{{snippet from NYT, 3/7/08}}:

The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.

And with Senator John McCain now the presumptive Republican nominee, party officials started plotting with his campaign this week on deploying those resources against the well-financed Democratic candidacies of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Already, President Bush, who spoke at 29 Republican fund-raisers and is credited with raising $63.5 million last year, is lined up for more R.N.C. fund-raising in the weeks ahead. This money is likely to provide the financial muscle for Mr. McCain to continue his attacks on both Democratic candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/pol...

- The Republicans are better at winning elections than we are.

When I try to understand why that is, I always think of the reasons cited above and, of course, the fact that we are a divided people in terms of how we describe social ills and prescribe cures. We're nearly 50/50 conservative leaning/liberal leaning. This makes for close elections but the Repubs usually eek out the win. Clinton was the first Democrat elected President since the 70's.

Has eating our own served us well? Based on results I'd have to say no.

10:08 AM EST

McCain will win, and America will be doomed.

+++

Huron John -

I agree with you on that comment.

Well, if you consider that we've only been creeping towards popular government since the late sixties, then the fact that other political campaigns where the interests of the people were pretty much ignored were virulent and uncivil is not a predicate for either present or future behavior.  We can do better.  Now is the time to prove it.

I was just recollecting when I first learned about racial discrimination.  It was on a class trip to D.C. in 1958 when we couldn't stop at restaurants in Maryland because one of our classmates would have been kept out.  Turns out it was 1964 before segregation in Maryland was addressed.  In other words, the generation that supported such behavior is still with us--a generation of people who still resent having been told that they were wrong and have been trying to prove themselves right ever since.

How much of the religious right is dedicated to the proposition that some people are special because "the Bible tells me so?"

You know, for a while there, it looked like Obama could be like Powell and Rice and Andrew Young--exceptions that prove the rule.  Remember when the story was that Obama isn't really black; that he's an immigrant?  And then when the campaign took off that reality had to be countered by going back to the real problem--the reality that presents the real challenge to prejudice, black power and the muslim nation.  So we've come full circle and white Americans have to confront their own guilt.  Because, if African Americans are equal, then white Americans have been guilty of absolutely horrid behavior which, by their own standards, deserves to be avenged.  In a perverse sort of way African Americans have demonstrated themselves inferior by NOT rising up and taking revenge.  And, indeed, that same scenario is playing itself out in Iraq.  If the victim does not fight back, he/she deserves to be victimized. 

America, we've got a problem. 

The hideous thing about the tenor of this race is the way that it has exposed the lingering effects of racisim and sexism among Democrats.  Installing Humphrey in 1968 was a power grab by the party grand poobahs to push down the McCarthy uprising that sprung up exclusively from the war.  In other words, it reflected a genuine split on the issues among Democrats.

Compare that to now, where the policy positions of the two main Democratic candidates just don't differ in substance to any extraordinary degree.  Ask John if you doubt it.  Under ordinary circumstances, moving on from the vanquished candidacy of one to the victorious candidacy of the other shouldn't even warrant discussion.

Ha!  Just go over to myDD to discover otherwise.  I'll warn you, though.  Be sure to wear a mask before you do.  The atmosphere is toxic.  I wonder if this is fallout from the internet age, which had the effect of fanning the flames of over the top rhetoric, and granting individual posters the privilege of, and platform for, being political experts whereas before, they were only voters with an opinion and a vote.  Regardless of that, any Clinton or Obama supporter, who would willingly defect to McCain, as some of the posts there clearly suggest could happen, is not the product of clear thinking.  Something insidious is operating to seriously warp people's views in this way.

Sorry if this has been posted.  I think it kind of got lost in yesterday's news.

Senator Barack Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

Well, one doesn't have to "hop to myDD" to see evidence of what you're describing. It's plenty evident here, daily. We also have here at BFA, a small but prolific group of posters who really post relevant, well-thought out commentary. That's what keeps me coming back. I imagine myDD has a similar make-up. The primary difference between myDD and BFA is that myDD has more Hillary supporters. So what?

"it's toxic...oh my...wear your mask"....
lol. Drama queen.

Republicans don't "eat their own" for the simple reason that they are "other-directed"   That is, all their energy is directed towards defeating the other that they perceive to be antagonistic towards them.  It's as if their whole purpose in life is to defeat the enemy and anyone who isn't subservient is the enemy.  If you watch just the opening footage in that direction to war video judy mentioned, you'll see that the charge against Saddam Hussein was explicit that he'd challenged the authority of the U.S. to direct his behavior.  The U.S. has a right to exert dominion and is not to be resisted.

If you read the Air Force pronouncements, that's the position.  The power of the Air Force has to be absolute, otherwise we'll have to defend ourselves here at home.  Never mind that their doctrine failed on 9/11 and is failing as we write in Iraq.  It's what's supposed to work, and, by God, it will.

"We have learned from history that the first thing we have to do is secure the air," says Lt. Col. Robert Garland, an F-15 squadron commander at Langley. "Once you've secured that, then the ground or sea commander can do anything they want."

Clearly, the history of Vietnam and Iraq has taught them nothing.  But then, logical thinking seems to have been missing from the agenda for some time.  Who aims to "secure the air" and with planes that have to be kept in an air conditioned environment?  How can we credit people who can't keep their pronouns straight?

BTW, the F-15s are the planes that are breaking in half in mid-flight because the metal is corroding. 

cC wrote "'it's toxic...oh my...wear your mask'....lol. Drama queen."

Here is my personal favorite among the comments on TeresainPennsylvania's myDD diary yesterday from a poster called drabgod1:

"Yes Obama is a black racist, yes he took a bribe from Tesko, yes he will lose the general election, yes Roe V wade will be overturned, yes Obama’s campaigns new image is a coat hanger.Yes we can all tell our daughters that no you can't be president not if their is even one unqualified man running. Yes we can't yes we can't yes we can't."

From Kos.

Hillary Clinton on Michigan via Morning Edition - omfg

In reference to the fairness of Clinton's proposal to count the votes from Michigan when she was the only name on the ballot:

"Well that was his choice, remember. There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot, and his supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted. So it wasn't that he didn't participate at all. In fact there was a real effort to get people to vote uncommitted and I still won 55% of the vote."

You say that was a fair result even without Barack Obama's name on the ballot?

"Well that was his choice, Steve"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/13/84319/8557/278/475680

Am I mistaken or didn't the DNC ask the candidates not to run in Michigan?

Tom, re. Drabgod's (interesting moniker;)post at myDD.
Yes, weird, bizarre and all that.
We see those types of posts HERE daily. Just sayin.

rich^kolker
Promoted Thursday, 03/13/08 @ 12:00 pm. Published Thursday, 03/13/08 @ 8:56 am

In the longer run, it's not about Obama and Clinton, it's about how we want to do politics in this country.
...
Who loses? The people. The nation. Anyone who thinks governing the "last, best hope" is about more than a game with winners and losers.
Some may call that attitude naive. I call it patriotic. More than that, I call it necessary.
--------------------

I would call it naively patriotic..., sorry, Rich and no hard feelings.

I’ll try to explain:
It is naive, imo, continue thinking in wisdom and judgment of governing by “professional leaders” DESPITE decades long, past (negative primarily!!!) experiences American People had with those leaders’ wisdom and judgment (the Spitzer’s the latest).

The meaning of word “leader” is just been lost behind the word “professional” (the ones who are sitting in Congress/Senate from generation to generation, the almost very same hundreds (plus don’t forget several judges...who successfully failed as well) and who both supposed to “balance” the power of another “professional decider”, the President...lol).

As life shows all those 3 “independent” branches multiple times proven to fail and now decomposed to its basics which either Obama or Clinton can’t save.

Governing by representation, imo is dead.

In Obama's way of thinking I'm interested only in one point of his, expressed just "passing by" (e.g. between others "major" points), that is the "need to include People in the process of changes?" (He must be careful though, when people are included there would tough to exclude them back...lol).

Monica, I have no disagreement with your assessment as to "why" the Repubs don't eat their own. Regardless of their motives, the practice of refraining from eating their own, yields desired results: they win elections.

I'm suggesting that we should exercise that same restraint.

The ABC evening news did cover the military endorsements.  The military is coming to recognize that, in the interest of using military force to promote trade and monopoly commercial interests, the defensive mission of the military is about to be destroyed.

"If we focus solely on sustaining the Army and the Marine Corps, and constrain the Navy and Air Force to primarily extending the life of existing systems, we will find ourselves in a fight we can't win, and the Army and Marine Corps will lack the throw-weight to win without the Navy and Air Force at their side," says one senior officer who asked not to be named due to the political nature of the debate.

In fact, the Air Force was nearing a breaking point in 2001, but back then, those issues could have been addressed without major modernization, says Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force officer who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a policy group in Washington. It's different now, he says.

"They are now to the point where they truly are breaking," Mr. Ehrhard says.

In other words, all that yammering during Clinton about the weakening of the military was aimed at promoting the use of the military as an adjunct of a global economy (formerly known as gun-boat diplomacy) rather than focusing on the rise of real power-hungry crazies.

What's been done for the Air Force in the interim?  It's been turned into an epionage entity. 

42. That's a beauty, Tom. There is one diarist over at my dd - Jonathon Singer, who seems fair. Todd Beeton tries - he's a Hillary supporter but he doesn't smear Obama. That's up to the posters. I only post polls from my dd at this stage. Jerome seems pleased with what his blog has become.

rae hart - Edwards and Obama chose not to have their names on the ballot in solidarity I believe.

"Governing by representation, imo is dead."=====

So, what would you suggest, former?

I have never been to myDD Diary.  It looks like it is a place of hate from what Tom posted.

From some other blogs it is being said that HRC is calling PA the Archie Bunker state.  She knows exactly what she is doing.  She alone is responsible for her campaign.

Boy was I ever naive to think that race would not be an issue.  I'm sick of it all.

Hillary Clinton has a "boundary problem."  She can't tell the difference between herself and her supporters or between Obama and his supporters.  She also can't tell the difference between herself and her husband.  That's what makes her typical of Republicans.

Senator Barack Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force======

That's huge, I think, rae.

10:58 AM EST

coattails (just like in Maryland [ie. Donna Edwards vs Albert Wynn], similar in North Carolina -- both candidates endorse Obama):

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdue_endorses_obama

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on March 13, 2008 - 8:26am

Beverly Perdue has endorsed Barack Obama.

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate and two-term lieutenant governor had previously remained neutral in the presidential primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Jim Morrill reports.

...

Perdue's rival, Richard Moore, endorsed Obama last month.

...

because there is little difference in policy, I'm puzzled by the vitriol from SUPPORTERS/STAFFERS on both sides.

h/t to Daily kos. This from a poster concerning the Michigan NPR interview this morning:

What's really sad in all this is that Hillary (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:jkb246
and Bill are proving that most of the things the other side has been saying about them now appear to be true. Unfortunately, I had "deaf ears" and blindly supported them as fellow Democrats.

What is becoming more clear as the days pass that the Clintons support of Democrat principles is a myth, at best. What a profound disappointment they have become.
---------
I received an email this morning from a devout Hillary supporter (from NY) - his email was nearly verbatim to this post.

11:09 AM EST

I have never been to myDD Diary.  It looks like it is a place of hate from what Tom posted.

From some other blogs it is being said that HRC is calling PA the Archie Bunker state.  She knows exactly what she is doing.  She alone is responsible for her campaign.

Boy was I ever naive to think that race would not be an issue.  I'm sick of it all.

+++

rae -

Please don't get discouraged.

I look at this election, with the strong possibility of America voting in it's first AA president, as a watershed moment.

In order to get there, all the "meathead" venting comments of the likes of Archie Bunker types in America need to come out (or lest they go underground).

It's water off one's back and in the end it will be like eating spinach -- seemed so unappetizing on the plate to some but once presented in a dish like spinach quiche, etc. -- the ones who swore they'd never get close to spinach, find it's not that bad tasting.

BTW - if this is just a real lame Food for Thought analysis on my part, I'll understand [smile].

Boy was I ever naive to think that race would not be an issue.  I'm sick of it all.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

rae,

Not nieve, maybe slightly idealistic but not nieve...........which has been why me, and others like seashell, point all along........this business of "unity", bringing people together, and la dee da while in principle is a noble and worthy effort.......its not practical at this point in mans evolutionary tree...............does this mean Obama should not get the nomination much less presidnecy?  No, he should...........what he does with it remains to be seen............

Out of the idealism of the 60s ala hippies and civil rights (again very good goals and concepts IMo) sprung the backlash that gave us the dominant republican party we see today and since 1980............

Race and racism..........hatred among certain peoples has, is and will always be around in some way shape or form...........among most if not all countries...........

Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire?

It started in earnest a couple of weeks ago when Hillary Clinton questioned how much Barack Obama's time spent living in Indonesia as a child could actually help him make foreign policy decisions as a commander-in-chief. "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face," Clinton said November 20 in Shenandoah, Iowa. "I think we need a President with more experience than that."

Then Clinton announced in an interview with CBS that she was sick of being a punching bag for Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and that she intended to fight back. "After you have been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you cannot just absorb it. You have to respond," she said.

Since that declaration Clinton has done just that, attacking Obama's plans for health care, Social Security reform and diplomacy with Iran. She even went so far as to dig up a kindergarten essay of Obama's entitled "I Want to Be President" to accuse him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said in Iowa Monday. But at a time when two new Iowa polls show Obama actually pulling into the lead and Clinton losing support among women, some political observers are wondering if Clinton will come to regret her newly assertive strategy. She already has the highest negative ratings in the race, and the shift in tactics comes only a month before the Iowa caucus — where voters are famous for their distaste of negative campaigning. Launching the attacks herself, rather than with via surrogates, only makes the move even riskier.

"The attack will backfire in two ways: it will reinforce the negative stereotype of Mrs. Clinton as a cold and calculating person who will do whatever it takes to win," said Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University and author of The Road to the White House. "And two, it will make Mr. Obama seem to be the less shrill and more emotionally mature candidate."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816...
(more at the link)

My mom is a Hillary supporter and she is greatly dismayed by Hillary's negative attacks.

Francine is right -- remove the delegate count.

Even if there is a "redo" as she calls it (actually it wouldn't be a redo since we never had a "do" to begin with, the delegate count would change and many more would be in Obama's column.

But the current mail-in plan if fraught with dangers as Oregon found out in their first few elections twelve years ago. That probably won't fly here. That leave a primary election or a caucus.

One problem, so far hardly mentioned, is that after the Jan. 29 Tax Amendment election and non-bind primary straw vote, many counties are changing over now to the state-mandated paper ballot system which requires scanners. It is possible that many counties won't have any system at all in place until our August state primaries.

So a caucus is the only way to go and Florida has no experience with those.

Clinton supporters have certainly begun a fiasco here and the Republicans are loving every minute of it as it progresses. Add in the  Clintons' mud-slinging and McCain could be a walk-in:)) Well, not really.

New Thread:

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/24210

Danny
Communications Director

Those states' DNC members/Super delegates blatantly violated the rules. The truth is, when they did so, it was a very public statement that they were not in the game. The DNC members/Super delegates and their political operatives from FL and MI who voted to disenfranchise their own constituency should really be ashamed of themselves for being so arrogantly stupid as to think they were above the rules. They really don't deserve to be Super delegates or members of the DNC at all. They are in violation of their state's charter with the DNC. It's called the 50 state strategy and they and the candidates all knew it. It's the DNC members/Super Delegates from MI and FL and those State's Parties who should be funding their state's REAL Democratic Presidential Primary not the DNC or the Candidates. The truth is, that they're lucky that the Democrats are still trying to allow the FL and MI "voters" a voice at this point at all. If they were in the Republican Party they would be gone. IMHO, the DNC Credentials Committee should only allow 50% (at the most and only after both have held REAL elections) of the FL and MI "Pledged" delegates a seat and deny those state's DNC Members/Super delegates their seats at the Convention. You just do not reward cheaters. To do so, would be unethical and immoral. The violators need to be allowed to wander in the wilderness of their own self-imposed dilemmas for the duration of the nomination process as far as I am concerned. They need to learn to play by the rules or quit.

The bottom line is that Clinton prefers a selection process which she can manipulate because it makes her feel important and feeling important is, ultimately, more important than actually serving the country.  If being president means serving the people, forget it.  It's not worth it.  She's going to do it on her terms or not at all.  That's the mentality that brought us private swimming pools  and private automobiles and private schools and private shrinks and everyone in their own private hell.  it's what's brought us condominiums and gated communities where people let themselves be prohibited from hanging their wash on the line just so they can live in an environment where so people don't belong.

If we can't segregate people by the color of their skin, we'll segregate them by the color of money.

Perhaps we should engage here is the positive news and facts rather than posting the negative opinions of some posters on other blogs and giving these opinions wings and legs which often results in them becoming known as "facts."

IMHO of course.

The Democratic Party should be suing the State of Florida on behalf of the Democratic voters. Filing a nasty class action law suit to cover the cost of a real election would be appropriate. I'm sure then the taxpayers of the state of Florida will be asking for some better representation in their next statewide elections.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23610564

...The Democratic Party is talking with the secretary of state's office about whether elections officials would be able to verify ballot signatures, but Republicans, who control the legislature, have opposed any state involvement and legal questions have been raised.

"The state of Florida should not be involved in certifying or mediating intraparty squabbles," said House Speaker Marco Rubio. "The state did what its job is. We held a presidential preferential primary Jan. 29. It was legal, it was accurate, it was fair, it was open."

Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, however, has said he isn't opposed to the state helping verify ballots as long as no taxpayer money is spent and state and national parties haven't already worked out another solution. ....

I'm sure there are even some Republican and Independent voters in Florida who would love to sign on to a class action law suit.

Florida needs to clean out it's swamp of political hacks.

"then recalcuate the number needed to win based on the REAL number of available delegates."

Yes.