« Obama Resigns from Trinity UCC | Main | Review 2.0 »

31 May 2008



It would have been a travesty to seat all the MI delegates for Clinton. If her real worry was "disenfranchising" voters, what about the Obama, Edwards, etc. supporters who beleived the DNC and stayed home during the primary??

Mark Norris

None of it makes sense to me. I am getting tired of all of this back and forth, count this but not that, delegates, superdelegates, primary all this SH@T. In my "ignorance of the way politics work, and proud and glad of it" mind, they should have just had one m.f. day when all states voted for a Democratic nominee, and one m.f. day when states voted for a Republican nominee....PERIOD. *Fudge all of this bull crap. This is why people don't trust the "system" nor politicians and don't vote. It's frustrating and it wears you the f*&ck out!


The farcical sham of the Clinton campaign's claim to "fairness" is that they AGREED to strip Michigan and Florida in the first place. It was only after they were losing that they changed their minds. It was only after they were losing that they decided to split the party this way.

If there was EVER a more glaring example of why Hillary Clinton should never be president, this is it.


"Since Obama is more than likely to become the nominee, why even fight over the Michigan delegation?"

How about this - Since Clinton is more than likely to lose the nomination, why even fight over the Michigan delegation?

Rod Mc

MARK: Please watch your profanity. But you make an excellent point about the need to reform the nomination system.

KB: You're absolutely right about the electoral college. Otherwise the candidates would just campaign in the big states and ignore the small ones.

However, as I have several times on this blog and told you in comments, by the end of the primary season, Clinton now leads in the popular vote. Go ahead and repeat the Obama/MSNBC talking points on why "the popular doesn't matter." IIRC, these were the same arguments used by the Republican Party and George Bush in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

FRANK: A "travesty"? That's ridiculous. Obama, Edwards and Richardson removed their names from the ballot and encouraged their supporters to vote "uncommitted." John Conyers ran radio commercials telling Obama voters to vote uncommitted. No, the "travesty" was giving Obama all of the uncommitted delegates PLUS four of Clinton's delegates. That's not "democratic."

MOD FAB: Okay, I love you dearly, but, since you're using the "rules are rules" argument, where is the rule that says candidates can remove their names from the ballot and get delegates that were not cast for them? And where is the rule that says the DNC can take delegates legally cast for another candidate and allocate to other candidates based on exit polls?

I do not think those "rules" exist in the "Democratic" Party.

REDD: That comment was illogical and made absolutely no sense. But bless your heart for your deep thoughts.

You know what is interesting? None of the comments above sound like they were posted by supporters of the candidate who is "winning." The permanent outrage on the Obama blogs and MSM spin that blames Clinton for everything sounds more like the words of "sore losers." You're winning and still cannot manage to be graceful. This does not sound like "uniting" the party. I'm still waiting for my unity pony.

Atl Kid

Mod Fab, the only farce was Obama removing his name from the ballot and then demanding half the delegates.. And the sham was the DNC playing Psychic Friends Network to take delegates from Clinton to guesstimate voter intent.

Btw, Obama used "the tools" to remove each of his opponents names from the ballot when he ran for state senate in 1996. Now that was a farce but very Chicago style.

Sorry, but Obambi has lost my vote in November. I will vote downticket. My bf says the same thing. Maybe the electoral college can use exit polls to award votes?

Tony DR

I'm a Clinton supporter and up until now was perfectly willing to accept Obama as the nominee. Not any longer. Voting is sacred. The Democrats have been committed to one man, one vote. Now the Democratic Party is awarding candidates who takes their names off the ballot and stealing delegates from other candidates.

The way the media covers the primaries, you'd think Obama was winning by a landslide. He is not. The media supports Obama by a wide margin and that's about it. It's clearly obvious who keeps winning the primaries by wide margins. Obama is limping across the finish line with a narrow delegate lead and much, much less in the popular vote. An asterisk will forever be next to Obama's name.


Barack Obama is the first first candidate to ever, in the history of America, be handed

1) votes that never occurred,

2) votes that were cast for someone else, and

3) delegates won by another candidate.

Barack Obama will forever and deservedly go down in history as the first Affirmative Action Candidate for the President of the United States. Too bad it doesn't work that way in General Elections. In General Elections, the electoral college doesn't get to count people who didn't vote and decide who they might have voted for if they had voted.

Ramon P

Frank, why did you say it would have been a "travesty" to give Clinton that were owed to her? So you're comfortable with awarding votes and delegates based on exit polls and using ESP to guess what voters really wanted?

Why not take some of California or New York's delegates away? Why not award some delegates to Edwards if he were still in the race? Sheesh.

I am Puerto Rican and live in Florida. There is NO WAY that Barack Obama could have won this state even if he campaigned here nonstop for a month. And Barack Obama WILL NOT win Florida in November and that is why he never fought for the delegates to be seated. Florida is an easy win for Hillary Clinton or John McCain and that is why Clinton pushed for a recount or to seat the delegation. Since Obama believes he can steal votes in the primary, he does NOT have my vote in November. He doesn't need it, he is not going to win Florida anyway.

Jersey Boy

>>>None of the comments above sound like they were posted by supporters of the candidate who is "winning."

Rod, that is an excellent point. The Obama campaign is fueled by outrage. They are "outrage junkies." That's why the blogs love Obama so much, because most of them bitch and moan about everything and its a perfect fit. This campaign coasts by on caucus victories from February. Only won two or three contests in the past two months. Is awarded delegates based on exit polls and delegates that were won by another candidate. AND THEY ARE STILL COMPLAINING.

This is all moot. The Obamabots know McCain and the Republicans will shred them in the fall. Barky doesn't stand a chance.


Lord have mercy. More sniping amongst Democrats again. The Republicans are gift wrapping this election and the Dems are throwing it away.

2 extremely qualified candidates with significantly similar ideas and stances, and yet Clinton backers are ripping into Obama...as Obama backers do the same to Hillary.

I find it shocking that TRUE Clinton supporters (not the Republicans that votes for Hillary as Rush begged them to do) find McCain more palatable than Obama and are happy with the status quo and want more of it with McCain (Bush the Third)

Meanwhile Obama supporters treat Hillary as a she-devil who should quit and bow to Obama's nomination.
She has EVERY right to stay in the race until the end (minus the assassination comments).

I would have offered up a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. Their voices do deserve to be heard and should be seated at the convention, but only after a re-vote. HRC didnt have much to say about Florida/Michigan until she started losing and *THEN* it was important to count them. Sorta hypocritical. Why didnt HRC remove her name from Michigan like ALL the other Dem. candidates? Why is it fair to give Hillary ALL the delegates from a state where

a) Obama never campaigned and never gave the voters the chance to get to know him.

b) most voters stayed away from voting because they knew their vote was meaningless

Why was Hillary OK with not counting the Fla/Mich votes and then later wanted to change the rules when she was behind?

and yes, HRC now leads in the overall votes. Why? Because Michigan votes now count and Obama could not get a signal vote because his name was not on the ballot. Also, the votes from the many caucuses that Obama won were not counted towards that number.

a re-vote seemed to be the only fair way to handle it but the DNC was too wimpy to go that route, sadly enough

I do hope the party unites before the election. Suffering thru 4 to 8 more years of Bush league Republican leadership is unbearable.


ff, good post.

I find this whole Obama-Clinton thing bizarre.

I have no reason to believe that either one of them is much, if any, good. We have a long record to look at with Clinton. With Obama, we just have to guess more. So, if forced at gunpoint, I suppose I would vote for Obama because—to reverse the common saying—it’s better to go with the devil you don’t know than the one you do.

But I am amazed that either one of them arouses all these emotions. People seem to be so starved for a savior that they will project all their hopes onto someone who isn’t even going to try to do much of anything.

And why one over the other? Who knows. Sex? Skin color? Age? Speaking style? Obama is black. It’s a first. Cool. Clinton is a woman. It’s a first. Cool. Is this enough to cause one to see his candidate as a savior and the other as a villain?

Neither one of them is going to fight for black people or women in particular.


This discussion makes NO sense whatsoever. The Michigan vote was flawed. Did anyone here even bother to watch the Rules Committee meeting yesterday? They followed their own rules by cutting the delegations in half. They also acknowledged Michigan and Florida to be nothing more than beauty contests.

This is anecdotal, but I have a friend who lives in Detroit. She's a Democrat, but she actually voted in the Republican primary for Mike Huckabee. Knowing her vote would not count, she decided to screw with the Republican vote.

The MI compromise takes into account all of the Obama-Edwards-Richardson supporters who stayed home, those who voted uncommitted, exit polls, and the undisclosed write-in ballots (the lion share being for Obama).

HRC trying to get 73 MI delegates and then possibly getting even more from the uncommitted delegates is nothing more than her attempt to STEAL the nomination.


If Obama prevails in the end and gets the nomination, I hope he has better sense than to pick her to be VP.


KB, I've meant to ask you several times, are you one of the 400 paid bloggers on the Obama campaign's payroll? Because you comment in every single Hillary Clinton or MSBC post, never comment in the Obama posts, repeat all the Obama talking points, and, are obsessed with trying to fact check Rod. It's actually amusing.

Oh, and that is hilarious, "attempts were made to have those states re-vote in new primaries, but logistics and cost prevented them." THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN BLOCKED THE REVOTES. The Clinton campaign offered to pay for half of the costs of a state run primary or mail in primary. Learn your facts. But nice try.

Derrick from Philly

If we lose in the fall-- we lose, but we will have Barack Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket. Even if he doesn't win there will be a lot of ticket splitting, and when you add those traitorus Democrats to the new Obama Dems & Independents, there will be more Democrats elected to the House, and a few more to the Senate. Barack Obama will be a plus for others in the Democratic Party whether he wins the White House or not.

I tried for months not to get angry or bitter towards Clinton Democrats. It's very difficult now.

Rod Mc

MR ATL: Since this discussion "makes no sense", comment on this topic no further. I'm serious and will take you at your word. This was your very first comment and you want to start with sarcasm. Comment in another thread and learn some manners.

FF: Do not repeat that RFK/assassination distortion on this site. Ever.

Do you know the "facts" on the Michigan primary? Clinton was not required to "remove" her name from the ballot. Obama, Edwards and Richardson Michigan chose to remove their names. They also encouraged their supporters to vote "uncommitted." Should we scrap elections and use polls instead?

KB and FF: Both states were willing to revote but Obama blocked the votes. The Clinton campaign also offered to raise half of the costs. Obama's MI co-chair State Rep Tupac Hunter led the fight against the MI revote. You seriously think Obama would have won a MI revote after (1) taking his name off the ballot and (2) blocking a revote? I don't think so. And, Obama has a snowball's chance in Miami of winning a primary in FL, or, especially in November. FL is a Clinton pickup or it goes for McCain.

KB: I'm very familiar RCP and they often link to this site. Clinton leads in 4 of the 5 scenarios. Obama is only ahead if you give him the uncommitted in Michigan and count the caucus states that didn't report votes, and then it's by 44,605. In any case, it's a near tie or Clinton leads by a slim or decent margin. This has been a close race.

There is no legitimate reason to include the MI uncommitteds in Obama's PV total. The DNC can be foolish enough to give him he uncommitted delegates (and for the record I was perfectly happy with unc. delegates voting for Obama) but those uncommitted votes were legally certified. So do you advocate delegate stealing and vote "stealing"? Hopefully not.


Derrick, I love many of your comments and your sense of humor but I'm sorry, my friend. I've been reading your comments for months you HAVE been and "angry and bitter" toward Clinton and all of her supporters. You and many other Obama supporters on these blogs, and all of the pro-Obama blogs, come across as angry and bitter 24/7/365. Why?

Why would this DNC ruling make you "angry or bitter"? Obama is winning and will probably be the nominee. The DNC awarded him delegates from a state where he REMOVED his name and HIJACKED some from Clinton. So what do you have to be "angry and bitter" about? You should be dancing in the streets.

Now, if you want to talk about who is "angry or bitter", talk to the Clinton side. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE IN THE FALL. We never say "if Clinton loses, she loses, but we have Clinton at the top of the ticket." NEVER. Clinton supporters--and that's 17 million plus voters, exactly half of the party--know that Hillary Clinton will hand John McCain his hat in the fall. We're not the ones pushing to nominate a candidate that many people think will LOSE. You just said you didn't care "if we lose in the fall" and many of his supporters say it all the time. You'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton. NOT ME. I want to win.

Derrick from Philly

No, no, no. Not true, TMS

I haven't made a nssty remark about Hillary Clinton since before Iowa, and at that point I didn't want her or Barack to ruin the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House. As time went on and I saw that both of them were headed towards the nomination, I gave up on the "safe, white, southern male Democrat" to come riding in on his white horse...well, I guess my hero Al Gore would need an elephant now. Initially, it was the issue of race which put me in the Obama Camp: the ugliness that happened around the South Carolina Primary. Once I saw Obama's appeal to NEW voters and Independents, I became a believer. I have been angry at the comments of some Clinton supporters, but remind me, please, the last time I wrote something disrespectful about Hillary Clinton. I have defended Barack and Black American voters(I don't know why 'cause they sure won't defend my faggot ass) without attacking Clinton herself.

TMS, I ddin't say that I did not care whether we loose in November. I'm saying that Barack Obama will be the first African-American to head a major party ticket--win or loose. It is an historic moment. There is nothing Senator Clinton and her campaign can do to stop that at this point...unless you want violent confrontation in Denver in August. I'm not joking, passions would be that volitile if there was an attempt to force super-delegates to change.

If I am bitter, TMS, it is because Barack Obama's skin color is indeed a factor in why so many Democrats find him unacceptable. Barack believed he could overcome the last 400 years of American history...I pray he can, but I am worried.

D Tanner

Rod, while many of your comments to previous posters are on point, I take issue with the notion of vote "stealing."

The MI primary was flawed, preventing anyone from asserting that it genuinely reflected the will of the electorate. In my opinion a publicly funded re-vote was in order. (I am not certain that privately financed elections are constitutional.) Barring a re-vote, the RBC and the MI Democratic party's decision was as fair as possible.

Having said all that, Obama should simply cede the additional four delegates (two with the penalty), as it wouldn't change much.

Why do you think that Obama cannot win MI and FL?

Rod Mc


TMS: This is the first time you have commented on this blog and that was a rant. Derrick is a longtime and trusted commenter and did not deserve that. Derrick supports Obama very passionately and does not demonize Clinton or her supporters. Others do, he does not. Please apologize.

D TANNER: You also make some very good points. Let me take a minute to respond.

The MI election was flawed but let's keep in mind that four of the candidates chose to remove their names to curry favor with party leaders in Iowa, and, encouraged supporters to vote uncommitted. Also, you are absolutely right about election funding and legal concerns, but, the fact remains there were numerous attempts to revote in both states and Obama blocked them all.

As far as "winning" a state, Obama (or Clinton) could certainly win Michigan in the fall. My comment was about a revote in the primary.

"Winning" Florida? This was never going to happen for Obama in the primary and almost certainly not happen in November. For the past six months to a year, almost every poll has shown Clinton winning Florida over any Republican or Democrat and all of the current simulations show her winning Florida over McCain. The same simulations show McCain easily taking FL over Obama.

Florida's demographics are tailor made for Clinton. The state has the nation's highest percentage of older voters and female voters, it is heavily Jewish, many NY/NJ/PA transplants, heavily blue collar, heavily Hispanic (Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican) and military. It was Republican in the 80s, went Democratic twice for Bill Clinton, and, has been Republican ever since. It also has 27 ELECTORAL VOTES. Obama can certainly make up the loss elsewhere, but, he would have to win every state in his western strategy to make up the loss.


The level of immaturity in some of these comments is astonishing.


Derrick, please accept my apologies. I did unload on you and that was a bit much. But this discussion is fascinating, I'm glad Rod allows both sides here.

Derrick from Philly

Apology accepted and appreciated...even before you made it. This is a civil blog and most commentors (including you) keep it that way. Thanks.

Also, as I've said before, if somehow something catastrophic happens to the Obama Campaign, I no trouble voting for Hillary Clinton in November. Now, my Internet buddy, Luther, is a different story. We'd have to work on him hard to get him over to the Clinton side. Thank God, he's not going to Denver.


i agree with jimmy: the level of immaturity in these comments is disgusting and embarassing.

let's face it: the FL/MI debacle is a low point for the democratic party. i watched parts of the telecast and, save for the appearance of the legendary Alexis Herman, my stomach turned.

you have a set of rules that you are supposed to follow when determining to allocate votes to two candidates, yet you turn around an throw those rules out the window and make up your own?

How can you give Obama delegate votes when he wasn't even on the ballot in MI? how does that work? how can you give hillary a half a delegate vote?

Florida: obamabots, give up the ghost-he can not and WILL NOT win Florida. He couldn't win it in a primary and he won't win it in the general election...

the reality of all of this for me is this: the democratic party is in complete and utter disarray and they are putting all their false hopes, unchecked bias, and mediocre expectations on a candidate who is a) been untested in a major election of any sort, b) doesn't really have strong political platforms, and c) subscribes to the same kind of "dirty" politics as any other politican does..and just won't own up to it. yet, they demonize a woman IS doing all that a politican is supposed to to win an office because her husband ran the country the RIGHT way for 8 years and people are jealous and hated him for it and they're coming after her because she shares a bed with him?

I have yet to be impressed with obama...his platforms still need serious clarification, he's not strong on key issues (Iraq, taxes, jobs, etc.) and he comes off as having a sense of entitlement that isn't deserved or warranted when he hasn't done enough to PROVE he is entitled to anything these days...

I'm not impressed with clinton either. her missteps on various issues is problematic, and her senate run wasn't 100% stellar, and i'm sure we'll find more skeletons in her closet with the current scrutiny on her and bill's taxes and their foundation. so be it.

but, i will give her her just due and respect for being a politician and someone one who understands who to RUN a campaign...yes, she will hand mccain his ass and his balls if she is the democratic nominee; obama won't even hand him that...that's why the republicans are hoping for obama...it will be an easy win for them.

instead of fighting over delegate votes and the like, the democratic party should really focus on how they plan to win in november...because right now, they wont.

then again, maybe that was the whole point....to not win and wait until 2012 to take back the house....

Davey F

Rod, I have been reading your blog for a while and read you in The Advocate, Out and Huff Po. This blog is fascinating. I'm an Obama supporter and came to him from reading your blog. Your move to Clinton was somewhat surprising but you have been very consistent about rules and fairness. That is commendable.

As Derrick mentioned above, I also want to applaud you on the tone at this blog. I see that your word very seriously and hold people to their words. So yes, it was unprecedented to give the uncomm. delegates to Obama and to take additional delegates away from Clinton. I can see the danger in that and why so many people are upset. I never imagined so many people would be upset. Is this going to cause a major rift in the party?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad