Obama's America

Posted April 7, 2008 | 03:46 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

by Taylor Marsh

2008-04-07-48starflag.gif
image via bcc

Michigan and Florida count and so do the voters in both of these states.

Does anyone think Clinton can win the nomination without counting the voters of Michigan and Florida? Think again. Obama knows this all too well.

"Some say their votes should be ignored and the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should be discounted. Well, I have a different view," Clinton said at a rally here. "The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state, it's been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state, and the question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic party."

Clinton Ramps Up Call to Count Fla, Mich

The Obama campaign wants a 50/50 split in Michigan, which isn't going to cut it. Their surrogates have also said they want to count both states as long as the count doesn't have an impact in the nomination process. This is just insulting:

"Senator Obama firmly believes that the Michigan delegation should be seated in Denver. A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.' It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules. It's time to move forward. Senator Clinton should accept an equitable solution that allows Michigan to participate fully in the convention," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

The Clinton campaign fired back:

"The issues and voters of Michigan are too important to be dismissed. Close to 600,000 Michiganians cast ballots in January and these votes cannot be ignored. We urge the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to take all necessary steps to ensure the voices of the people of Michigan are heard and its delegates are seated at the Democratic convention this summer. Already, over 100,000 people have signed our petition calling on the DNC to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. We urge Senator Obama to join our efforts to ensure that the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida are counted."

If Obama thinks he can win the nomination without fully honoring Michigan and Florida, and suffer no blowback from Clinton supporters, he's drunk one glass too many of his own Kool-Aid. Without a real solution, which Senator Obama and his campaign are fighting against, the legitimacy of his nomination will be in question.

And since it's the Democratic nominee's job to unite the party, it's in Barack Obama's own interest to do the right thing by Michigan and Florida. But he won't. So if he's the Democratic nominee he's handing many Clinton voters a reason not to support his candidacy, which we cannot afford.

Democrats simply must defeat Cranky McSame in November, and anything that stands in our way is dangerous, because this country cannot afford a third Bush term.

So what exactly is Barack Obama afraid will happen if Michigan and Florida voters are counted? The answer is obvious.

... .. Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee. ... ..


If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead


Comments
376
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

Listen, Hillary has worked hard enough for long enough that she deserves the situation to be set up whatever way benefits her the most.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 04/10/2008

Have you ever written anything that did not involve being a neo-con hack for Hillary. Do you want to have sex with Obama or someting. He seems to be on your mind constantly.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 04/10/2008

So basically your are a dishonest hack like your lying candidate. I find your lack of integrity disgusting.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 04/10/2008

Hillary, or for that matter, Obama or Edwards or any of the other seventeen candidates at the the time could have have said "screw you DNC " we are going for it in MI and FLA, and their opponents would have probably waged campaigns. HRC won those two states on mostly name recognition. Her wins are tainted and don't represent the true will of voters in either state.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 AM on 04/10/2008

Excellent post Taylor. Keep up the good work.

I wish Obamanuts understood that Obama is unlikely to carry Ohio or Florida, and that Hillary is really the stronger contender for the Dems in November. Hillary stands a chance in Florida in the general but Obama does not. Hillary is also much stronger in Ohio. These have been crucial swing states that Democrats have not carried since 1996.

The Wright controversy may not offend liberal elites, but centrist Democrats and Republicans are offended by his beliefs. The church doctrines of the Trinity Church (Obama's church) are also troubling. How Obama could sit in those pews for over 20 years and call himself a progressive is beyond me.

And yes, I am a loyal Democrat. That is why I am supporting Hillary!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 PM on 04/09/2008

Right on Taylor.

Obanana Republicans: I just looooove how you all practice your "new kind of politics."

If the flag fits...

Cheers.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 PM on 04/09/2008

If he's The One as he thinks he is, I don't know what he's afraid of and why he won't join in for a revote in MI and FL. There are people willing to pay for it and then everyone can still PLAY BY THE RULES and the delegates can be seated at the Dem convention. Disenfranchising two states is going to end up with a President McCain. Thank you, Taylor for a great post.

Hillary '08

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 04/09/2008

I am disappointed The Huffington Post carries taylor Marsh. She has her own pro-Hillary Blog and radio show.

It is my reading that she is a hater and exactly the kind of person Arianna stands against.

I am not calling for Taylor Marsh to be silenced. But why does she get a free ad here for her odious blog?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 04/08/2008

Ahhhhh Taylor, Taylor,...Taylor;
fighting the tide of common sense, and the flow of logic at every turn.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 AM on 04/08/2008

So, Taylor who are you going to support once Hillary loses? I mean you brought up some great "ifs", if people are willing to suspend all reality that is. Or truthfulness for that matter. I kind of doubt they will though.

Will you be like all the other "Hillary or die" people who say they will vote for McCain to snub Obama? Will you feel you have a clean conscience knowing that McCain will appoint the SCJ's who will ultimately overturn Roe - v- Wade? Will you go apologize to the mothers of dead soldiers for the next 10 years of heavy combat, or just wash your hands of it as if you didn't care to begin with?

He is going to win. It's always been hers to lose anyway, and she has. The real question is what are you doing tomorrow? Condemn Obama, even after he wins, or support him and not push feminism back to the stone age by silently supporting McCain.

Love to know. Put up your answers on your totally unbiased website. ttyl

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 04/08/2008

Taylor ... if Michigan and Florida can develop a revote strategy that doesn't resemble something that President Robert Mugabe would come up with I'm sure it would be acceptable to all sides ... I know it's fun blaming Obama for the failings of the Democratic Party Leaders in Michigan and Florida, but it would be far more accurate to call Obama a Muslim.

I know it is really hard to wrap your head around this, but the votes that were unsanctioned by the DNC in Michigan and Florida because they broke party rules ... don't count. How can Delegates be sat from an illegitimate contest? Even your candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Taylor agreed to the sanctions ... the disenfranchising of Florida and Michigan, if you will ... Hillary even said the elections in Florida and Michigan didn't count ... and was recorded saying so!

So Taylor, how about bashing Clinton for disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan for a change? ... it's just as accurate as blaming Obama for it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 AM on 04/08/2008

Great post. It's really a double-edged sword with Clinton supporters.

If the Florida and Michigan delegations aren't seated, it will anger the supporters Clinton has now.

If they *are* seated, it will anger the people who supported her when she said they wouldn't count and her campaign strategist voted to strip them of their delegates.

I think what the DNC is probably going to do compare her poll numbers before super-tuesday, when she was fine with the DNC's rules, and after, when she wasn't. They should follow whatever she thought was fair at the time she was highest in the polls.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 04/08/2008

If.......If......If.....
If wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry
If horse turds were biscuits, we'd eat til' we die.

Those who made the rules.....should PLAY by the rules!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 PM on 04/07/2008

That's what galls me the most - her camp actually had a hand in the rules in the first place. She's banking on her supporters not knowing that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 AM on 04/08/2008

Why on Earth should the DNC allow two states who, basically , told them to fuck off the opportunity to decide this election? The delegates will be seated, 50/50. That's it. End of story.

Taylor...you sound more desperate and bitter every day. Thanks for the laughs!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 PM on 04/07/2008

Because a democrat needs to win in November. By not allowing MI or FL to count the DNC is screwing themselves in two states one of which is arguably the most important come Nov. Also by not allowing MI and Fl to count they could potentially destroy Obama's chances. Say Obama makes the argument that he has the popular vote and pledged delegates lead, but minus to states. And Hillary makes the case that she has the popular vote and pledged delegate lead with all the states. You don't think the majority of Hillary supporters would consider Obama illegitimate if he he gets the nomination of 48 states and Hillary gets it with 50? Would that not cause a spilt in the democratic party which is as Dean says the only thing that could make Democrats lose. And the 50/50 thing is a bogus solution I'd rather someone not count my vote than change it thats a bigger slap in the face to MI and FL.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 04/08/2008

I think if Hillary cares even the *slightest* about her party and her country, she'll abide by the rules she agreed to in the first place. Which were that she was not going to participate in either election.

Hillary Clinton promised that, you know. Harold Ickes, who's her delegate 'guru', even voted to strip the two states of their delegations.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 AM on 04/08/2008

The thing that bothers me is that the people of MI and FL agreed to nothing. It was their elected officials who decided and now we are talking about disenfranchising because "rules are rules"? That's what they say in dictatorships not America. And as far as Hillary caring one or the other does it matter? Each candidate is going to support a resolution that helps them the most. WOW big shocker it does not change that whats right it right and as far as her not caring about party c'mon thats the stupidest MEDIA SPUN argument out there. Like I said the main reason to do it is so we win in NOV.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 AM on 04/08/2008

Agreed, Taylor is starting to sound more like a weird Tammy Bruce character everyday.

So scary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 04/07/2008

michigan and florida were warned several times by the DNC on rules those states voted yes to. They went ahead and defied this anyway. The politicians of these states are the ones who are at fault and not the DNC or anyone else. They were warned and even offered help by the DNC.
If Hillary was winning she could care less about the 'rights' of these states.
The courts found Michigan's primary to be unconstitutional. How is that anyone's fault but Michigans?
Hillary's supporters, like Marsh, need to get in touch with reality.
Right now you are in denial and anger. Then, you will have depression and then acceptance.
But, it still doesn't account for the sheer silliness and embarrassing behavior by Hillary supporters drunk on false daydreams.
Everyone in the real world has come to the conclusion that Obama is the nominee and Hillary lost it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 04/07/2008

Taylor, you never have explained you unreasonable rage over Sen. Obama. It could be that you are one of those old white women who feel they are owed the white house and that Hillary will validate your life for you. but, you see, even then it doesn't explain to you the damage you have done to women.
As a woman, Hillary supporters like you have embarrassed women like myself. You have hurt, not helped Hillary with your outlandish rants against her rival. Hillary came into the race with more legs up than any candidate. She blew it. Her own mismanagement and inability to control her campaign is her own fault. Not Obama's. He simply ran a better campaign.
Lying and ranting has only done damage to women by setting us back by old school feminists like you. You embarrass us with behavior like this. And all the talented women politicians have been set back because no one will want to revisit your style of partisanship. You see imaginary sexism around every corner and whine and wail that it's all so unfair because you are a woman. then blame Obama for your candidates failures.

About Taylor Marsh:
What Taylor writes is suspicious as she is simply someone who cannot tell the truth.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 04/07/2008

I haven't figured out her bag either. There is a lot of rage in this country, but she has some deep seeded resentments and a lack of fairness that is so unapologetically for Hillary. On Abrams she once claimed that "I don't have a dog in this fight" and just supported Clinton on the facts.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 04/07/2008

Why do Obama's disciples think he's going to win? I think they only read "approved" blogs and don't pay attention to current events. Alas alack. It's going to be such a blow for you all when it's either President Clinton or President McCain.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 PM on 04/07/2008

First, as I've said to too many people on this blog:

STOP REFERRING TO SENATOR OBAMA WITH DEROGATORY RELIGIOUS TITLES!! I don't insult Hillary, or YOU, by claiming that you think she's god, do I?

Second, I think that he can win because he's SHOWN that he can win, even over someone like Hillary who would already be the nominee this year, IF we hadn't had Obama around!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 04/08/2008

Well, we assumed that people who voted for Clinton were doing so on the issues and that switching their support to Senator Obama would be easy, since their stances are relatively similar. Little did we know that it was a cult of personality and had nothing to do with any of her actual positions.

I'm joking of course. Mostly.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 AM on 04/08/2008

I just don't think I can say "President Clinton" ever again. She should have run as Hillary Rodham......she would have done better.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 04/07/2008

sarana, it's call 'do the math'
Even Charlie Cook says she stands less than a 6% chance.
Reality sucks but, it's time for you face it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 PM on 04/07/2008

Charlie Cook said it

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 AM on 04/08/2008



Hillary camp strategy: Whiner Take All

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 04/07/2008

Taylor:

She's lost, She's lost. She is welcome to fight on, but its not going to do any good. Like Lola at the Copacabana or Delta Dawn with that faded rose from days gone by, Hillary is just waiting for something that will never come.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 04/07/2008

I don't understand why we have to keep explaining this Florida/Michigan thing. it is very simple to me. Everybody wants to blame it on Obama. I think that when people start writing these kinds of comments, everyone should just ignore them and talk about something that is real, not fantasy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 04/07/2008

Hillary Clinton and Taylor Marsh have no more concern for the Michigan and Florida vote than they do for the almost 30 states Obama has won already. They know that the will of the voters is with Obama, not Clinton, and their only argument is that the voters have to accept the will of the Super-delegates.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 04/07/2008

His x amount of states still don't add up to enough electoral college votes to win in November - and we need to choose a Democratic nominee who will win the electoral college. The way the numbers stand now, that person is HRC.

Second point, if the Dems don't seat Florida and Michigan, they will lose those states in November.

November is the bigger picture.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 04/07/2008

What a crock. States like your 'electoral' ones are blue and will vote democratic regardless.
the failed 10 state strategy is what lost so many elections for democrats.
Face it. Your candidate is stuck in 92 and running an old fashioned out of touch and out of date campaign and this is why she lost.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 04/07/2008

There are no superdelegates in November.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 04/07/2008

So you agree that the SDs must choose Hillary? Do you actually think that will work for November?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 04/07/2008

If CA's primary was tomorrow, Obama would win it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 PM on 04/07/2008

Taylor,

Where do you get the nerve to post on HuffPo while maintaining a Blog that allows ZERO comments by Obamans?

From where do you get the nerve?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 04/07/2008