<p>Post #55 is not quite true. The pledge was mainly an agreement that the candidates would adhere to the DNC nominating calendar.</p>
<p>I have never heard that anyone strong armed Hillary to sign this pledge. Can you provide a reference for that suggestion?</p>
<p>She signed the agreement when she was the “frontrunner”. Why did she change her mind?</p>
<p>“It is from one of many web sites that address the issue.”</p>
<p>sokkermom, could you provide a reference for this quote? name of website, link, something like that?</p>
<p>you can google it.</p>
<p>I don’t think we are supposed to link websites for political blogs, only official news sites.</p>
<p>Convenient…</p>
<p>
Tega, I’m not going to address specifics in the blog entry you cited because it is against CC’s TOS to post links to blogs. I don’t know why they’ve decided on that policy, but they have. I do know that the rule effectively prevents this forum from turning into a fray of warring blogs; and for that I am grateful.</p>
<p>But I do wonder why the journalist blogger, at this late date, has (conveniently?) forgotten that when the DNC stripped the Florida delegates, it gave the party 30 days to devise an alternatve plan for seating the delegates that would not violate party rules. Those 30 days ended on Saturday, Sept. 29, 2007–which is the day before the date of the Tampa Tribune article. The TT, for some reason, also neglected to mention that 30-day window that had just closed the night before Obama’s fundraiser. Whether or not Obama “broke the rules” depends on what can be considered “holding a news conference,” as the article plainly points out.</p>
<p>I wrote a fairly lengthy post on Feb. 19 on this forum about what happened in the Florida primary. If you search my username, you’ll find it. It begins with a quote from another post and the words “Not exactly.”</p>
<p>I live in Florida. I lived here on the primary day, and I lived here for months leading up to the primary day. I saw Obama’s cable ad and would be happy to give you my opinion on that issue, too. Just ask. There are numerous articles about Bill Clinton’s fundraising appearances in Florida during 2007 from newspapers across the state. Feel free to google.</p>
<p>
The way you wrote that, interesteddad, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. Let’s parse. Do you mean that the rally was after the polls closed? If so, that’s true. Do you mean Clinton flew to Florida after the polls closed? If so, that’s not true. She actually landed and sat in the plane on the tarmac until the polls closed.</p>
<p>Now isn’t this all getting to be just a bit silly?</p>
<p>Craig Crawford’s silly screed is typical of the garbage being dredged up to try to justify whining about the system the candidates - all of them - agreed to ahead of time. Running a national ad on CNN is “campaigning in Florida?” Talking to some reporters in the street as he left a private fundraiser is “campaigning?” </p>
<p>On the other hand, I find Interesteddad’s take on the events which took place to be entirely credible. It also doesn’t change things. Once a candidate has been chosen the Florida and Michigan delegates get seated. Not before - you don’t change the rules after the vote. Clinton’s supporters would be well served by accepting that and moving forward on that basis - neither candidate is going to get a majority of the delegates on the first ballot anyway, as things look, and the less damage they do to the party in the interim the better the prospects will be for the party’s nominee - and that still very well could be Clinton. Poisoning the well at this point doesn’t serve her interests, or the interests I firmly believe she shares with the rest of us democrats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me a break.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say the four states strong-armed Clinton. They strong-armed the candidates as a group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She didn’t change her mind. She honored every last word of the pledge. Never campaigned in either Florida or Michigan. Never visited either state for a fundraiser after the pledge went into effect.</p>
<p>Here’s what Dove of Peace said about the terms of service:</p>
<p>"Please Don’t Post Links to You Tube or Private Blogs "</p>
<p>Now it would appear that ‘private blog’ means a blog by a private individual, not a blog tied in to a major news or media outlet. What Tega cited is from CQPolitics.com, which is linked to the Congressional Quarterly. Craig Crawford is a Contributing Editor for the Congressional Quaterly. Disagree all you want; don’t hide behind the TOS for not wanting to address points or for not wanting to provide citations for the points you make.</p>
<p>Continue.</p>
<p>I’dad,</p>
<p>Campaigning is not the only issue, and I am sure you know that. When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms of the entire document, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation if they failed to follow the DNC approved nomination calendar.</p>
<p>I tried linking the entire pledge, but the link wouldn’t work. You can find it by googling “DNC nomination calendar pledge”. (Go to the Florida dem pdf hit.) The document was dated August 2007.</p>
<p>Here is part of it: “WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.”</p>
<p>Mudder’s_Mudder, the pledge said you can’t run an ad in any of the two states. I don’t care if the buy was a 50 state ad, to me that is breaking the pledge. If the DNC wants to enforce their own rules, they should enforce every part of the rules. </p>
<p>Yes, I would like to know more about the ad, thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kluge, I think it is also fair to suggest to Obama people to stop telling Hillary to drop out of the race. They are not doing the party any good by telling her to drop out, their insistence is infuriating a lot of Hillary supporters. It will be extremely difficult for Obama to win the presidency (if he is the nominee) if he does not get at least 70% of Hillary supporters. </p>
<p>I have read quite a bit about the byzantine procedure used by the DNC to elect a nominee, and I think that after this cycle the rules commmittee ought to take a look at it and change it.</p>
<p>sokkermom:</p>
<p>I have no more interest in debating you on the four-states pledge than I do of watching election analysis from the talking heads on cable news networks.</p>
<p>I’ll leave you with one simple point. The Democratic Party cannot win in November without seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. It’s really as simple as that.</p>
<p>^ I will take that as a concession that you are wrong. Thank you for admitting such.</p>
<p>Hillary signed the pledge that clearly stated that the delegates of any non-compliant states would not be counted. She changed her mind when she determined she might need those delegates to win the nomination. It is really as simple as that.</p>
<p>Go Red Sox!</p>
<p>interestedda, 1sokkermom:</p>
<p>In general election how many college age kids, Afro American will only vote for Obama if he is the nominee and will walk away and will not vote if Hillary is the candidate along with acceptable VP candidate.</p>
<p>Similarly, how many poor white folks will only vote democrat if Hillary is the candidate, but will vote to republican or absent if Obama is nominee and have an acceptable VP nominee. </p>
<p>I wonder if a party official is tracking these numbers. I do not think Obama or Hillary nomination is more important than winning the general election.</p>
<p>But if Obama is not selected, it will alienate Afro American community along with new college aid voters. Without their support Hillary cannot win. Similarly, Obama cannot win without the support of poor rural white voters. Could any candidate survive this bickering? Tell me how do they will reunite the party and bring the other supporter home? The candidate need to discus these issues otherwise democrat are giving election to Republican party. Democrat candidate needs to choose a VP who will help rather than a distraction and reunite the voters.</p>
<p>And what about the democract support from the female group whose support is very necessary too.</p>
<p>We need not fight among ourselves but think from cool head how to reunite and win.</p>
<p>Think about it will nominating the candidate is enough andl oose the general elction that should be the goal. If Obama can win so be it. If Hillary can win so be it. This parts needs to be anaylyzed carefully. Hope to see something on Tuesday.</p>
<p>
There is absolutely no rational reason whatsoever to believe this statement, or its suggested corollary - that seating the delegates elected by the portion of the electorate who voted despite being informed by every candidate - including Clinton - that their votes would not count - will increase the probability of a Democrat being elected in November. In fact, I suspect that the opposite is true. Joe Voter in Florida or Michigan doesn’t give a fig if the delegates from his state are seated at the convention or not - that’s all just “inside the beltway” obsession from the blog rats. Normal people actually do understand that if your local party leaders break the party rules under circumstances they’ve been warned will lead to a loss of delegates - you lose the delegates. So what? We actually all get that our individual vote’s likelihood of actually affecting the outcome of the election is remote. Not seating the delegates is actually no big deal to “regular people.” But regular people from all over America will care if the perception is that Clinton “stole” the nomination by breaking her word.</p>
<p>Look, guys, as diehard supporters you may be blind to this, but Clinton’s biggest negative to the rest of the country is a perception that she is more dishonest than most politicians - that she is willing to lie and cheat. How do you think seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida after swearing up and down that those delegates wouldn’t be seated will play to that weakness? She can win the nomination without them - she can’t win the general election with them, in my opinion. Every once in a while you have to honor your commitments. This is one of them. And I’m saying that as a guy who will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in November. </p>
<p>This is not the time and place to play fast and loose with the rules. She agreed to them - she needs to honor that commitment, period.</p>
<p>Mercymom, it’s under the “Help and Rules” link on the left:</p>
<p>“Links to Forums, Blogs, and Personal Sites. Please do not post links to other discussion forums, blogs, personal sites, or other non-authoritative sources. In order to fulfill our mission of being the best college discussion forum, we want important topics to be discussed here at College Confidential. Linking to discussions elsewhere defeats this purpose. Links to non-authoritative sites like blogs, personal sites, etc., can’t be researched for validity on an individual basis and hence are not allowed. All such links will be removed.” </p>
<p>No need for anyone to “hide.” If a blog link gets removed, the post that addressed it won’t make sense. Nothing sinister intended. </p>
<p>Tega, I saw the Obama ad a couple, maybe three, times. It was generic, meaning nothing in it addressed Florida specifically. This was in sharp contrast to the Republican candidates’ ads which ran day and night (I knew all of Rudy’s ads by heart!). There was also extensive daily news coverage of the Republican candidates’ whereabouts, rallies, etc., as well as interviews with their various supporters. In contrast, the Democratic candidates and their supporters were deafeningly silent, until Clinton brought up “counting the delegates,” that is. </p>
<p>Did I ever see the Obama “national” ad (there was only one) after the primary election? Of course not! Haven’t ever seen this “national” ad again. I wonder why? Hmmm. My recollection is that they ran the week before the primary, but I couldn’t tell you when they started without researching it. Which I’m not going to do because as far as I’m concerned this whole issue about Florida delegates is past history, as in… dead in the water, a nonstarter. Silly stuff. Time to let it go and resolve it at the convention if it’s still an issue.</p>
<p>Exactly my point, interesteddad. I’m glad you agree with me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You take it wrong, then.</p>
<p>To be honest, I just find arguing with you to be frightfully dull.</p>
<p>stockmarket:</p>
<p>Fox New/Opinion Dynamics polled that question this week.</p>
<p>Among Obama supporters (if Clinton is the nominee):</p>
<p>66% vote for Clinton
21% vote for McCain
13% don’t know</p>
<p>Among Clinton supporters (if Obama is the nominee):</p>
<p>47% vote for Obama
32% vote for McCain
20% don’t know</p>
<p>It’s page 5 of this PDF:
<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/043008_release_web.pdf[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/043008_release_web.pdf</a></p>
<p>Mudder, thanks for the explanation. I thought you were referring to the post about you tube and private blogs. My apologies for misunderstanding you.</p>