2008 Primaries Thread

i mean, i could be wrong, but i think we know who the repub candidate's gonna be.

Agreed, but at what cost to the GOP?

it's come up again because the FL primary is tomorrow -- but Hillary's campaign released this on Jan 15th:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGFhZmRhOTNiNWE1YzBiYzRlNmZlNThlZTE3MjMyZWI=

Let us be clear about something else, however. While Senator Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans. The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of ANY state that their voices aren’t important.

Everyone is talking about Florida now because Hillary will be holding an event there after the polls close and a bunch of bloggers got bent out of shape and keep talking about how she's breaking a pledge to the DNC (not true), which is good for Hillary because it keeps people talking about Florida.

Florida, Mrs. Clinton will hear you now.

Talking about Florida = South Carolina is yesterday's news
Not a bad plan

HRC understands Florida Democrats who, like her, are searching for their voice.

daria, why do you assume that the "delegates will be seated anyway"? i don't understand how you reach that conclusion so easily.

HRC spending energy in Florida is probably best for Obama, who's better off spending energy in Virginia or the south Rockies states, i.e. the most swingin'est swing states that were red in 2004.

Not to mention Ohio.

If the Dem nom gets all the Kerry blue states plus Ohio, the Dems win.

Talking about Florida Kennedy endorsements = South Carolina is yesterday's news

fixed

Well I don't know, I'm just guessing that once it gets to the convention we may know clearly who the nominee will be and the # of Florida delegates won't make any difference so no more interest in pissing them off. I think I've just read it enough places to see it as conventional wisdom..

... uh... the "conventional wisdom" that i'm reading is that this contest may very well last right up to the convention and that it's become a fight for delegates, rather than states?

I'm not sure if Kennedy helps. It's sort of at odds with the notion of change and new ideas and such. Kennedy as establishment Democrat old politics goes way back further than the Clintons in this regard. Maybe I'm wrong but it's like why do Kerry and Kennedy want to revive the 60's.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r4/Heimdall00/Romney-Florida.jpg

provide sources if you like, i'm not trying to provoke any sort of response but i want to know where you're reading this xpost

THAT'S THE SPIRIT, AND WHAT!

maybe because the 60s were a time of unprecedented and widespread civic action?

Huckabee... is increasingly an entrant in the McCain veepstakes

fucking gross.

It could be a fight all the way to the convention. In which case, well, I guess they'll fight about Florida and Michigan too but the whole thing will generally be a clusterfuck, with the superdelegates and all.

OK, here's one - Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement: "The threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat. They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs."

link is bad :(

gabbneb i disagree about romney. i think he's going to win tomorrow, and i think he wins the nomination.

does anybody have a copy/link to HST's writings in late july / early august of 2004? during and after the DNC?

http://a.abcnews.com/Politics/WireStory?id=3940764&page=2

yeah, i'm going out on a limb here - i know romney in some ways looks more like a rally-round choice - but it's my hunch

remy this is the only election piece hunter penned in 2004 (to my knowledge)(it's also wonderful): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6562575/fear_and_loathing_campaign_2004/

as usual i agree with josh marshall on the MI/FL matter:

01.25.08 -- 5:38PM // link
No Way
The Clinton camp really needs to be shut down on this new gambit of theirs to muscle the party and the other candidates into seating the Michigan and Florida delegate slates.

And let me be very clear about what I mean. It was very debatable decision whether the DNC should have punished Florida and Michigan with the loss of their delegates slates because they broke the rules the party had set down for scheduling their primaries. By 'debatable' I don't mean it was right or wrong, only that it was a pretty draconian move and I know there was a lot of discussion about whether or not it was the right thing to do.

But that was the decision -- one that each of the candidates at least implicitly agreed to. Indeed, each agreed not to campaign in either of these states, again implicitly agreeing to the decision not to seat the delegates.

The Clinton camp is just pushing to seat these delegates now because the contingencies of the moment mean that the decision would favor Hillary. She was the only one whose name was on the ballot in Michigan, thus insuring her win. She has a wide lead in every Florida poll taken this month.

Even Michigan was a matter of her basically pulling a fast one on the other candidates by not taking her name off the ballot. Each of the major candidates signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in any primary or caucus prior to Feb. 5th except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The other major candidates adopted what seems like the only reasonable interpretation of the pledge (see text here) and pulled their names from the ballot.

But then Hillary didn't, thus in essence guaranteeing her win in Michigan.

The Clinton campaign said taking her name off the ballot wasn't required by the pledge. But what can "participate" mean over and above "campaigning" other than formally being a candidate in the race?

In any case, by gaming the process Clinton already insured her win in Michigan, though it seemed only for a symbolic victory, not real delegates.

But all these particulars are secondary to the principle, which is that you don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama.

Perhaps there's some detail of this question that I'm not aware of. And if there is I'll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.

Hillary can muscle for every advantage she wants. Good for her. She's a fighter. But everyone else should see this for what it is and say No.

It's just politics. They're trying to change the media narrative. Obama made remarks a few months back hinting that he'd seat Florida delegates as well. Something else I've read is that the convention itself isn't bound by DNC rules.

Here's more -
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_convention_delegate_process_explained

Josh Marshall is so in the tank for Obama

(thanks YGS)

Huckabee challenges Romney over fried chicken
Mitt Romney's failure to eat fried chicken with the skin on is nothing short of blasphemy here in the South, according to GOP rival Mike Huckabee.

OMG

Romney: no-fried-chicken-skin eatin' liberal

01.28.08 -- 12:55PM // link

Clan
If the issue is dynasticism in politics, I guess there's some measure of irony in the group endorsement I'm now listening to from the Kennedy family.

(ed.note: For those of you who are keeping track, this is one of the posts that provides clear evidence we're in the tank for Clinton, as opposed to the others that provide the final proof that we've been covert Clinton-haters all along.)

--Josh Marshall

Huckabee has a point, tho

haha, gff, i was just looking for that

But this was at KFFC!

kentucky fuckin' fried chicken

lol even former fatso eats chicken skins

Huckabee, looking ahead to a flotilla of southern states up for grabs on Super Tuesday, was told about the move by a reporter here in the Florida panhandle.

"I can tell you this," he said, "any Southerner knows if you don’t eat the skin don’t bother calling it fried chicken."

"So that's good. I'm glad that he did that, because that means I'm going to win Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma … all these great Southern states that understand the best part of fried chicken is the skin, if you're going to eat it that way."

Huckabee admitted that he hasn't eaten fried chicken in a while because of his weight loss program, preferring it broiled or baked instead.

And speaking of possible gaffes, a good Southerner might also dispute one of Huckabee's claims: since when is Oklahoma "a great southern state"?

...

Yeah, Huckabee's crazy. Please don't drop out, Huck.

KFCGATE 2008

hillary wishes she'd thought of this tactic first

'well, the people of south carolina eat a lot of fried chicken... but uh yeah obama ran a good campaign'

the buttermilk-batter constituency

it's never too late, and what

Bill: "It's quite peculiar that Obama didn't bother with the batter at Popeye's that Americans hold dear to their hearts."

so want squirrel zing from camp romney now

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ebaseball/images/cluckulogo.jpg

RIP cluck u @ nyc ;_;

lol ethan

xxxp

I think it's telling that so many in the press and blogland who normally shit on ted kennedy are now acting like he's basically awesome since he's endorsed obama. it seems more like the kennedys are getting a boost from barack than the other way around. he sure as hell isn't riding their coattails at this point