2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

because Mark Penn thinks he's Karl Rove: Puppetmaster

i think if either camp goes after pledged delegates, this shit is seriously fucked up.

jhøshea maybe a better response would have been "we're not going to speculate on what might happen with pledged delegates"

which would lead to the following headline:

"Clinton Camp Won't Rule Out Pledged Delegate Lobbying"

a third response could have been: "we absolutely won't lobby pledged delegates"

which could lead to the following headline:

"Obama Clinches Nomination"

a better response wouldve been: were going to win this thing outright no worries!

And the headline for that would be "Britney Spears: Back In Rehab".

a good reporter would see that for the evasion it was and press them on it, which is indeed what may have happened

xpost

lol so not an xpost

tracer i get yr point, but you are really being purposely oblique here. yes it is a storyline that is dictating the framing of this, but are we to ignore the clinton camp's attempts to seat michigan and florida, which is clearly very germane to this sort of strategy? it would be very easy for the clinton campaign to say "listen, of course we want to win because we think we will be a better presidency, but how you win is just as important as whether or not you do." which is exactly the message the obama campaign has been sending out.

finally, this is what mondale did to hart in 84, as someone pointed out in an earlier thread. and as hunter thompson detailed in fear and loathing on the campaign trail, the trick to getting a pledged delegate to switched their vote is either blackmail, judicial appointment or some sort of sub-cabinet position. basically, a delegate says "my vote is for sale" and sees who is willing to pony up what. not a pretty process.

yeah gabb but the WSJ is also, um, full of shit too often to worry about

pls to distinguish between editorial page and reporting

in this situation there no downside to being evasive as theres not a story unless you say stupid shit like this

xp: ain't that America

That darn media

elmo read the article again, and then maybe just reflect for a moment, and ask yourself

^^ hey bro, lighten up, no need to be a condescending prick

i thought this was the thread for that! sorry elbro

Look, if the Clinton campaign doesn't want to concede the nomination, they should keep campaigning and see how the primary votes go, which is what they are doing. I don't think this sort of talk is really going to help them in this effort. jhoshea otm.

it irritates me no end to see people -- people HERE! -- not only parrot the endless bullshit framing devices that political hacks employ in this campaign but justify them, too, especially when careful reading reveals how full of shit these "stories" are

the obvious backtrack here is to be like "well clinton's staffers need to be SMARTER in how they talk to the media, that's all i meant" and of course that's always true, but there really is a limit to how smart one can be, or how little one can say to reporters; the less information and access they have, the more they'll pounce on the tinest fragment and spin a 1000-worder out of it -- and the more they'll complain about how stage-managed and inaccessible your campaign is

i keep trying to keep that last debate between o and h in my mind, how sane they both seemed, how not-actually-full-of-shit they both were, how detailed and nuanced both were about their ideas, their policies, their past votes, and how totally out-of-place the binary competition metaphor seemed at that moment for what each wanted to do

Ana Marie Cox:

I would really like to know what's involved in "getting pledged delegates to switch sides." Is it intimidation or just bribery?

...

This assumption says a lot about Clinton's "but-he's-JUST-ANOTHER-POLITICIAN" strategy, namely, that the Clinton team knows just what kind of behavior being "just another politician" necessitates. It's hard to figure out whether their increasingly desperate acts of projection are a cry for help -- or a flourish of self-hatred.

Following the Money Trail: The Democratic Party and the Business of Elections

Democrats' claims that they are the party of the common worker would seem a lot more plausible if they were not so heavily reliant on corporate sponsorship. As of January, Clinton received 56% of her funds from business groups and individuals, as opposed to only 11% from labor, while only 25% of Obama's funds came from business, none came from labor. Obama's relations with labor interests rival those of Republicans, as McCain Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee all similarly accepted between 0-1% of their funds from union members and labor organizations. Out of the seven major candidates in the 2008 Presidential race (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani), only Edwards received more money from labor than business (accepting 4% and 52% of his funds from business and labor respectively). It hardly seems coincidental, considering his campaign funding sources, that Edwards was the most populist, critical candidate of corporate America.

it irritates me no end to see people -- people HERE! -- not only parrot the endless bullshit framing devices that political hacks employ in this campaign but justify them, too, especially when careful reading reveals how full of shit these "stories" are

im not sure if this was directed at me at all but i did begin by calling bullshit on that story

and are you implying that "hillary: win at all costs" is just a bullshit framing device cause uh...

yes i am saying that it is a bullshit framing device

and yes i know you called that story out

also, why would obama have to go after clinton's elected delegates unless she succeeded in actually peeling some away from his column? that's some serious a priori justification going on

so you dont think that the hillary campaign talking abt seating florida and michigan even tho they previously agreed to disallow them says anything abt her character at all?

i'm with jhoshea on this, the clinton camp is being far too selective as to which voters, delegates, and states actually "matter" to align itself with any ideals higher than pure political brinkmanship.

I saw an interview with Obama in which he said he was willing to accept that there should be representation from Florida & Michigan, perhaps via freshly organized caucuses. Surely that suggestion contains as much political calculation as Hillary's?

no

and by the way,

brink·man·ship
n.

The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede.

i think this is a pretty accurate characterization of the clinton strategy right now.

except instead of mutually assured destruction, it's a floor-fight over delegates at the convention

a comparable move by obama would be to suggest that they seat the florida/michigan delegates based on national popular vote totals

Anyone who really thinks Obama is more likely to concede for the good of the party/nation/etc is being naive.

So Tracer, you are 100% sure that the Clinton aide didn't actually mean to say that to the reporter? Which campaign are we assuming is naive this week?

obama is def more likely to bow to the will of the voters - the good of the party/nation/etc is just abstraction

or they could like, count the actual votes that people cast. obama and edwards withdrawing their names from the ballots wasn't part of any agreement or punishment for those states, it was a strategized piece of theatre. that's what you do when you know you're going to lose.

eppy not sure what you're talking about. i think the clinton aide said something that is pretty obvious and it got spun into "omg this is the clinton strategy".

I still love and would vote for Hillary, but it's certainly interesting that her campaign is doing what it's doing, and there's meaning in the fact that a reporter thought he could make that frame out of that comment.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44436000/jpg/_44436090_clinton_203body_ap.jpg

classic.

more on this story, "Clinton Spokesperson: We "Will Not Pursue" Obama's Pledged Delegates:"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

i voted the hell out of some voting this morning. and i bought some banana bread at my polling place!

-- Jordan, Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:27 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

or they could like, count the actual votes that people cast. obama and edwards withdrawing their names from the ballots wasn't part of any agreement or punishment for those states, it was a strategized piece of theatre. that's what you do when you know you're going to lose.

yah cause im sure theyd be happier to just have no delegates W T F

besides it was a decision made by the party that all the campaigns agreed to

Please locate... Black River Falls

...

Very Good Hillary!

tracer, you know, i do think this is just piss-poor message control from the clinton campaign, but i wouldn't put it past clinton to spoil for a convention fight

lol @ a TPM comment:

While we are on the subject, Obama has never explicitly spoken to the subject of whether he intends to hire a hit-man to assasinate Sen Clinton in the next debate. Sen Clinton has already ruled out such measures, and it is time for Sen Obama to make his intentions on this subject clear...

well it was a gamble. the gamble could come back to bite them. it's pretty clear from what i've been reading that florida and michigan will almost certainly be seated at the convention. the question is, does this happen just for unanimity's sake, after counting everybody else up, or do you throw those states' votes into the mix -- somehow?

frankly i think the punishment of stripping the delegates was bone-headed from the outset. and letting some people withdraw and hillary stay on the ballot was completely confusing. it was enough to get the candidates to agree not to campaign there. it took all the spotlight away. this way you're guaranteed to look like a weird, lever-pulling political machine. repubs stripped some delegates but not all, and allowed campaigning, which i think was a much better way to go.

there's meaning in the fact that a reporter thought he could make that frame out of that comment.

yes, but that meaning has almost entirely to do with the culture of national political reporters and their tribal mentality and solipsism, and i would argue very close to 0% to do with hillary clinton.

haha that tpm comment is great

jhøshea sorry: what decision are you referring to?

to not seat the delegates and to not campaign

Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount, Seller Says

i don't think any of them specifically agreed to "not seat the delegates" though? they agreed not to campaign. and none of them did. then when edwards and obama saw that, left on cruise control, they were going to get hammered, they pulled their names from the florida and michigan ballots in order to try and thoroughly destroy any vestigial legitimacy those ballots might have had. which makes sense, strategically, but it is a gamble. because of the situation we're now finding ourselves in. sorry if this is all obvious, i'm still working it out for myself.

what i still don't understand is why anyone was allowed to vote for the demoaratic presidential nominee in michigan or florida AT ALL, given that the organization in charge of the vote had decided 1) not to seat that state's delegates and 2) forbidden campaigning. the dnc really created this. whoever was ahead in those states -- it happened to be hillary -- would eventually try to get those delegates seated if things got this far.

i believe their names were only pulled from the michigan ballots

xpost Oh, so it's OK then.

tracer you're nuts