Hillary came to FL to proclaim victory. Yet Bill Clinton misrepresents Obama's ad buy.

[madfloridian]

I am just finding the spin more and more hard to take. Today Bill Clinton accused Obama of campaigning in Florida because he took a national ad that did play in Florida. Obama cleared it with the DNC and all concerned parties because for one state to be left out would have been far more costly. Truth matters, and we have not been getting a lot of it lately.

Here is what Bill Clinton said about Obama's ad today.

"Her opponent, now seeking to disembody Florida, buys national cable television and says 'oh, I'm sorry it got into Florida but I had to buy national cable television.' Nobody buys national television for any reason, there is no conceivable reason to do it other than to advertise. And I believe there was also some television in south Georgia. So only one candidate broke the rules. She still won by 295,000 votes, 17 percent," said Clinton.

Yet when the primary in Florida which was moved up against party rules to January 29...when it was over Hillary flew into the state that very night to claim victory. That is far worse than taking a national ad.

Hillary Clinton and her superdelegates claim victory in Florida.


Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (second from left) thanks supporters with Congressman Bill Nelson of Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz and U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-F.L.) (left-right) after polls closed at the Signature Grand in Davie, Florida on Tuesday, January 29, 2008.

Bill Nelson's statement really stood out.

"In this primary, some even tried to silence our state," Nelson said as he endorsed Clinton from the stage Tuesday night. "Hillary Clinton will never let that happen."

John Kerry and Simon Rosenberg spoke out about this effort of the Clintons to demand Florida's votes.

Kerry:

Obama's campaign declared Florida a hollow victory for Clinton, dispatching former presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry to urge reporters to reject her campaign's effort to make Florida relevant.

"The bottom line is: Florida does not offer any delegates," Kerry said. "It's not a legitimate race, it should not become a fabricated race, it should not become a spin race.

Simon Rosenberg, a long time friend and fellow DLC founder.

Having worked on the New Hampshire primary and in the War Room in 1992 for the Clintons, I was present at the creation of the famous "rapid response" campaign style and fierce fighting spirit of the Clinton era. In the very first meeting of the famous War Room James Carville warned us "that if you don't like to eat sh-- everyday you shouldn't be in politics." So I understand as well as anyone that this is a tough game, not for the faint of heart.

But there is a line in politics where tough and determined becomes craven and narcissistic, where advocacy becomes spin, and where integrity and principle is lost. I am concerned that this Florida gambit by the Clinton campaign is once again putting two of my political heroes too close - or perhaps over - that line. So that even if they win this incredible battle with Barack Obama they will end up doing so in a way that will make it hard for them to bring the Party back together, and to lead the nation to a new and better day.

Obama took out a national ad buy, got permission to run it through proper channels.

Hillary flew to Florida to claim a victory that had no delegates in a state that was under sanctions with which she agreed until she needed them.

Today we learn that her delegates in Florida are possibly shrinking due to John Edwards'endorsement of Obama. Edwards' delegates here are moving toward Obama, and may result in a one third shrinkage of her delegates.

I think I could have breezed through the primaries without any hard feelings or deep passion....until she decided to use my state as a tool to win. It is dividing us.

[NanceGreggs]

1. K&R!

:kick:

[madfloridian]

3. Appreciated.

Not a good kind of politics

[madfloridian]

2. More about the ad buy...Samantha posted a good explanation..link

"The Obama campaign went to purchase the 50-state cable buy and was told by the cable company they could not eliminate one state, such as Florida. The only alternative was to make separate buys, which would cost the campaign a lot more money. With regard to the pledges the candidates themselves had signed, three of the four involved states had already had their elections. The fourth, Florida, was openly requesting to be relieved from that pledge with the candidates. The Obama candidate requested advice from the DNC, going thru its Representative in South Carolina (I believe her last name was Fowler and she was the SC DNC chair, which is where the two candidates' campaigns were at the moment). Her response, documented, was that it was okay for the Obama campaign to make the 50-state cable purchase. I am sure she had to check that out with the National Office before signing off on that release, but I saw no public indication of that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6000801&mesg_id=6004046

I saw Carol Fowler's permission in a written form at the time. Will see if I can find it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. 1st time I've seen that pic.

Narcissism indeed.

[cliffordu]

5. K&R!!

[NanceGreggs]

6. Back for a kick ...

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[dsc]

7. funny those supposedly national ads didn't run in NC

wonder why that was. I know this because I happened to be on DU watching CNN when someone said they saw his national ad, but it hadn't appeared on my TV.

[sandnsea]

9. It appeared in Oregon

Stunning your teevee is the only one that didn't get it. :eyes:

[dsc]

10. and how close to Washington state are you?

remember they had a caucus shortly after that.

[anigbrowl]

12. The market is national the broadcast isn't

they don't simultaneously broadcast every ad at the same time. The individual ads are cued up by your local cable company.

[dsc]

22. then the whole theory is a lie

If the individual cable company can decide when to run the ads then they can be told not to run them at all.

[madfloridian]

24. Funny how no one thinks it odd she came to Florida to claim her victory

in a state that did not have delegates.

[ossman]

8. Sorry... cant get Bill Clinton and shrinkage out of my head.

[David Zephyr]

11. K&R.

Informative post.

[KaryninMiami]

13. For the record. Hillary was here on Miami Beach BEFORE the primary

They called it a "fundraiser" = I call it cheating. Our Florida Democratic leaders- Nelson, Wasserman Schultz, Thurman, etc. who are spinning these lies as "protecting the votes of Florida" do not deserve to remain in their positions. I hope someone runs against Debbie next time in my district. She's gone from disappointment to disgusting this past year in my book.

[dsc]

21. fundraisers were explicitly permitted

This isn't even a close call. The rules explicitly stated fundraisers were legal.

[indimuse]

14. ***(((((Part 1)))))***

indimuse (1000+ posts) Fri May-16-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
72. ***(((((Part 1)))))***

READ AND LEARN OBAMA PEEPS!!!


On May 31st the DNC rules committee meets, and Clinton loyalists will need to present coherent, persuasive, and unimpeachable arguments to crush any attempt to further stall progress on Michigan and Florida.


SNIP

I’ve already debunked most arguments made by Axelrod’s camp claiming FL and MI deserve no hearing. I neglected a few more, which the likes of Donna Brazile plan on deploying on May 31st:

1) DNC rules were applied - and they will stand
2) Admitting FL and MI is unfair, and somehow “disenfranchises” other states, sets destructive precedent
3) The “Virtually disenfranchised” in FL and MI
4) Compromise

Before I get into into each argument, I’d just like to acknowledge what is already commonly known in Clinton circles.

DNC election rules apply only to delegates, not to the popular vote. When the popular vote is tallied, (RealClearPolitics measure will most likely be the benchmark), only fools will keep 2.3 - 2.5 million Florida and Michigan voters in the cupboard. I hope this descriptions applies to a limited number of Superdelegates (”independent delegates”).

1) DNC rules were applied.
No. They were not applied. The rules call for a 1/2 reduction of delegate totals. This option was not exercised - the rules were ignored. Nothing in the DNC rules allows for total disenfranchisement of FL and MI. Nothing. To claim that MI and FL were disenfranchised legally, is bombastic nonsense.

Neither Dean nor Pelosi, nor Clinton, ever maintained that FL and MI would not have their delegates seated in Denver. The implication all along, was that Primaries in MI and FL, would not be allowed to marginalize Primaries in four states previously scheduled ahead of MI and FL.

When Obama, Edwards, and Clinton signed a four-state pledge to honor the DNC position on Florida and Michigan, all this implied was to not allow Fl and MI to take precedence over Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. No candidate in any way, shape, or form, signed on to banning FL and MI delegates from the Convention in Denver.

What Obama signed, or how he interprets his signature, is an altogether different matter. Removing his name from the Michigan ballot, while relying on the neighboring media market of Illinois to advertise, and explicitly rally his supporters to vote Uncommitted in Michigan, sends a mixed signal on his intentions, and a clear signal on his incompetence.

The only binding aspect of candidates signatures in the four state pledge, came in the form of limiting their campaign activity. Candidates interpreted this to mean, a ban on physical appearances in either MI and FL. No more, and no less. Both Clinton and Obama appeared in FL, but for reasons which cannot be legally pinned down as “campaigning”, and there is no doubt on their staying true to their word.

To construe candidate signatures as binding on their policy stance on FL and MI delegates counts, is to spread disinformation. We see such disinformation every time FL and MI are mentioned in the media. It is plain wrong, and Obamacans need to get this through their heads, no matter how thick.

Continuing on the subject of DNC rules. Not only is the DNC not following the rules, in denying FL and MI the vote, they have absolutely no grounds to negotiate with FL and MI representatives, about 1/2 reductions of their delegate count.

DNC rules state that any state party which itself moves the voting date, will be penalized. As is well known in Clinton circles, neither the Florida nor Michigan Democrats chose to move their elections forward. The choosing was done by someone else! Republicans controlled both FL and MI State Legislatures, and when passing omnibus bills disbursing moneys for both Democratic and Republican Primaries, forced both of them forward.

Democrats fought against this in both states, but in both cases could not veto omnibus bills apportioning moneys for their own election! The DNC provided them with no alternative options or moneys for their elections, and carelessly left the Democratic parties of MI and FL, stranded!

Not even the finest reading of the DNC election rules, permit stripping or reducing in half state delegates, for actions committed under duress by the opposing party!

[indimuse]

15. MY STATE 2:: ( **((((PART 2)))))** MY STATE 2:: ( **((((PART 2)))))**

MY STATE 2:: ( **((((PART 2)))))**
*2) Donna Brazile recently suggested that admitting FL and MI delegations was unfair to all other states, and would be a destructive precedent for future elections. The logic here is appallingly stupid. Is Brazile suggesting that nixing the vote of 2.4 million voters, is the only way we can keep our Primaries fair for 48 other states? Or is she seriously suggesting that accepting 2.4 million voters, will somehow disenfranchise 48 states? In either case, the stupidity is ghastly.
Numerically, FL and MI do not impact the 48 other states. Numerically they neither enfranchise or disenfranchise them. To bring 48 others states into the MI and FL argument, is plain insulting.

Politically, for both the Nation and the Democratic Party, 48 states lose only, if FL and MI lose. If FL and MI win, the 48 states gain. There is no scenario, in which a loss of MI and FL, is a win for 48 other states.

In plain English, depriving 2.4 million voters of their vote, is positive sum loss for the Party. Reinstating their vote, is a positive sum gain. Brazile’s argument, is a cheap ploy, which anyone sitting across the table from her, should be at liberty to call for what it is, an unfounded “Victim” card.

The same goes for precedents. Mrs Brazile would be well advised to consider her “precedents” wisely. (Never mind that she needs to be fired off CNN), what kind of precedents does disenfranchising 2.4 million voters send for future elections, compared to the precedent of counting FL and MI send?

The precedent at disenfranchisement needs no explanation. A careless party, which carelessly abandons its state parties, and which is vulnerable to partisan infighting, will not make it into the next election cycle. The hemorrhage will be awesome. Then there is the 48 state strategy- which is an outright insult not only to FL and MI, but to every state. Ban MI and FL, and you are telling every state that its vote is never guaranteed into the future.

The precedent set by counting both FL and ML delegates, is altogether positive. It sends the message that the DNC is aware of its faults and negligence which it intends to correct, and that our party is a democratic party not just in name. That it is competent enough to apply its rules correctly, and even failing to do so in a timely manner, finds ways to compensate.

Now Brazile will say, that counting FL and MI sends the message to future DNC election rule violators, that the rules can be broken with impunity. She wont be troubled with the obverse question; whether the rules can be applied, without cause, shame, impunity, and in a haphazard - hence discriminatory - manner. No, counting FL and MI will not tell future violators, that the rules don’t matter. The opposite will be told, that no matter how biased the media, and partisan the party, the rules will be applied fairly, without discrimination, and at the appropriate time.

Donna Brazile should pause, before talking of any precedents. Her logic, is self-incriminatory.

[indimuse]

16. ****((((( PART 3 AND 4 )))))**** ****((((( PART 3 AND 4 )))))****

indimuse (1000+ posts) Fri May-16-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
84. ****((((( PART 3 AND 4 )))))****
*3) There are people of strong prejudice and limited means but strong popularity (Brazile), and then there are the charlatans. One such charlatan is the Rev. Sharpton, whose action network is advocating the line, that counting MI and FL is direct theft of those votes, which were never cast.
Among all the arguments made in the press, this is by far the stupidest, most useless, and based on the greatest emotional appeal. I don’t expect anyone to make it at the May 31st meeting, but the media will try. My response to this inane logic, is this:

a- for every imagined Obama voter who did not vote, one can easily imagine Clinton voters who did not vote. Such imagining, when taken to its logical extreme, can be applied to every single election ever held on earth, from Roman times, to present. If you just imagine a better turn out in Florida of 2000, Gore could have won. If you just imagine a better turn out for the Communists in 1933 Germany, Hitler would never have won the Reichstag. If you just imagine… well, elections are fundamentally based on opposition to the imagination. They are metrical, tallied, and thrive on assumptions such as one man one vote at one time for one candidate. For every imagined Black who did not vote for Obama, there is an imagined Latino and Asian - you choose- who slept in on Clinton.

I realize Axelrod’s campaign thrives on the imagined. From imagined “grassroots” to imagined “victims,” but disenfranchising 2.4 million voters, requires no imagination.

b- This argument ignores, conveniently, that the Democratic Parties of both states, encouraged turn-out, and at no point did the DNC discourage it. Neither the Parties nor the DNC ever or even suggested replacement elections could possibly be held, and not a single FL and MI voter was under the impression that they had a choice in the matter. Voters’ options were simple, either vote now or you don’t vote at all. If you don’t vote, there wasn’t a single message or promise from anyone that you’d be given another chance to cast your ballot. This was 100% clear!

Obama bombarded the Florida election market, and while he didn’t show up in person, at no point whatsoever did he hold out the hope of another re-vote. In Michigan he promoted voting uncommitted. If some Blacks and college students, contrary to what was obvious, want to lie that they didn’t show up in FL and MI because of the DNC ban, then logically, they failed to heed their Leader- who was paying serious money for a messages getting them out to vote!

*4) Compromise.
We can compromise on delegate numbers within very narrow constraints. Neither cutting the delegates by half, nor playing around with the voter turnout and numbers, is politically acceptable. Any such shenanigans amount to further dilution of the one man one vote rule. You cannot accept one person’s votes, while rejecting another’s. This is a fantasy option, which only occurs in nightmares. It spells defeat for Clinton, and democracy along with it. It is not the position Clinton takes, nor should her supporters. Votes must be recognized, exactly as they were cast.

In conclusion. There are three choices before the Rule Committee on May 31st. Stall (fail), approve, and re-vote. Here is how I speculate the outcome.

The Clinton camp, made repeated attempts to offer Florida and Michigan a re-vote. Contraty to DNC rules, and to what Dean and Pelosi maintained, Axelrod declined every single opportunity. His drive to disenfranchise both states, was determined. It was an illegal disenfranchisement, and there are no two ways about it. Still, a re-vote can be put on the table. It may be the only acceptable solution to the impasse.

Unfortunately, Axelrod knows his demographics, and strategy. He understands that a re-vote is both a political defeat of his candidate, and that the demographics will not budge. He would be taking a big risk, hoping for an outcome even marginally more favorable to Obama, than that already tallied for MI and FL in January.

Approval, will be very difficult for the Rules committee to approve MI and FL on May 31st. Approval amounts to admission of sins, and confessions will be in order. I don’t expect the political wherewithal for approval. Clinton proxies need to win the argument, without expecting a decision. Had the committee met on June 4th, this may have been different, but May 31st is too early, for a Primary hinging on the Puerto Rico popular vote.

The most likely outcome for May 31st, will be nothing politically, but by documenting a Rhetorical victory, Clinton can carry it over to the next meeting, when her popular vote will provide the wherewithal for more courageous decision making. I may be wrong, this is just guessing the future, but there is no guessing the argument, and Clinton supporters are 1000% correct, to fight on behalf of FL and MI.

[indimuse]

17. your welcome for the KICKS!

:hi:

[Apollo11]

18. Thanks indimuse!

Any smart person can see there is more than one way of looking at this situation.

Collectively punishing millions of innocent citizens, most of them lifelong democrats - for decisions made by a few politicians - by throwing their votes in the trash is not my idea of respecting democratic principles.

[indimuse]

19. exactly...plus, I AM ONE OF THEM!

:hi:

[Cass]

20. The other candidates managed to not run ads in Florida, but only

Obama was unable to make an ad buy excluding Forida. Yeah, right.

A victory speech AFTER THE VOTING OCCURRED, is not campaigning no matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise.

[madfloridian]

23. Hillary and those in her campaign, and surrogates, are trying to keep us angry

And it appears to be working quite well.

She refuses to admit she is not the winner. Her husband is ripping the DNC daily, and we are all angry.

Congratulation, Hillary, you are succeeding.