Florida mail-in primary sought by Clinton backer

Perhaps James Baker can coordinate the mail-in process.

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on a strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (after all, someone has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: A box where any attack will immediately be associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: in a moment of crisis, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments" (thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

I you believe the reports of how much cash Barack H. Obama is raking in, he could finance the mail-in primary himself.

I live in Florida. Will someone please mail us these ballots. I would vote and have since 18... Just explain how this is done, while republicans don't have to do this?... The Republicans were the ones that called the early election. It wasn't voted upon by it's citizens

The Republicans voted for the early vote we should just reseat the ones we had before the election. If the Democrats had voted this way do you think the Republicans would be unseated?

If Obama is the candidate that exercises "better judgment," why does he have John Kerry, somebody any right thinking Dem hates, out on the Sunday talk shows claiming that having a write in ballot wouldn't be the best option for Florida? What could be more representational, hence democratic? There is no argument here. The Obama campaign and their supporters should be ashamed to have this man's ideals as the mouth piece for the campaign. Sure, the Obama supporters will spin this, and I do admire their passion for their candidate, but the fact remains Kerry's argument stinks, and it is at odds with Obama's message of leading America in a new direction.

I you believe the reports of how much cash Barack H. Obama is raking in, he could finance the mail-in primary himself.

Posted by: Gene Debs | March 9, 2008 9:59 AM

Why should he?

If a re-do is done...it must be fair to both candidates. There must be time for each candidate to get their message out to the voters. This really isn't about the candidates, it's about the voters. It's about the voters being allowed to hear what each candidate has to say and then making their choice. This mess was not brought about by the candidates either. This was 2 states that selfishly wanted to make themselves more important than the other states in the country. I don't believe it fair for the DNC to pay for this as we need the money to win the Whitehouse. These states will see a windfall of money spent in their states if a re-do is done. I feel for the voters, but they should be raising holy hell with their state legislators.

The primary in Florida took place in January. The voters made their choices, and to not count their votes is to disenfranchise people who voted in good faith. Having a mail in election would be difficult and expensive. I can see why the Obama camp opposes it because Clinton would win with a larger margin of victory because time is revealing more about Obama. He wears a mask. When he speaks through his mask he is anti-Nafta. Privately, he is very pro-Nafta, thinks it is a wonderful plan, and in 2002 thought the United States needed more plans like it. The Canadians were reassured that he was just "posturing" (verbal dancing) and it was just empty rhetoric. In the political arena, he said he would immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq. Privately, he had no plan to withdraw the troops, no time table, and would decide what he was going to do once he was in the White House. The accidental release of the thoughts of the man behind the mask resulted in the resignation of Ms. Power his foreign affairs adviser. "In her role as a top foreign policy advisor Samantha Power described Sen. Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months as a "best case scenario". Power added, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." Yes, the masked man carefully crafts what he is telling the public.

Obama has strange friendships. One is a former terrorist who bombed the Pentagon. One is on trial in Chicago for his financial dealings and influence. Rezko was the conduit for two millions dollars delivered to Obama from a wealthy Iraqi right before he bought his mansion, which so convenient. The question is what services did Obama render to the Iraqi billionaire? As time goes by, more questions will be raised about the man behind the mask, the real Obama. He attacks Clinton time and again for having given Bush authorization to go into Iraq if all attempts at negotiation for weapons inspections failed, and he pats himself on the back for not having voted to do so. He fails to mention that no one really knows how he would have voted at that point in history given the information available at the time, because he was not a senator at that time. He wasn't there in the Senate. He was back home engaging in Chicago politics with Emil Jones, his mentor. Hillary Clinton is someone who can be trusted to do what she says, and who will work hard. She is who she appears to be, unlike the crafty, posturing and dancing masked man.

When candidates play by the rules, they do not "campaign" in the state and they remove their names from the ballot. This is what Obama did. Hillary, on the other hand, left her name on the ballot and made SEVERAL visits to florida and michigan. Although she says they were not campaign visits, they in fact served the purpose of making her more "familiar" to voters, just like her visits on SNL and Jon Stewart,etc. since her campaign can't afford its own advertising, it relies on these gigs to give her an advantage. Fair is fair, and hillary can only win by default (cheating or unfair play)

Linda....I see that this really isn't about the voters to you, it's just a way a playing cheerleader for your candidate.

Actually, there is a fourth way to handle it: split the delegates 50/50, probably the best option. You must remember that one of the reasons the January jump-ahead-break-the-rules-early-primaries in Florida and mIchigan are considered so unfair is because the voters at that time hardly knew who Obama was, and the name "Clinton" was as familiar as the kitchen sink (heh heh).

Newsflash Lori:

Obama's name WAS on the FLA ballot

And to Bill "Hussein" please explain all of Mr. Obama's position changes on Iraq over the last several years.

Now his phased withdrawal is a "best case scenario" rather than a firm commitment.

Sounds like politics as usual.

Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucasus. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican cheating.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your WINNER! They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

This is politics, not golf. We don't do no stinkin' mulligans.

Rules were made. Rules were broken. See ya next election cycle.

AUTHOR: Nice Try
EMAIL: nospam@spam.net
IP: 70.64.138.194
URL:
DATE: 03/09/2008 01:56:04 PM

No mulligans.

You can't re-create the dynamics of the time.

See ya in 2012.

And to Bill "Hussein" please explain all of Mr. Obama's position changes on Iraq over the last several years.
Posted by: Donna | March 9, 2008 1:33 PM

Quite frankly this thread isn't about the candidates, it's about the voters of these 2 states having their votes count. Also I lean towards Obama, but would be happy with either. I only have Hussein in my name as a protest to the idiots who wish to make some insane point of a "muslim" sounding name meaning anything.

Thank you HEAD OF STATE.
I wonder if OBAMA CAMP reads Blogs and Opinions on websites. They could loose this nomination just by not responding to these Democrate-Racists Clintons. Remember how the Clintons tried to play the Race Card even as OBAMA was winning 'White' states. They continue to undermine him and the power of his unification message even as he is greatly favoured by the Americans. Remember I said Americans, that is Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Others. Though OBAMAS message of Hope AND New Washington politics IS RESONATING well among the American People, keeping silent in the face of these Dirty Clinton Attacks Could be the most costly mistake they might have made which could easily cost them the nomination. The Clintons are Shameless Politician, which includes doing anything to win any election. So I hope the OBAMAS will do the right thing and start fervently talking to the Press on the these Hillary mess.

The primary in Florida took place in January. The voters made their choices, and to not count their votes is to disenfranchise people who voted in good faith. Having a mail in election would be difficult and expensive. I can see why the Obama camp opposes it because Clinton would win with a larger margin of victory because time is revealing more about Obama. He wears a mask. When he speaks through his mask he is anti-Nafta. Privately, he is very pro-Nafta, thinks it is a wonderful plan, and in 2002 thought the United States needed more plans like it. The Canadians were reassured that he was just "posturing" (verbal dancing) and it was just empty rhetoric. In the political arena, he said he would immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq. Privately, he had no plan to withdraw the troops, no time table, and would decide what he was going to do once he was in the White House. The accidental release of the thoughts of the man behind the mask resulted in the resignation of Ms. Power his foreign affairs adviser. "In her role as a top foreign policy advisor Samantha Power described Sen. Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months as a "best case scenario". Power added, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." Yes, the masked man carefully crafts what he is telling the public.

Obama has strange friendships. One is a former terrorist who bombed the Pentagon. One is on trial in Chicago for his financial dealings and influence. Rezko was the conduit for two millions dollars delivered to Obama from a wealthy Iraqi right before he bought his mansion, which so convenient. The question is what services did Obama render to the Iraqi billionaire? As time goes by, more questions will be raised about the man behind the mask, the real Obama. He attacks Clinton time and again for having given Bush authorization to go into Iraq if all attempts at negotiation for weapons inspections failed, and he pats himself on the back for not having voted to do so. He fails to mention that no one really knows how he would have voted at that point in history given the information available at the time, because he was not a senator at that time. He wasn't there in the Senate. He was back home engaging in Chicago politics with Emil Jones, his mentor. Hillary Clinton is someone who can be trusted to do what she says, and who will work hard. She is who she appears to be, unlike the crafty, posturing and dancing masked man.

Obama had campaign ads that played in Florida and Michigan because he bought national ads on CNN.

Linda...maybe if you post it three times it will make it true. give it a try. Your concern for the voters is.........deep.

Hillary has proved to be irresponsible with other people's money judging how she blew donor funds on 5 star hotels.She hides her own sources of income. Don't let her near the election cash box.

After much research, soul-searching and actually listening to what both candidates have to say and what their actual legislative records show, I decided to vote for Hillary. I had to take off the blinders of opinion polls, media spin and excitement and remember what this race is really about: Hiring someone to do the toughest and,arguably, most important job on the planet. Being President of the US isn't about speeches, promises and fluff - it is about who I believe will get up, everyday, and work their butt off for me and every other hardworking American. That person is Senator Clinton. She has been thru many tribulations, tests, and challenges in her life and like the Energizer Bunny, just keeps going and going. Where she gets the energy and conviction, I wish I knew. Think what each of us could do in our own lives and communities with just an ounce of her strength!

After much research, soul-searching and actually listening to what both candidates have to say and what their actual legislative records show, I decided to vote for Hillary.

You should have researched more. But then again that would likely take time out of your Kool-Aid drinking regimen!!!

Is this the same Democratic party that wants to run America?.

The Florida delagates should just be seated because both of them were on the ballot,but in Michigan that is another story because Obama wasn't on the ballot.

What would be fair to everyone, and less costly to all would be to divide the delegates evenly.
The Floridians deserve nothing more. Their politicans who they elected have put them in this position. Sorry folks, but you did it. Just remember at the next election.

What would be fair to everyone, and less costly to all would be to divide the delegates evenly.
The Floridians deserve nothing more. Their politicans who they elected have put them in this position. Sorry folks, but you did it. Just remember at the next election.

Posted by: katie | March 10, 2008 10:44 AM

Katie why didn't anyone else think of that. I gotta tell you I think that is the best idea I've heard!!!

We already had a primary
USE IT
enough said

We already had a primary
USE IT
enough said

Posted by: robert Potter | March 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Potter have you had your head in the sand lately. These state screw themselves. They deserve nothing. They don't deserve to have their delegates seated. That said assuming some deal is worked out, cetainly there will be a redo. This is just a cheap trick by both the republicans and Hillary (if ya can't win it steal it) Clinton. Your assertion is a joke.

"Obama was not on the ballot" should read "Obama took his own name off the ballot" as a favor to Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC requested no one campaign in FL or MI but did not make any request about names on the ballot.

After Obama and Edwards took their names off, they came in and campaigned for "Uncommitted."

Carville has donors ($15m plus) that could pay the whole cost of a mail-in in BOTH states.

One possibility being negotiated is to save money by sending ballots ONLY to registered Democrats who have NOT voted already, and add the totals.

"A primary would be too expensive and would require the Republican-led Legislature to approve it."

This is the same Republican-led Legislature that started the trouble in the first place -- by setting a primary date too early, over the protest of the FL Dems. Instead of supporting the Dems, Donna Brazile of the DNC punished them for the FL GOP's action!

This is another reason for choosing a mail-in revote instead of one that would have to be approved by the FL GOP, giving them chance for further mischief.