Financial Times endorses Senator Obama

[no name 1]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And Florida? (arguably the more important general election state...) Why didn't Mr. Holier Than Thou pull his name?

Edited April 21, 2008 by illumine

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And do you think not having in a race at allin FL and MI is dumb? Do you think it's a clever strategy if you want your interests to be represented and your party to win in the general elections?

I don't understand why this decision was made to discount them all together (and I mean this before we knew what the results would be, however "tainted" they might be)

These states will vote in the general election and their votes and delegates will matter. Testing the candidates in these states is necessary to win.

[Caladan 19]

It's neither Clinton nor Obama's fault that the DNC botched MI and FL, but awarding delegates based on an election they said wouldn't count would be a sham. How many supporters -- of either candidate-- likely decided not to bother to take the time to vote because they were told it wouldn't matter? How many couldn't vote for their candidate because their name wasn't on the ballot?

[Dan J 277]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And Florida? (arguably the more important general election state...) Why didn't Mr. Holier Than Thou pull his name?

And if Obama takes Texes or another "red" state, he could win without Florida.

Demographics change, what states mattered in 2000, may have diffrent influences in 2008. In 2000 Minnesota was a swing state, but this year, I think it will be blue by a significant margin.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It's neither Clinton nor Obama's fault that the DNC botched MI and FL, but awarding delegates based on an election they said wouldn't count would be a sham. How many supporters -- of either candidate-- likely decided not to bother to take the time to vote because they were told it wouldn't matter? How many couldn't vote for their candidate because their name wasn't on the ballot?

My point is that the decision to discount these states altogether was STUPID. The Republicans halved the delegate count - much more sensible and a sign that they might have a better strategy for winning in Nov.

Besides, Democratic turn out in Michigan and FL this year was bigger than either 00 or 04 - in FL it was almost double 00

[no name 1]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And Florida? (arguably the more important general election state...) Why didn't Mr. Holier Than Thou pull his name?

And if Obama takes Texes or another "red" state, he could win without Florida.

Demographics change, what states mattered in 2000, may have diffrent influences in 2008. In 2000 Minnesota was a swing state, but this year, I think it will be blue by a significant margin.

Not my question though.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's neither Clinton nor Obama's fault that the DNC botched MI and FL, but awarding delegates based on an election they said wouldn't count would be a sham. How many supporters -- of either candidate-- likely decided not to bother to take the time to vote because they were told it wouldn't matter? How many couldn't vote for their candidate because their name wasn't on the ballot?

Yep. This really is a dead horse (the hypothetical argument that is) of what if's. I hope that if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, her supporters won't be crying foul over MI and FL, as if they would have changed the outcome.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And Florida? (arguably the more important general election state...) Why didn't Mr. Holier Than Thou pull his name?

And if Obama takes Texes or another "red" state, he could win without Florida.

Do you really think that's going to happen especially when he didn't win the primary? If Obama wins Texas I will eat my hat.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.

And do you think not having in a race at allin FL and MI is dumb?

Yes, I think it was a mistake. I always said that. But that doesn't mean that you go and change the rules after the game has been played.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what? A junior Senator with no experience? He has no track record. This is a culture of personality only. I mean really. The dems have so many other people that at least could fill out more than one page on a resume. I don't understand why they would pick an ultra-liberal unknown like this. He is the worst (well, second worst) person they could pick.

Gary,

Do you watch Hanity and Colmes? Hanity has been rattling off the same stuff for weeks in addition to the Wright statements, his wife's statements, and the small town bitterness thing. We shall all see how this plays out in the general election. This should be very interesting.

No, I work 2nd shift so I don't get to watch TV in the evening. I don't need a pundent to tell me these things. Its obvious to anyone that looks. Contrary to popular opinion, I form my opinions on my own. I don't need someone to tell me what to think.

Hey Gary...

You give better analysis than the pundents. It's very cool that you stay in the know given your schedule. I find most of the pundents to be either hardline party extremist with very bias POV. However, some of them are quit interesting and give fair critics/analysis. I'll plug you in as a pundent or political elite. I've been trying to think of a way to spin the "I don't need someone to tell me what to think" line, but so far... no luck. I'll have to figure out a way to mess around with you later.

Cheers...

Ahmari

[no name 1]

It's pundit, everyone!!!

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's pundit, everyone!!!

You get the point.