The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« This Just In: Obama Launches 'Republican-Style attacks' on McCain! | Main | The Media's Role in the Obama Phenomenon as a Sign of a Deeper Trend »

April 19, 2008



Actually it is fair because both states disobeyed the rules. We need rules and guidelines, even in politics. Also, Obama and Clinton were told not to campaign in either state. Obama obeyed the rules and Clinton disregarded the rules and campaigned anyway. So many citizens were upset because Obama's name was not on the ballot of either state.
I'm not an expert but just read those states wouldn't count for popular or delegate votes. That was written by someone who IS an expert. I have to agree because I feel we NEED rules and disregarding those rules call for punishment. Otherwise there would be complete chaos. Anyway, that my 2 cents for what it's worth.

D. Cupples

HI Dianna,

Thanks for dropping in! I'm not sure about how Michigan changed its dates (despite having read about it), but I am sure about Florida.

First, Obamas name WAS on Florida's ballot. I saw his name on the ballot, and my co-blogger Damozel spent 15 minutes agonizing over whether to vote for Hillary or Obama (she was an Edwards supporter).

Second, Florida Dems did not break the rules. Florida's Republicans did -- the same people who have completely dominated our legislature for the last 6-8 years. [the count is roughly 77 Rs to 43 Ds in the House and 24 Rs to 16 Ds in the Senate]. It was the legislature that changed the primary date.

Third, DNC rules did NOT require an outright stripping of delegates, if they found that state Dems had tried to not change the election date.

Wayne Barrett at Huffington post wrote a piece that explains Florida well (but I'm not sure about MI).


Thank you for the enlightenment. I'm from Delaware and only know what I've read. I am sorry this has happened to you. I see you are against the war so we are both on the same side. You took the time of day to vote and your votes are not being recognized. Your anger is justified. I did not know that Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida; it must have been Michigan. I'm confused too. I owe you an apology and I am sorry. I voted for Obama because he opposed the war in 2002 when it was unpopular. I remember so well because I was taking a poly sci course and I was called a traitor for vociferating my own opinion.

I "hate" the Republican's for what they have done to you and our country. I know hate is a strong word to use but lives have been lost and the Bush Administration is guilty of torture.
I will look up the article in the Huffington archives.

Once again, please accept my apology for misunderstanding. Thank you for this valuable information.

D. Cupples


No apology needed! I'm just glad that we've had a chance to chat.

Obviously, I support Hillary, but I have friends who support Obama (and even a few who support McCain).

We're all human beings first and some candidate's supporters, second.

Some of us (like you and I) seem to have a lot of common ground on issues, despite which candidate we like better. I'd rather focus on that.


I don't think Dean was "unnerved by Obama's not-so-stellar performance at Wednesday's ABC-hosted debate." I think he was unnerved by the way the campaign has become a vehicle for hit jobs on Obama, who is extremely likely to be the nominee.

In that vein, check out part 2 of Jon Stewart's critique of the debate. It made my sides hurt and my nose run.

D. Cupples

HI Adam,

I've seen Jon Stewart's take on the debate. It's a shame that he didn't criticize Russert and Company over their treatment of Hillary during an earlier debate.

For months now, Hillary has consistently faced far worse BS and abuse from the media than Obama did that one night.

I'm troubled that so many Obama supporters (NOT you) didn't give a damn -- some even cheered -- when a FELLOW DEM was getting her ribs kicked in (often on false grounds, like the racism thing).

I'm troubled that Obama supporters (NOT you) are all of a sudden focusing on media bias and BS, just because "their" candidate got a tad bruised.

Incidentally, have you watched Olbermann's thing on Ferraro yet?

Remember, I LIKED Obama in December. I wanted him to be the VP and would have been fine with supporting him if he got the nomination.

I resent that watching him (and his campaign) operate has robbed me of good feelings about supporting whatever Dem gets the nomination.

The only reason I likely won't vote for McCain is that his economic vision is downright frightening. Unfortunately, I don't know if Obama's is any better -- because Obama hasn't been truthful about who he really is, and he doesn't have much of a record for me to assess him on.

As for Dean and the DNC: no more $ from me until they get new leadership. Period. And if Florida opens the primaries, I'll become an NPA.


Jon Stewart isn't really addressing bias in the debate questions, although the choice of questions in that debate did demonstrate some bias. His commentary is much more on the extended sequence of ridiculous questions, as oppose to who they were directed at.

(Seriously, I found the whole "no disrespect" segment to be the funniest single comedy sequence of the campaign. That's probably just me. After all, he slipped an obscure "South Park" reference in there that 95% of the viewers probably missed.)

In that vein, Russert and others were collectively tougher on Hillary than on Obama in previous debates, although like the ABC debate (with roles reversed) they did put Obama on the spot at times.

The difference in the debates is not that there was a bias in the ABC debate versus an absence of bias in the others. The difference is that the issues took a back seat in the ABC debate, while the tabloid stories took a back seat in the others. THAT is why the ABC debate has been so universally panned.

I still haven't watched the Olbermann/Ferarro thing. That story never really mattered to me, except to the extent that I wanted to point out that Ferarro was wrong on substance. I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it that was a ridiculous and over the top guilt-by-association character attack. I'm not here to defend Olbermann's overall conduct. That said, he does cover some stories that almost nobody else in the MSM covers. His recent interview with Hillary actually covered some pretty good material. I think you should consider tuning in to him on occasion. Just be ready to change the channel.

D. Cupples

HI Adam,

Charlie and George went after Hillary, too. More than once (I think) one of them flat out told her that she wasn't answering a question. They also brought up Bosnia.

It doesn't surprise me that this later debate focused on tabloid stuff, because more of it had happened than before the earlier debates (Bosnia, bitter, etc).

I used to watch Olberman almost nightly on the web -- until he started unabashedly campaigning for Obama. I'd expected better. He used to do such fact-based (albeit dramatic) stuff -- e.g., FISA, Bush/Cheney, Libby....

At some point (February, I think), Olbermann started overlooking facts when shilling for Barack. That's when I stopped tuning in.

The comments to this entry are closed.