Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan

Way back last November, when it was agreed by all that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count and most removed their names from the Michigan ballot, Hillary Clinton made the following statement, "I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name is on the ballot. It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Here's what baffles me. Every time the shrill cry of "Count Michigan, Count Florida" goes up from supporters of Ms. Clinton's failed campaign, when confronted with Ms. Clinton's statement above, the reply is invariable a deafening silence.

Can someone please explain?



Display:


Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

crickets


by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:19 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (2.00 / 3)

It's selective memory, or ignoring the entirety of what she said. She fully explained why she did not take her name off the ballot. Google it. She seems to be the only one who was thinking about the implications of not having any Democrats have their names on the ballot (there were a few actually) when it came to the general elections. Very prescient. We're seeing the outrage of Florida and Michigan voters now. Why don't you answer this question. Why would over 2 million people go to the polls and vote in Florida and Michigan if they thought their votes would not count?
by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

That's not the issue. The issue is that she said it wouldn't count for anything.

As far as people voting, many surely didn't but the primary races weren't the only things being voted on.

BTW, Al Gore took his name off the MI ballot in 2000 and still won the state in the GE so Clinton's statement is nonsense anyway.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Thanks for your reply. Is there any reason why you didn't answer my question?


by vermontprog on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (2.00 / 1)

I live in MI.  There's no outrage about that here in my circles, and I talk politics a lot with people.

You know why?  Because it was clear to us at the time that that election, as Hillary said, "doesn't count for anything."

Why did people go to the polls?  Any number of reasons.  My mother went because I encouraged her to go.  That doesn't mean that either of us thought that our votes actually counted for determining the nominee.  Some people might have thought they would count, but those people weren't paying attention.

Don't claim to speak for MI voters.  That patronizing attitude has become very tiresome.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Also an MI voter, also haven't heard any outrage, and I've asked. McCain is never going to triumph here and anyone who says he surely will does not know anything about MI. We won't suffer his bullshit here any more than we did Bush's.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

I agree with you that McCain won't win MI, although I think that he  does have a chance here.  That's why we have to work so hard from now till November to make sure that we prevail!


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

OK, for completeness, here are her actual words (the best quality audio I could find, though the still images are not particularly flattering).

That's... fairly explicit on her view regarding Michigan. New Hampshire Public Radio, 10/11/07.


by TCQuad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Yeah...she said we know it won't count for anything...


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Beueller? Beueller? (none / 0)

There's never an answer, is there?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:27:33 PM EST

She was distracted when she said that. (1.33 / 3)

After all, it's hard to talk about the primary process when you're ducking snipers while little girls read to you.


by PhilFR on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (1.50 / 4)

Why did Obama encourage his supporters to vote undecided in Michigan, even though he voluntarily took his name off the Michigan ballot. Why did Obama campaign in Florida? Listen up. Obama made a poor political calculation based on pinning his hopes on Iowa and ignoring Michigan. I guess if you've got the inside line to the DNC and they're telling you we'll take care of Michigan for you, you take your name off the ballot. So, are you saying all those people who voted for Obama in Florida should have just stayed hope and listened to the authorities that their votes were meaningless. In Florida? You're kidding, right?
by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:33:29 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

I'm not sure what  you mean by "poor political calculation" as MI doesn't count.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Thanks for your reply. Is there any reason why you didn't answer my question?


by vermontprog on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Wait, you think Obama campaigned in Florida? So you're actually advocating that Florida secede from the Union? Interesting! That's what the national networks said it would take for his NATIONAL ad not to play in Florida.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Why did Obama encourage his supporters to vote undecided in Michigan

Link me to a quote of Obama or any official campaign communication encouraging his supporters to vote uncommitted in Michigan, or retract the claim.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There wasn't one. (none / 0)

What he said is just a talking point.  To my knowledge, the vote uncommitted movement was grassroots based.  I know a couple of people who made signs themselves and put them out at polling places in their county.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Congressman John Conyers was big in the vote uncommited movement in Michigan.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=/20080115/POLITICS01/801150390

Last week, Rep. John Conyers Jr., a Detroit Democrat who supports Obama, began running radio commercials imploring party members to vote uncommitted.


by jaydub799 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

I don't think you've answered the question.


Everybody loves the Engels.
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

"Why did Obama encourage his supporters to vote undecided in Michigan"

Because CLINTON BROKE HER PLEDGE. If she hadn't broken her pledge, then she wouldn't be on the ballot, and the uncommitted vote would be meaningless, because both Obama and Clinton voters would be voting it.

Because if Obama hadn't done so, then you'd be claiming 95% of the vote from Michigan and 95% of the Michigan delegates, and you'd be fucking up the rules even more for your benefit.

Because then Clinton's deceit and lies and her broken pledges would have benefited her even more.

I'm tired of this whole piece of intellectual dishonesty, all originating from Clinton's broken pledge, from Clinton's disgustingly obscene lies and flip-flopping attitude.

She pledged not to participate, then you have the audacity to complain about other people not handing her 100% of the Michigan delegates she attempted to cheat?

The thief complains about not stealing all of the booty rather than just 55% of it?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Thank you for at least being honest. You're saying that Obama did support people voting undecided in the Michigan Primary? Good. A simple Google (or use whatever search engine you like) will readily come up with Obama discussing the issue. I'm not anyone's librarian, to those asking for links. Your all CAPS response as to why Clinton left her name (as did Kucinich, etc.) was really off base, however. Google why she said, way before Michigan voted in their "meaningless" election, she was keeping her name on the ballot. It's a pretty laudable reason if you ask me, and others have agreed. I'm sorry if it annoys a few Obama supporters, but if there is going to be unity and cooperation amongst Democrats, Obama supporters have got to stop denying that they are still running an active campaign as well. Both campaigns did some gnarly things. This effort of especiallycriticizing Clinton is just patronizing. I think there has been an issue associated with that particular attitude. And Obama's planned stop in Iowa before voting in the primaries has completed is going to go down badly.
by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

No, you know what - it's as simple as this:

If you are counting Michigan in any argument concerning popular vote or concerning the "will of the people" or whatever, and you're giving 0 votes to Obama (not even the uncommited ones), then you're simply not worth talking to.

As such the entire Clinton campaign and all their hardcore fans on the Internet, have officially stopped being worth talking to, as they're all claiming she's the popular vote winner.

There's no further point discussing people as fundamentally dishonest with that -- my discussion of pledges and rules, and the very meaning of democracy is meaningless and wasted. Not with people who are counting Michigan in a popular vote tally and are giving 0 votes to Obama.

So this is the end: From now on, I won't be attempting to discuss with you, I'll just be mocking you. You people don't deserve anything better.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

"Why did Obama campaign in Florida?"

He ran national ads that happened to run in Florida.  That's it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

But they still ran there. And he didnt' have to run these ads and knew full well that they were appearing in FLorida. Why not wait until after the vote to run them?


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Because the DNC said it was okay, and it's cheaper to run national ads than it is a series of regional ones.

Simple marketing reality.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Where did he get special clearance by the DNC? Did he ask for this clearance in advance? I never heard anything about this.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Yeah he got special clearance, didn't you hear about them checking his passport files??


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

because unlike Hillary he was thinking to Super Tuesday and beyond?


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

He also ran ads on CNN and other stations very likely to be covering the Florida results - or at least discussing it. Please stop trying to obscure obvious campaign efforts to "not campaign" in Florida. It's a disingenious narrative at this point, and unnecessary.
by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Michigan doesn't count (2.00 / 3)

And Obama believes this, then why doens't he just come out and say "no delegates for you" and stand by that position? Instead, he supports proposals where Michigan WOULD count, as long as it is done in way more favorable to him than what actually transpired when people voted. His camp has pushed for a proposal where he and HRC would split the delegates 50/50. Why should anyone get any delegates if "Michigan doesn't count" and Obama agreed to this?


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

Because he's not blind to the possibility that totally ignoring those two states would insult them.

Only a fool surrenders a position of strength.  If he benefits from applying the rules fairly, then he's got two good reasons to follow them.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

So basically, he's playing politics with it and not standing on principle, which is what, I admit, Clinton is doing too.


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

That's not what I said.  He's operating within the rules of the party.  He hasn't done anything I can think of that violated the DNC's rules, without their prior permission anyway.

So thank you for putting words into my mouth.  My point was that he is taking a principled stand that also happens to help him.

That's about the best position you can possibly be in.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

How is it principled for him to support any plan that allocates him any or anyone else any delegats from Michigan at all? A principled stand would be to say "Sorry Michigan, you broke the rules, the DNC has penalized you and therefore, you aren't entitled to any delegates at all and no candidates should get any"


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

It is principled to toss out results that are completely and utterly unfair and laughable.

It is insane to say that Michigan should not be represented at the convention.  Can your mind handle both of these thoughts simultaneously?

A principled stand need not be taken to its most absurd extreme in order to be principled.  It also need not be carried out to the point that it serves no good purpose in order to be principled.

You're really getting hung up on this one here.  Are you saying you'd be happy with giving Senator Clinton credit for her votes and nobody else does?

Are you saying that you're okay with a few states totally screwing up the primary calendar such that only big states have a say?

That's what happens if you allow Michigan and Florida to do what they did.

However, doing nothing to seat them at all hurts us in the general.  That's why some kind of compromise is needed.  We have to find a resolution that gives both sides enough of what they want so they can all move on and learn from this mess.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

Because the DNC has said...

1. They want to seat the delegates, in a fair manner that is accepted by both campaigns and is fair to the 48 states that actually followed the rules.
2. They believe there needs to be some sort of penalty, to deter states from moving primaries ahead in the future.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

Alright Mr. Democrat lets not try and resolve MI and FL and have there states mean nothing, then what happens in the GE, do you care??  Or is this really just about setting up strawmen so you can ridicule Obama more...What really is your point??


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

Thank You. What you're saying nullifies any complaint that Hillary left her name on the ballot. Her stated reason was the same - not to insult voters.
by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

I guess since you're not from MI you don't keep up with the latest. They approve a deal that would give her 69 to his 59 delegates. Clinton campaign doesn't.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

I know of that one as well. How is that acceptable, under the logic that "Michigan doesn't count?" If it doesn't, then logically, shouln't there be no deals and no seating of any delegates?


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

Geez...because the DNC knows its party suicide if they do not seat some of the delgates and will be used against them in the GE by the Repugs.  The DNC has also stated they want input for both campaigns on resolving the issue, Obama agreed to 69-59 but HRC wants him to get none, zip, nada...Obama could counter and ask for a 50-50 split but he wants to seat them in a fair manner.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Michigan doesn't count (none / 0)

you deserve a hundred 4s for this comment.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's quite simple ... (2.00 / 3)

Hillary was simply merely expressing the expectations of just about everyone at the time. Nobody thought that Florida or Michigan would count because everyone thought that this nomination process was going to be wrapped up quickly, most likely by Super Tuesday. When it became clear that this was instead going to be the closest contest in the history of Democratic party nominations, the idea of not allowing voters in these two states to have a say in the process became anathema to most people with a memory of 200o and an eye on the GE. Obama should have never tried to stonewall efforts to allow a revote.

Obama also should have to pay for his mistake of withdrawing his name from the Michigan ballot. Nothing in the DNC rules compelled him to do that. He did so in part to curry the favor with Iowa caucus voters -- and to that extent, his strategy probably succeeded. But while it may have seemed like a wise move at the time, it turned out to be foolish, just as the Clinton campaign's decision to focus on the big states and not pay sufficient attention to the smaller caucus states turned out to be extremely foolish. And just as Hillary has to live with her mistakes, Obama should have to live with his.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST

Re: It's quite simple ... (none / 0)

So now it's a mistake to follow the agreement and not participate in the MI primary by taking his name off?

People who play by the rules shouldn't be penalized.  I think that's a principle worth following.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (1.66 / 3)

Hillary did NOT participate in the Michargan primary or in the Florida primary, where Obama was the only candidate to run ads on Florida cable networks. He also participated in the Michigan primary, to the extent that his campaign ran an unsuccesful ad campaign to get voters to vote uncommitted, in a failed attempt to embarrass Hillary.

There was no rule compelling anyone to take their names off the Michigan ballot. Edwards, Obama, and Biden merely did so to curry favor with Iowa caucus voters (and to a lesser extent, the pro-Dean blogosphere) -- such was their right, but it turned out to be a poor move strategically. Moreover, Hillary was not the only candidate to keep her name on the ballot. Dodd and Kucinich did so as well, and Gravel would have if he could have gotten his name on the ballot in the first place.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (none / 0)

He ran national ads.  Florida is part of the nation.

It is far cheaper to run national ads, if you want to cast a wide net, than it is to run a bunch of regional ones.

The DNC okayed him doing this anyway.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 1)

primary, then why should she be awarded any popular votes or delegates from Michigan?

The obvious answer yo your idiotic statement is that she DID compete in the MI primary - if she didn't want to compete in it she should have taken her name off the ballot. She kept her name on it so she could flip-flop on this issue if one days she realized she needed the delegates to catch up to Obama.


by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 1)

Oh and btw I troll-rated you for lying. You know damn well she participated in the MI primary, with EVERY intention of going back on her word if she needed the delegates in the future.

She is unbelievably dishonest - part of the reason why I would never vote for her. We don't need 8 more years of a President who is a pathological liar.


by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 1)

Believe it or not your version of reality is merely your opinion and nothing more. I'm not a liar and you you are unbelievably uncivil for call me such.

Btw, every candidate except for Obama managed to avoid running ads in Florida. It's a bit more complicated, but you can run ads on cable without their running in all 50 states. Obama chose to make that ad buy anyway, so he, rather than Hillary. violated the rules regarding not campaigning in Florida or Michigan.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200 80123/NEWS/801230668


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (2.00 / 1)

The DNC okayed the ad buy.  Why won't you acknowledge that!?!?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 1)

I won't acknowledge it because this is the first time I ever heard about it. And you have still not provided me with a link to prove your contention, so for all I know you are simply making this stuff up.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

After some googling, I apologize.  Several state chairs told him it would not be a problem, but the DNC proper did not.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

That's alright. I just can't believe I'm being troll-rated for discussing this. I don't understand why some Obama supporters are so short-tempered. I know I'd be feeling more magnanimous if my candidate were in Obama's position.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

Saying that Hillary did not compete in Michigan (when she was the only candidate to not remove her name from the ballot) is a lie - it's that simple.

There's no ambiguity involved in the fact that she DID compete there.


by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 2)

Saying that she didn't participate in Michigan is a LIE, by every possible definition of LYING that there is.

Anyway who claims that Clinton didn't participate in the Michigan primary, or that she kept her pledge, is a bloody liar.

You're a LIAR, and so is Clinton, but you simply don't give a damn.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

Do you need a paper bag, or are you done hyperventilating yet?

Here's what the esteemed Big Tent Democrat had to say about the Michigan and Florida debacles:

What Josh knows is pretty clearly wrong. First thing Josh seems NOT to know is that taking their name off the ballots was NOT required of the candidates by the Democratic Party. If it was, then Clinton AND Obama AND Edwards are violating the rules as they ALL have their names on the ballot. But of course the rules can not require this for to take their names off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law. So much for that "rule." More . . .

Second thing Josh does not know is that the decision to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan was initiated by Obama, the Party had nothing to do with it, and Obama's request was adhered to by Edwards and some of the other candidates but NOT Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel (the dirty cheaters). See, HALF of the candidates did not remove their names from the ballot. There was NO RULE requiring it.

What TPM does not realize is that the removal was an attempted power play by Obama because he knew he could not run well in Michigan and thought that the pressure of Iowa (protect the whole first thing) would allow him to shut down the possibility of a Michigan beauty contest being deemed meaningful. And indeed Obama's hardball ploy worked. Michigan was not covered.

However, when Obama saw that Hillary was not going to play his game, he did not remove his name from the Florida ballot, nor could he under Florida law without dropping out of the race entirely. And neither did Edwards. Hence they are all dirty scoundrels breaking the rules in Florida.

BTW, if TPM, as it seems to want to a lot these days, wanted to criticize the Clinton campaign on this, he missed the real line of attack - Clinton made her statement today in order to roll up a big win in Florida on January 29 and try to get the Media to give it attention. BECAUSE Obama and Edwards kept their names on the ballot, Florida is much more susceptible to being treated as a real contest than was Michigan.

But that is the fault of Obama and Edwards, they are the ones who decided to join Clinton in "violating" the rules. Or more properly, the fault of Florida law, otherwise known as "the rules."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/25/ 183713/960

I'm ready for your apology, whenever you wish to tender it.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (1.00 / 2)

So you're answering with non-sequitur blockquotes, that don't address the issue of how Clinton signed a pledge not to participate and then she nonetheless participated -- and you ask for an apology?

a) She signed a pledge not to participate.
b) She broke that pledge.
c) You're not acknowledging this.

Nothing written in that blockquote changes these three facts. As such, you and Clinton are still liars.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

Here another quote for you, this time from Donald from Hawaii*. If you cannot follow the logic, I won't be able to help you out:

Let me repeat this salient point of fact, since Obama supporters seem so intent on ignoring the inherent reality of it:

Barack Obama's name, like that of John Edwards, was not listed on Michigan's Democratic primary ballot by his own terribly ill-advised choice. That decision was not coerced, and was made of his own free will.

Nobody forced Obama and Edwards off Michigan's Democratic ballot. Nobody in the Democratic Party threatened their respective campaigns with sanctions. Both men withdrew their names simply to curry favor with Iowa caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters.

Further, operatives of both campaigns -- in blatant violation of their candidates' mutual pledge with Sen. Clinton to not campaign in Michigan -- took out newspaper ads and held press conferences urging their own supporters in that state to vote "uncommitted" in the primary. 39% of Michigan's primary voters subsequently did just that.

Now the Obama campaign whines that its candidate is really the victim here? It is to laugh. To be blunt, I am sick and tired of Obama supporters in both the punditry and the laity who either willfully mischaracterize the events surrounding the Michigan primary, or else prefer to indulge their own obviously selective memories regarding what happened there.

They should get exactly what they originally sought, and what they truly deserve, which is no pledged delegates from the state of Michigan. Further, that state's delegation should be fully seated at the convention with a corresponding number of its members pledged as "uncommitted for the first ballot.

Sen. Obama deliberately chose to play an ill-advised game of political "Gotcha!" with the state's Democratic voters, who turned out in record numbers anyway, and of whom 55% voted for Hillary Clinton. He's the one who sought to thwart the will of the voters, not Mrs. Clinton.

Now he seeks to change the rules mid-stream, and mock those same voters again by seizing through the party leadership's fiat an undeserved and outsized percentage of Michigan delegates.

If Obama gains the nomination through such gerrymandering, and we allow it to happen, then we get what we deserve.

To look at our dilemma in a larger and necessary context, it is eminently clear that Sen. Obama's campaign peaked in mid-February, and is now gliding toward the nomination on a discernible downward trajectory. He's won exactly two primaries since then, in Vermont and North Carolina -- and even then, he won the latter only because the Carolina Democratic electorate is disproportionately African-American relative to the state's populace as a whole.

Further, prospective Democratic presidential nominees should not be polling under 30% in ANY Democratic primary, regardless of date and time, and irrespective of locale.

With his overwhelming advantages in both campaign funding and logistics, that Sen. Obama did so poorly in West Virginia -- and may well repeat that dismal performance in Kentucky next Tuesday, as well as simultaneously underperform in Oregon -- speaks to the issue of his electability as being both seriously compromised and essentially problematic.

* Donald from Hawaii is a former senior staff analyst the House Democratic leadership in the Hawaii State Legislature, and a former communications specialist for the Democratic Party of Hawaii.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So if she didn't participate in the MI (none / 0)

I forgot to leave the link:

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/5/ 17/17458/0529/189#189


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all... (none / 0)

Dodd had dropped out by the time MI voted.  Second, Kucinich's campaign was a joke, your argument can't be that because Kucinich does something, Hillary should too.

Thirdly, one can not claim to have won a contest that that person did not participate in.  It is clear that Hillary knew this also, given that she said that the MI contest would not count for anything.  If it did not count for anything, then no one can win delegates from it.

Lastly, point me to any credible evidence that the campaign was involved with the vote uncommitted movement.  I live in MI and all the evidence I have seen points to local, grassroots action.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (none / 0)

Hillary did NOT participate in the Michargan primary or in the Florida primary, where Obama was the only candidate to run ads on Florida cable networks. He also participated in the Michigan primary, to the extent that his campaign ran an unsuccesful ad campaign to get voters to vote uncommitted, in a failed attempt to embarrass Hillary.

Obama ran national ads, not local ones. He had the cash and chose to, which is his right. His "campaign" did not run the "uncommitted" movement, it was his supporters. Copy/paste:

Supporters of Obama and Edwards urged voters to vote "uncommitted." [snip] Last week, Rep. John Conyers Jr., a Detroit Democrat who supports Obama, began running radio commercials imploring party members to vote uncommitted.

-http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=20080115/POLITICS01/801150390 -1/rss

There was no rule compelling anyone to take their names off the Michigan ballot. Edwards, Obama, and Biden merely did so to curry favor with Iowa caucus voters (and to a lesser extent, the pro-Dean blogosphere) -- such was their right, but it turned out to be a poor move strategically.

Honestly, based off of the demographic information we've been seeing in the region, it's possible that Clinton would've won the state regardless. But by removing that possibility from the table, they completely invalidated any results (and a possible Clinton win). They also managed to create a situation where they could eliminate both primaries by saying "but Michigan didn't even have names on the ballot!" Strategically, it appears pretty savvy.

...Gravel would have if he could have gotten his name on the ballot in the first place.

Oh, Mike Gravel... Is there any discussion you can't make just a little more silly?


by TCQuad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (1.66 / 3)

Obama ran national ads, not local ones. He had the cash and chose to, which is his right.

Yes, except for that he was not supposed to run ads in Florida. If you will recall, the Clinton campaign had plenty of cash on hand at that time too, but she chose not to run national ads because that would have violated the spirit of the agreement with the DNC. Now I am being told that Obama had special clearance from the DNC to make this ad buy, but no one has provided my with a shred of evidence that this was the case. If you could do so, I would be delighted.

I'm glad that you are at least acknowledge that Obama, Edwards, and Biden removed their names from the Michigan ballot for strategic reasons.

And hey, I happen to like Mike Gravel. He was the most genuine anti-war candidate in the race, and the one with the best sense of humor as well.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (2.00 / 1)

Yes, except for that he was not supposed to run ads in Florida. If you will recall, the Clinton campaign had plenty of cash on hand at that time too, but she chose not to run national ads because that would have violated the spirit of the agreement with the DNC. Now I am being told that Obama had special clearance from the DNC to make this ad buy, but no one has provided my with a shred of evidence that this was the case. If you could do so, I would be delighted.

OK, here's what I found. The ad buy was after Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada but before South Carolina. The Obama camp checked with the SC chair, who OK'd it. Iowa, NH and Nevada chairs deferred to SC on the matter. Since the agreement was primarily an issue promoted by the state chairs, their approval was considered to be the important one.
-http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html
(On a side note, I realize the irony of using an entry with that title to defend Obama on this matter)

The Clinton campaign seemed to be the only ones who had a serious issue with the matter. If I was a cynic (spoiler: I am), I could make the argument that she wanted to preserve her lead there for a later delegate push if necessary.

I'm glad that you are at least acknowledge that Obama, Edwards, and Biden removed their names from the Michigan ballot for strategic reasons.

No politics occurs in a vacuum. And, like I said, I'm a cynic.

And hey, I happen to like Mike Gravel. He was the most genuine anti-war candidate in the race, and the one with the best sense of humor as well.

I had high hopes that Gravel and Paul (on the Republican side) could make this an entertaining process. Unfortunately, Paul tried to use reason in an environment not particularly conducive to it (the Republican party), with unintentionally hilarious results anytime he talked to Guiliani.

Gravel was mildly amusing until he started answering questions randomly (like saying English should be the official language), weakly defending himself (like saying he thought they were asking if it should be the national language, which is different) and then posting esoteric campaign ads.

Seriously, I still don't know the point of those things. Why is he looking into the camera making me feel uncomfortable?


by TCQuad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (none / 0)

No politics occurs in a vacuum. And, like I said, I'm a cynic.

I think that cynicism should hold a much more honored place in American political analysis than currently obtains.

Gravel was mildly amusing until he started answering questions randomly (like saying English should be the official language), weakly defending himself (like saying he thought they were asking if it should be the national language, which is different) and then posting esoteric campaign ads.

Seriously, I still don't know the point of those things. Why is he looking into the camera making me feel uncomfortable?

LOL, I never said he was a great candidate, but aside from the huge debt of gratitude that this country owes him for single-handedly helping to end the Vietnam war sooner than it otherwise would have, you have to give some credit to a candidate who comes up with the following Christmas greeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0SQusLdl pE

And since you asked, here's the "logic" behind his staring ad:

To the untrained eye, it looks like video of a man staring into a camera, then picking up a rock and dropping it into a lake.

Yet it's been analyzed in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times , mocked by Jon Stewart, and viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.

So what exactly is it?

In an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," longshot Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel finally gave his explanation for the "metaphor" behind his widely seen and much discussed Web ad, "Rock."

"It's a metaphor not only for a presidential candidate, for any citizen," said Gravel, whose presidential campaign barely registers in the polls. "The ripples, the ripples. It's a metaphor, George. The ripples show the effect, and then you march off into the horizon."

It's confusing, but it may also be smart strategy for a presidential candidate with low name recognition, even less money, and virtually no chance of winning anything.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/07/gravel-finally-.html


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's quite simple ... (none / 0)

So Obama should have to "pay for his mistake" and Michigan and Florida shouldn't??  WTF


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

boo hoo "sweetie" (1.33 / 6)

the goal posts have moved on both sides as the primary has gone on.  Our system is being tested.

There was NO reason for Obama to take his name off the ballot except he and Edwards knew Hillary was going to win there.  
Why didn't he take his name off of the FL ballot?  Why did he run a campaign in MI for the uncommitted vote?

Frankly the whining for ObamaSweetie is getting deafening around here.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:48:31 PM EST

Because... (none / 0)

As I am sure someone has said to you before, to remove his name from the FL ballot he would have had to drop out of the presidential race.  That, obviously, was not going to happen.

As I said above, there is no evidence that the campaign was involved in the vote uncommitted movement.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: boo hoo "sweetie" (none / 0)

Bitter?


Everybody loves the Engels.
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: boo hoo "sweetie" (1.00 / 1)

Troll-rated for lying.


by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just a suggestion. (none / 0)

You're playing with fire here.  Troll ratings are not really meant for lies, they're meant for inflammatory and defamatory rhetoric.  If someone is lying, it's better to prove them wrong in a comment.  That way their lies are pointed out for all to see.

I know it can be frustrating, but I think that the guideline makes sense.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just a suggestion. (1.00 / 1)

I TR pro-Obama people when they tell lies about Hillary as well. Even though I support Obama, I am an eqaul-opportunity TR'er.

If anyone tries to say something that is patently false, I am going to TR it.


by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: boo hoo "sweetie" (none / 0)

Please tape record yourself, and then get back to me...


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

What baffles me is why the MSM doesn't focus on the fact that the only candidate that went back on their pledge to not be on the ballot is the same one who now is insistent on counting the results.  Why would anyone want to bring attention to the fact they won by going back on their word?


by Rick in Eugene on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (2.00 / 1)

Nobody pledged to not be on the ballot.


by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Nor was Hillary's the only name on the ballot.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Everybody pledged not to participate in the contest.  Can you win a prize in a contest if you don't participate?  No.

Hillary showed she knew this with her "doesn't count for anything" comment.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (1.00 / 2)

Yeah, because Hillary Clinton has her own special dictionary in which "participate in a primary" has a unique special meaning, just for her.

Hillary Clinton also said those votes "wouldn't count for anything" but it turns she also has a special dictionary in which "those votes wouldn't count for anything" translates to "those votes will be absolutely crucial to my sole remaining argument".

That Hillary Clinton dictionary also has the words "encountered sniper fire" to truly mean "was read a poem by a little girl".

Don't you just LOVE that special Hillary Clinton dictionary?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what pledge sweetie? (1.33 / 3)

I haven't seen one or heard of one except in the imaginations of Obama supporters.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ahem (none / 0)

She said the election in MI "will clearly not count for anything", can you explain why she changed her mind on that? Is there any other explanation other than she didn't like how the game was going so she wants to change the rules?
by mikeinsf on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right here. (none / 0)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right here. (none / 0)

Pledges mean nothing to her supporters, only if its about Obama and the "Pledge" of Allegiance....


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have asked this... (none / 0)

this question dozens of times on different threads. the answer is always... ( )
by mikeinsf on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST

I'll answer! (none / 0)

She was wrong. Big freaking deal. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what Obama or Clinton said or didn't say. It's not about them. It's about the 700,000 people who came out in the dead of winter to have their voices heard. The Democratic Party has NO right to silence them. Their votes were clear and absolute:
55% of them supported her delegaets and 45% of them supported the "uncomitted slate."
The delegates should be seated as is!
by LDFan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:59:01 PM EST

Re: I'll answer! (none / 0)

"She was wrong. Big freaking deal."

Yes, tell a people an election doesn't count, then demand to count it when it favours you, as it certainly as you're the only serious candidate on the ballot.

"The delegates should be seated as is!"

Leaving aside for a moment the rather crucial point that no primary with campaigning disallowed should EVER be accepted as legitimate... unless you want to be Russia, ofcourse.

...It's not about the delegates anymore, didn't you hear? If it was just about the delegates it wouldn't matter, because Obama has enough of a lead on Clinton that you could seat three Michigans and it still wouldn't matter.

This is about the popular vote, and about how 0% of the people in Michigan supported Obama, and about the demand of how the rest of us must accept that Clinton supposedly is the popular vote winner.

Well I will never accept that, because it's a LIE. Clinton is not the popular vote winner, and she will never be. This isn't even about the nomination any more, it's about separating plain LYING from FACT. It's about not trying to manipulate reality.

It's about this piece of Clintonian propaganda representing every single thing I despise in the reality-raping that the Bush administration represented.

When will you people take a stand on the side of reality?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll answer! (none / 0)

What a joke...Are you even aware that Barack Obama won his first election (a primary) by knocking his five other opponents off the ballot!!!! You want to cancel the results of that one?

This is about more than Clinton or Obama. Don't tell me she was the only choice. The people were allowed to vote for Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, or uncommitted. And over 700,000 people came out and voted.

55% chose Clinton
45% chose uncommitted

If he wants those delegates let him fight for them at the convention.

By the way:
The people of Illinios in 1996 were given this choice in the primary

Obama

He knocked his opponents off the ballot and dares to complain about an election where he VOLUNTARILY took his name off the ballot...what a joke
 


by LDFan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll answer! (none / 0)

"He knocked his opponents off the ballot and dares to complain about an election where he VOLUNTARILY took his name off the ballot...what a joke"

What complaining? The only complaining about the existence of rules comes from the Clinton side.

"If he wants those delegates let him fight for them at the convention."

It's not about the delegates. He doesn't need the delegates anymore. He has a lead of about 200 delegates, and you can seat 4 extra Michigans, and it still wouldn't cover the distance.

It's about the popular vote, nowadays, it's about sore loser Clinton fans wanting to present Hillary Clinton as the "legitimate" winner.

Well, she's not. She lost, on popular vote and delegates alike.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And... (none / 0)

she has every right to change her mind! Just like him. After all, in 2005 he said he would not run for President because he didn't have enough experience...what happened? He changed his mind. So did she.


by LDFan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST

Re: And... (none / 0)

...she has every right to change her mind! "

Oooh, I like that -- I'll be participating in votes, but only if I retain the right to decide after the vote on whether it counts for anything or not.

What can ever be more democratic than that, my retaining absolute veto power over the validity of any vote after I hear of the results?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something that baffles me, regarding Michigan (none / 0)

Something approaching the actual truth seems to be trying to come out of this discussion. The states should just be counted as voted. The DNC can also apologize for their aggressive stupidity in trying to punish states for trying to get ahead of the pack. Think about it. It was more important to tell two major battleground states that they had to be severely and excessively punished for having elections before they were given permission so that in 2012 there wouldn't be a mad rush to go first, than it was to focus on 2008 and get a Democrat elected to The White House?

Revoting those states would have been an acceptable solution - months ago. Obama opposed that. Obama thought the longer he held out the better outcome his campaign would have. Don't even try to say his "supporters" ran the drive to get people for Obama to vote undecided. He doesn't deserve consideration based on his curent status or number of pledged delegates. He'll get consideration because he is a Democrat and has lots of supporters. He'll get some delegates and everyone who voted will have their vote counted. How is that unfair?


by Jeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me... (1.00 / 1)

Is why Obamabots can't answer the question as to why Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, but left it on the ballot in Florida.

The answer to that question will clear up your problem of being baffled.

Barack Obama took his name off the ballot because there was a debate about Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Michigan holding their primaries outside of the dates the DNC approved. All of them did so. Only two of them were punished for doing so.

Obama not only took his OWN name off the ballot, but he talked John Edwards into taking HIS name off the ballot as well.

Why? Because they were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire, and they thought if they put pressure on Clinton, she'd be forced to take her name off the ballot as well.

Didn't work. Clinton refused to take her name off the ballot.

In that clip, she is responding to their sniping about Clinton leaving her name on the ballot, while they sought to isolate her in the eyes of Iowa and New Hampshire voters. She felt besieged as a result of their sniping and attacks. She is answering the Obama and Edwards criticism PRIOR to the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, trying to defend herself by saying "it's clear these primaries aren't going to count for anything," [SO WHY ARE THEY ATTACKING ME about leaving my name on the ballot?]

She didn't say they SHOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING; she was referring to the DNC's decision.

So, basically your question is not as clever as you think for slyly repeating it, as if no one can answer you. And, you are not baffled at all, but too cute by half.

Clinton has, at least, been consistent. She left her name on all ballots in all states; Barack Obama has run a 48-state campaign.

It has been asked and answered. If you don't like the answer, that is YOUR PROBLEM.

Now, I have a question of my own:

Do you, or do you not, support the disenfranchisement of 2.3 million Democratic voters? A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:07:08 PM EST

Re: Something that baffles me... (none / 0)

"Is why Obamabots can't answer the question as to why Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, but left it on the ballot in Florida"

You know he wasn't allowed to, by Florida law, not unless he was withdrawing his bid for the nomination altogether.

You know that, everyone who has access to the Internet knows that, you simply don't care.

And this simply makes you a LIAR.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they're delegates were not taken away (none / 0)

in November

FYI

Also, the names of the candidates (Obama and co.) were not taken off November either.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.