Florida Makes It Official: No Do-Over
From CNN:
After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.
The state party’s leaders have been seeking a way to have Florida’s delegation seated at the Democratic National Convention.
“We researched every potential alternative process — from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections — but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida,” said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.
Thurman said the decision now falls to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again next month.
But it is not clear whether that committee has the power to make a final decision, or whether it will fall to the Credentials Committee, which will decide in August which delegations will be seated at the presidential nominating convention in Denver.
The upshot? We’re getting closer to a contested, brokered convention. If the decision is postponed until August, Clinton has even less incentive to drop out. With Obama facing his first real crisis of the campaign over inflammatory remarks by his former pastor and campaign ‘spiritual adviser’, we now enter a very ugly phase of the campaign, the perhaps inevitable racial divide that no amount of feel-good campaign rhetoric can paper over.
It’s debatable whether Obama is doing the right thing by scheduling a speech on race tomorrow. It keeps the Wright story in the news cycle, it opens the door to other inflammatory quotes by Wright (and Farrakhan), it distracts from Obama’s campaign themes, and indeed, it’s a sign of how badly Obama has been hurt by the story that he is taking this step.
The main reason I think it is a mistake, however, is that it will be devilishly difficult for Obama, a man who inspires many but who is not, on the whole, an original thinker, to say anything worthwhile about race that won’t ignite another storm of controversy. The alternative is to serve up some bland platitudes that don’t address anything of substance.
I wish him the best, and he’s announced it, so he’s got to through with it, but my advice would have been, put the clamps on. Tell the press I’ve addressed the situation, I’ve removed the adviser, I’ve condemned the comments, and now I’m going to talk about my plans for the country over the next eight years. The story would die soon enough – scandals don’t have a long shelf-life these days (Eliot who?)…
I don’t know; I think this could work. It could be the Kennedy speech for this cycle that Romney tried (and failed, disastrously) to have.
Or it could be a disaster. We’ll see.
I’m with Ryan on this.
Bill Clinton could get away with “I’ve addressed this.” Obama won’t be able to — the media’s not going to let it go. Not after his “I went to Church every Sunday, and was inspired by this great preacher, and I never heard him preach.” gaff. It’s worse than Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” line, because it’s checkable. And the press will find tapes of Obama sitting in church, or on stage, and hearing his friend say atrocious things. And the tape will play over and over on the evening news.
Until he gets out in front of the issue.
Definitely a huge risk — but doing nothing won’t win him the nomination (the one he’s already earne), and the one thing he’s been able to do well so far is give inspirational speeches.
What did I say earlier? Florida delegates will be seated, and Michigan will have another primary.
Starting to look exactly like that, isn’t it?
A little early yet for “I told you so”!
I think Obama has a lot of risk here but no real good alternative. He can’t let this go any longer. He may hurt himself but remaining silent and/or stonewalling are approaches that I think are less likely to put this to rest.
Well, I have to say I think it *ought* to have worked. It was a good speech that gently excoriated everyone while simultaneously pointing out that both sides have good arguments/reasonable passions. Whether it *will* have worked is another issue that will only become clear with time. But, for my money, it was one of the more remarkable, intelligent, decent speeches I’ve heard in a while.
Hmmm… I heard no denouncement of the person nor of the hateful views he has often and repeatedly expressed, I heard an appeal that I need to understand the remarks in their historical context, I heard that he does not agree with them, I heard that his grandmother said some bad things.
Well written and well spoken, of course, but we expect no less. Will it work? We shall see.
No denouncement of the views? Seriously?
Those are directly out of the speech. And you, tms, say that there was no denouncement of the views? Come on now, you’re not even trying. There was also an attempt to place them in a historical context, sure. But try a little honesty, k?
When I listened to, and then read, the entire speech the impression I am left with is one in which Barrack Obama disagrees with the Reverend’s views, as he mus, but who also constructs an apologia for them via the context of the unfinished “journey” from our country’s founding principle to the achievement of that ideal, with the sins of slavery and so forth adding additional heft to this context. In other words, he says what we want to hear while adding a “but”. It is as if he is saying: I completely disagree with Rev. Wright but completely understand why he thinks the way he does.
I do think this speech will be successful in defusing the situation though.
This entire conversation is jumping the shark. It’s not enough to denounce his friend’s views as incorrect? He now has to actually throw his friend under the bus? That’s completely and totally crazy.
What’s more, the way Obama handled it is entirely representative of and consistent with the campaign he’s been running. One where he wants us not to just abandon people because they may disagree with us, but to support each other and realize what we do have in common. You may think it’s hopeless idealism, sure. But at the very least, his approach to Wright, and his condemnation of the extreme views without abandoning his friend, is consistent idealism.
HOLD ON! I’m afraid I am misunderstood, for which I take full responsibility. May I clarify?
He disagrees with him but has decided not to abandon him because he values his friendship more than he objects to the opinions on which they disagree. That’s it, I get it, I have no problem with it, I have close friends with whom I’ve done the same math.
I said the other day that I found his willingness to be direct refreshing. I don’t hold Obama accountable for what Wright says, no matter how many times, over how many years, he sat in the pews of Wright’s church.
I guess all I’m trying to say is that those who expected/wanted/demanded some complete repudiation of Wright by Obama, some sort of Sister Soujah moment, will be disappointed and those so inclined will try to take advantage.
“The way Obama handled it is entirely representative of and consistent with the campaign he’s been running. One where he wants us not to just abandon people because they may disagree with us, but to support each other and realize what we do have in common.”
Yeah, I can see that. Still, that means he sees people who doesn’t agree with much if anything of the Democratic Party platform as two sides of the same coin as Mr. “God Damn America” — and I suspect a fair number of the people who he’s trying to reach out to will consider the unstated comparison a little patronizing (yeah, sure, he hates America and thinks the AIDS virus was created by nazi zionists or whatever, but YOU oppose the living wage!). Or maybe not. Like Ryan said, time will tell.
It was a well delivered speech. Enough to sucker the media, I guess.
Nice flags in the background. Last refuge etc.
Obama said before today that he never heard anything controversial when he was in the pews. A lie apparently. Today he said sure he heard things but he denounces them.
Denounces then now. When he sees his poll numbers dropping. Not when they were made. Not when it would have actually made a difference for a Illinois or US Senator to stand up and insist that it was wrong to say, for instance, that the US government created aids.
I may have been incorrect on Michigan after all:
http://www.wwj.com/Democratic-Re-do-Likely-Won-t-Happen/1844462
That would be very damaging for Hillary, as I can’t see any way that the current Michigan delegates get seated at the convention since Obama wasn’t on the ballot. 40% voted “uncommitted”. I suppose someone might stretch and give all of those delegates to Obama, but I doubt the Obama campaign would be willing to settle for such a “compromise”.
Bob, look back at Obama’s actual words. He didn’t say he’d never heard anything controversial. He said he hadn’t heard the remarks that were the cause of the current controversy until later.
But it’s easier for you to lie.
Fargus:
I did “look back” at hi swords. In fact, I had before I made my comment.
Obama said in a posting on The Huffington Post:
“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.”
In his speech, he said:
“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?” Obama said. “Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”
Fargus, compare:
“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” versus “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
Lawyer parsing in my opinion. He didn’t hear “Goddamn America” or “Amerikkka” or “US created AIDS”, just other “controversial” things. Sure. Right.
So I think lie is a fair summary of what he said.
Shorter Obama:
“I did not hear that man, Mr. Wright, say those things.”
Did he wag his finger during that part?
He is just another cynical pol who will say anything to get ahead. Plenty of suckers wanting to believe. That is how the con works.
Another thing, Fragus.
I see Politicio agrees with me:
Contrary to his earlier suggestion = lie. Right?
(Yes, before you accuse me of not looking up something again, I know they try to walk it back some at the end–”not directly contradictory”.)
Your interpretation is that it was a lie, but you seem to also acknowledge that it could very reasonably be true. Good to know you’re interested in accuracy.
Bob, you’re wrong. And showing an inability to read in the process. “Did I hear the remarks that have started this controversy” is definitely different from “Did I ever hear anything you would consider controversial”. Different questions, different answers.
Maybe we should ask him if there’s a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Or if Iraq has WMD. Since we’re so worried about people telling lies.
Fargus
No, it cannot “reasonably” be true in my opinion. Politico may think that but I certainly don’t.
I find it not at all credible that all the comments on the videos just happen to have been made when Obama was not there.
He was there for other, unnamed, “controversial” comments. Just not the ones that are creating a problem. Other ones. (The ones without videos no doubt.)
Sure,is possible. Just like its possible that a large rabbit is going to deliver eggs this Sunday.
Ryan, I denounce the Iraq lies. I was not present for those lies but I heard about them.
Yes, the two lines are not exactly alike, they are just different enough so that fools like you can make the argument you are making. Plausible deniability is a good term for it.
See, though, Bob, your argument involves making a whole bunch of assumptions. Mine doesn’t.
Fargus, conservatives gave up on Occam’s Razor sometime around November 2000.
I now note that Brian Ross of ABC News seems to agree with me:
Fargus, your point:
“See, though, Bob, your argument involves making a whole bunch of assumptions. Mine doesn’t.”
That is the beauty of it. Obama parses his statement just enough to leave him an out. He is a good lawyer. Got to admire his skill.
Still a
liecontradiction.Bob: “Controversial” is the key word. He has heard plenty of what others would describe as “controversial” sermons but he had not heard about those particular “controversial” sermons. You see contridictions where you want to see them. It’s pretty simple. That’s the frustrating thing about the English language (and pretty much all languages generally), sometimes something seems to be a contradiction and yet it isn’t NECESSARILY one. It’s all about whether or not you believe you guy and you clearly don’t. Big deal, join the club. Be the chairman. Regardless, it was a good speech and to pretend it wasn’t by focusing on a supposed discrepancy is just goofy.
Are you a Christian man? You should try reading the bible with the same amount of zeal for seeking discrepancies. It ought to be a slam dunk.
“conservatives gave up on Occam’s Razor sometime around November 2000?”
Was that when they elected a President who can’t distinguish between Occam’s Razor and a Gilette Blue Blade?
Oops, Gillette