Obama expresses concern about vote-by-mail idea

"I think all of us are interested in making sure that they are seated in some way that doesn't advantage one candidate or another too much," Obama said. "What we believe is that there should be some way of arriving at a fair settlement that respects the fact that there were rules in place, but also makes sure that the Michigan and Florida voters are seated."

In other words, if it doesn't favor o'bammy, or if it further exposes his fairy tale, it's down the tubes. There won't be an oprah or anyone else to influence the Post Office how to deliver the votes.

Fire drill: No good.
Mail in ballot: No good.
What exactly WOULD be okay with the obamessiah?

And these are the people you want running your health care?

What a joke!

Paulo

I voted for Hillary in the Florida primary in January. If there is a re-vote, I will vote for her AGAIN. I still think she is the most qualified candidate.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT !!!

He should be concerned. This is one of the most corruptstates when it comes to voting and now they want to use an Oregon mail in model, but with little time to collect all the signatures. I don't see how this could possibly be the solution to this problem. Which of course is why the Clintons want it. Not to mention that the republican Governor wants it to happen because the republicans are desparate to run against Hillary.

Who could blame them. I mean she is a disaster.

"There are people in the party who are very concerned about this turning into some kind of a Bataan Death March."

David Axelrod

The Bataan Death March continues!!!

People in Florida did not go to the polls to cast a check mark for their favorite Democratic Candidate as they knew it was just a beauty contest. They went to the polls to vote for or against Property Tax Reform (lowering of property taxes). We all knew the primaries did not matter.. So I do not want to hear that Florida is upset that their vote doesn't count. I do not want to hear that it's the Democratic National Committee that is to blame, when it's our own Governor Crist and the state Run Republicans who voted to move the Date, knowing the consequences to doing this.

The Republicans do not want to run against Obama. They want to run against Hillary. The reason, Obama can out perform their candidate in raising cash, can steal independents and moderate republicans, and he and his campaign really have a way of bring out the vote. Hillary on the other hand, will ensure that the Republicans Vote, because of their distain for the Clintons. She also hasn't proven herself as a good manager of her campaign and her fund raising really hasn't been what it ought to be.

For those voters who state they will vote for McCain I say to them this. Do it. There is a good chance, you all are Hillary Voters, and frankly she already knifed her party in the back by telling you to vote for him if she doesn't win. So DO IT. For those voters who state they will become independents. DO IT. That way you have no say in any primary. Independents cannot vote in Democratic or Republican Primaries.

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

I'll bet ol' Hilly wants those delegates so bad she can taste em! Obama should probably just let her have the alzheimers vote down in florida if for no better reason than they DESERVE to get a say in the primary (even if they won't remember who they voted for the next day). But in Michigan it should be NO DEAL unless Obama's name actually APPEARS on the ballot. I know that Hilly would just LOVE to cheat the system and STEAL all the delegates (after all that's how she rolls) but that's unrealistic and I really don't believe the DNC will stand for it. Obama on the other hand stands very little to gain and probably will lose some of his lead after this "DO OVER" is a done deal. I'm just hoping that EVENTUALLY the soft skulls in this country will FINALLY wise up to what Hilly REALLY is about (It sure ain't the people she's pullin' the snow job on that's for sure) and cut her off before it's too late. Me, I'm getting ready for my fall back plan (McCain) because ANYTHING, even more of the same, is better than having the Clinton's back in power.

The delegates cannot be fairly seated as is. But a re-vote has its own issues pertaining to financing and legitimacy. And it wouldn't be very democratic to not count either state.

The only real solution to this problem is to seat the delegations in such a manner that they do not affect the current race's standings. A 50/50 split or a reduced number would be the most fair ways to accomplish this.

Obama’s concern about the votes being fair, what about the caucus was the votes fair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRO3KO6Ws34

Seems to me that should Michigan and Florida come up with a way to vote they should still lose half their delegates akin to the punishment levied by the GOP. Otherwise the bite from their punishment is lost while the two states end up getting to play a pivotal role in the primaries, which was their reason for moving up their elections, against the rules,in the first place.

If we redo the MI and FL primaries and Hillary loses, what will be the next step -- a recount of the redo? Or a rehash of the recount of the redo?

Who would not be concerned about voting fairness in Florida? Hello planet earth, remember 2000?

Republicans we need Florida and Michigan! If we work together with Hillary we can and combine our voting tricks and unfair influence and might be able to get Hillary as the nominee. Mccain will beat her beat her in the general election and even if he does not Hillary will play ball with our lobbyist and special interests. Lets go Florida ! If we can steal It for Bush It a general campaign for president with established rules and guidlines we can sure steal it easy now in the confusion of a revote!

I'm sure that you egalitarian democrats will resolve this little matter in a way that will capture the honorable-ness and fairness that democrats are always about.

I know that this is a little issue for Michigan and Florida and not Texas, and that somehow those evil Republicans have contrived this situation. As a matter of election history, however, abide in me as I note that stealing votes is a venerable democrat tradition, at least in Texas. LBJ's election to the Senate in 1948 would be the model standard. I think that the better man won in 1948, but everyone in South Texas knows that Senate election was stolen. Even though that was 60 years ago, u will NEVER see Tx democrats in favor of ANY form of voter identification, and clearly it is not too hard to imagine why. They are ADAMANTLY opposed to this very simple act of voter verification. Good luck to u, Great Obama. Good luck to u, Hillary. Hope you fine folk have your favorite rabbit's foot in your pocket.

A revote seems best with each delegate awarded 1/2 vote.