Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign

Disenfranchise the voters....Politics of hope and change????


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html


The DNC has not seated the Florida and Michigan delegates because the two states violated party edicts in holding their primaries early.

Although neither candidate campaigned in the two states, Clinton won about 50 percent of the Florida vote, compared to 33 percent for Obama. She won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of new voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right?" Kass said. "It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race he made sure voters had just one choice."

Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart, with the Chicago's Better Government Association. While records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

"He came from Chicago politics," Stewart said. "Politics ain't beanbag as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."

After 2000 and 2004 (and especially considering how HRC stood by silently) I want a nominee who is going to fight to keep the elections free, fair, and legal.

They hear only what they want to hear. They think Obama is evil so they only read articles that might help them to prove that point. When they can't find any, they distort what actually happened to show the world what he looks like through their distorted filter.

There's no sense arguing with them any longer. It's over. They just haven't accepted it yet. Let them post all the bullshit they want. The best response? Let it sink.

I like to see reminders that Obama is smart, fair, and tough. I'm sure other Obama supporters do, too.

even though we have been through this one several times its a good review

"That actually makes it through my armor"

Everytime I hear it, that is what I think now.

For the good of Obama you guys ought to give that phrase a sppedy and certain burial, cause otherwise it's gonna bite Democrats on the ass. It'll either be a club that Republicans use to beat us over the head with, or, more ominously, it'll become standard operating procedure. Do you, for even a minute, think that the guys wandering around doing the Bush Admin's dirty work don't have a phrase that means pretty much the same thing? Or that they don't use it at the drop of a hat?

Now ask your self how they can maintain such a tin-ear for what people actually want in this country.

No one was violating law: amateurs are sloppy, and professionals nail them at it. Sharp practice is hardly a problem to me, but that does not alter its proper name. Indeed, to my view the most promising aspect of Sen. Obama's campaign has been its ability to put over as 'new politics' a highly professional, machine-backed operation....

on the strength of invalid petitions. That is not in strict accordance with election law, and that is why the challenges were upheld. Sure, it isn't as if his opponents were criminal, or as if they were attempting fraud...but I think we can agree that there is nothing wrong with a Democrat using the law as a cudgel.

Because the local Election Commission does what the Daley machine directs, as any resident of the city knows. The regulations in question are designed to trap the unwary, and have little if any bearing on genuine questions of validity. As stated, the thing does not much bother me, because that is how the art is practiced here, but it ought to be called by its proper name, rather than spun as something a good government type should be in transports over.

Certainly I don't see how a longtime incumbent would qualify as "the unwary". Perhaps he was just really incompetent, though.

You must admit that, Sir.

I bid you to have a good day, Sir.

Adu, Sir.

"We don't want nobody nobody sent."

If his challenges were found to be based on fact and law, then it's all good.... However, when you break the rules, you often get your knuckles smacked....

Isn't it good that he knows election rules and laws in the first place? Unlike some...

I am so over Hilary. She really needs to get out now. I was all for her prior to Iowa and then I saw her turn into the true political hack she is. I just hope she gets out. I'll be writing my opinions soon about her at
http://www.chicagostripclublist.com

Isn't it just lovely?

Morning, Grantcart.

lots of kicks and a rec from me.

If and when voter disqualifications are based on pure technicalities, it can be argued whether seeking to invalidate such petitions is "the high road". If, to make up an example, legal signatures are supposed to be in black ink only but some voters get disqualified because their signatures were in blue ink, it would be hard to argue that seeking such a disqualification was taking "the high road". But if nothing illegal was done in such challenges, it could not be called "a low road" either. It would be called hard nosed effective politics; knowing the rule book, using the rule book to your full advantage. We do not want to run candidates who lose elections because their opposition used legal means to gain an advantage over them that they neglected to look into themselves.

"We will march on a road of bones."

"More Wars! Less Jobs! McCain '08"

Here, here....to One Road...

Democratic Party will win '08.

:toast:

it's truly lovely.

is indeed a new thing for the Democratic party. I welcome it.

OBAMA used the RULES!!

THE RULES!!! NOOOOO!!

How terrible..

I thank you for pointing out that we are going to have a nominee who is tough minded, strategically prescient, tactically smart, and above all never gives an inch - tough and victorious.

Kind of undermines a lot of the complaints that he won't be tough enough for the general election.

and to think I nearly voted for him!





Ooooooh!
:sarcasm:

Anderson Cooper is going to run with this story tonight, so I guess the general public can make up their mind how they feel about it.

It seems here on DU this type of politics is acceptable to Obama supporters, but I really doubt it's acceptable to most of the voters. It's clearly slimey politics, and should be a concern to all democrats.

He will certainly use rules to twist things to his advantage. He is pure, driven ambition and the fact that his supporters don't see it continues to baffle me.

Unfortunately, it reminds me oh so much of Florida in 2000, where Katherine Harris claimed she was just following the rules to certify a Bush win, where we had to endlessly parse what "chad" was, where it was completely clear that the butterfly ballot was flawed, where there were voting machines that were so old they didn't completely punch through the ballot, and on and on. Republicans consistently claimed, and still, I'm sure, really believe that Al Gore was breaking rule after rule! Kenneth Blackwell had a rule that voter registrations must be turned in on a certain weight of paper, and everyone scoffed at that rule. Since (as with many things connected to O's political past in Chicago) the details of the claims on which the petitions were rejected have vanished, we'll never know exactly what rule was supposedly being broken, or even how arcane that rule was, or if it technically just comprised a loophole that he was able to exploit.

:hi:

Agree with every word.

The operative words: Obama's challenge was perfectly legal. He was using existing rules to his political advantage.

The difference with MI and FL is that the DNC, including members of Clinton's campaign, defined the rules. Hillary and the other candidates agreed to the rules. And now they want to change the same rules they helped define to work them to their advantage.

were in violation of election law. Standing up for election law is a positive trait, not a negative one.

© ?

:eyes:

Now you're whining because Clinton's gettting her asked kicked?

:nopity:

he's not looking too good in PR, and he doesn't have the popular vote, and this article proves he's a slimey politician willing to disenfranchise in order to win. Hope all that works well for him in the GE IF he wins the nomination with his slimey tricks.

You know he's winning, so quit trying to kid yourself.

months old flimsy shit - tune in at 10:00 pm EST tonight.

he's perplexed by simple math for God's sake

for God's sake.

as is the rest of the so called liberal media..

winning ND & Montana quite handily, the last two STATES to vote.... PR doesn't vote in the General

Squirm much?

Popular votes? Please. You don't count Michigan and a number of caucus states not to mention the fact it's not a race for anything besides total delegates.

I realize it's tough to watch your candidate lose. After next Wednesday, you should take a few weeks and step away from politics.

I would hope after that you will be working for the Democratic Party in beating John McCain. Can I count on your support for Barack Obama?

And Hillary's bullshit "popular-vote" myth excludes some caucus states while including MI and FL.

And just think where Hillary would be if he played hard ball with her..

So when do you figure she realized the skinny black kid was kicking her ass and wasn't in it just for the experience?

NY senate seat. You should be interested.

I can't help but think its advocates are arguing "Don't vote for the one that won by the rules, vote for the one trying to win by breaking them."

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/28/125755/129/589/524201



I mean, you Hillary supporters, who claim your candidate is so tough, now want to complain that Obama played tough in Chicago? Weak.

You always look at politics as usual and frame it as running counter to Obama's message.

I wish I had a nickel for every time Obama was referred to as 'The Chosen One' or 'the Messiah' by Clinton supporters. I can't speak for any other O supporters, but when I looked at the guy I didn't see a Messiah - I saw a politician, and a damned good one.

The fact that he's taken on the best-known political family in America and at this point has the vaunted Clinton Machine on life support should give you guys an idea of just how good he is.

See, the 'Messiah' framing was never that of Obama supporters - it was a snarky construct of his opponents, and you sold him short by thinking that mocking him in this manner would hurt him. He brushed it off and made you look goofy and juvenile for engaging in it. He even got your own candidate to look goofy and juvenile when she let loose with her 'the skies will open up' tirade.

I've also seen Clinton supporters accuse Obama of being naive by pushing a message of change. But by assuming for a moment that Obama could change the game without playing within the parameters of politics itself made you guys look more naive than you've accused Obama and his supporters of being.

In short, you saw a big juicy hunk of bait and swallowed it. Congratulations. Now you'll get to watch Obama do the same thing to Gramps McCain on a near-daily basis between now and November.

- as

as a slick politician. I have never swallowed his message. I know full well he is a tough fighting politician with a speech of Hope and Change and Unity. That's it.

If he becomes the nominee, I certainly hope you're right - I hope "the skies will open up" and everything that is wrong in the whole universe will be made right by OBAMA.

And I'm nowhere near as naive as you try to make me seem. I don't expect the 'skies to open up' and everything to be made right.

You're doing it again, and it's just as disingenuous as it's always been.

What I expect from Obama as president is for him to steer this country away from war and illegal surveillance and disrespect of citiziens' rights. Do I think it's all gonna happen on Day One? Nope, and I'd be stupid to expect that.

But I do know that he'll move us back in the right direction, and he will do so to a greater degree than McCain. The change may be incremental, but again - that's politics.

I don't hold out any unreasonable expectations. The one expectation I do have is that he will absolutely crush McCain and will give us greater majorities in both houses of Congress.

- as

I share your feelings as a fellow democrat. We just support different candidates. I guess that will change soon, and we can focus on your last paragraph.

Peace

I look forward to giving the GOP a big taste of what they've served to us for the past 8 years.

This will be fun.

Peace to you, too.

- as

this nonelectable, inexperienced neophyte beat her. Really now, Hillary had all the advantages: money, name recognition, the entire Democratic Establishment behind her, the support of most African Americans, and a media that coronated her the moment she announced for office.

If she is so experienced, so electable, and so qualified, how in God's name did she allow a man "with only a speech of hope and change" beat her? Or even come close?

HE IS A FIGHTER!:kick: :kick: :kick:Go Bama!Go Bama!

Isn't that what you guys always said?

There's nothing "Chicago" about challenging signatures. It's done all the time.

At least he did not try to change the rules mid stream

I can't remember which one, but they knew that the petitions were shit, and one of the people in charge of getting all that together saw what a mess it was and split to work for Obama. This particular candidate should have had people go door to door within the district to make sure all the signatures were from there, and instead they just had someone stand in front of Walgreen's where they did not know who was signing it. This wasn't a pile of technicalities, this was a major lack of responsibility.

Nice article. Thanks!

:toast:

willing to do ANYTHING to win....

That's a good thing! Thanks again for posting.

:toast:

He used the rules to win. I guess he isn't the naive little wimp that some people tried to make him out to be.

Didn't the New York Democrats (Charles Rangel et al) pushed Nita Lowey out of the Senate race in 1999 to make room for Hillary?

BOTH sides play Hardball. That's politics.

I've heard him speak understandgingly of what she's doing, says that's the way the game is played.