mckeown1128
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:09 PM
Original message |
Obama smear debunked: Obama didn't 'Chicago' his opponents off the ballot. |
|
And yes I did make up that connotation of Chicago. If there's one particularly absurd storyline about Obama's early political career, it's the claim getting a rival knocked off the ballot in his first state Senate race was a form of something called "hardball," a dastardly form of politics endemic to Chicago.
I covered New York politics for quite a while, where the ballot access rules are, as in Chicago, stringent. You can argue that they set up an unjust barrier, aimed to protect incumbents. But that's hardly relevant here: Obama was the challenger, Alice Palmer the incumbent. These challenges are utterly run-of-the-mill; with some exceptions, it's considered madness to let a rival who hasn't met the legal qualifications stay on the ballot.
In any case, Obama was hardly engaging in some horribly brutal form of politics specific to Chicago. His opponent had failed to meet a minimal legal qualification for running for the office. It would have been political malpractice for him to, essentially, give her a pass and say, "No, please, run anyway, it's on me."
To have let her on the ballot would have been the equivalent of, say, his giving John McCain some money. There are other things they do in Chicago, New York and most everywhere else that should provoke moral scruples. But they mostly involve breaking the law, not insisting on it.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Playing_hardball.html#comments
His opponent couldn't even get the measly 757 signatures to make it on to the ballot.
|
Coexist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
IndyOp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
cliffordu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Rats. I liked the idea of a cutthroat, ruthless Obama. |
tbyg52
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
15. I'll settle for organized and smart. |
|
He seems to accomplish just as much that way! ;)
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message |
5. She ran at the last minute |
|
She lost her congressional bid and decided she wanted her old seat back at the last minute and expected Obama to step aside. When he didn't, she gathered up a bunch of signatures and it's only common sense that you would challenge them.
|
grace0418
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Exactly. Seems to me that she should've stood aside gracefully after endorsing |
|
Obama and losing her bid.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
6. This is NOT something that is unique to Chicago. |
|
Anywhere you have to get signatures to get on the ballot, your opponent can check them. It's a no-brainer to make sure your signatures are valid and in the correct format. Had Obama given Alice Palmer a pass, the Republican could have just as easily gotten her knocked off the ballot.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
7. It's called using the rules to your advantage - only a dummie or a fool wouldn't |
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
9. It's not his fault that ALL of his opponents were deficient. |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 01:21 PM by rocknation
What was he supposed to do, pick and choose who to kick off the ballot? THAT would have been morally objectionable political hardball!
:headbang: rocknation
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
10. It's because the main opponent was trying for a House seat |
|
lost out on it, and entered the race for her Senate seat late.
She got sloppy, didn't do the hard work, and missed her chance by her own lonesome.
She had even told Barack to go for it. He told her he didn't want to run against her and she assured him she was not running for re-election.
|
DevonRex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message |
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Regardless of this issue, when did Ben Smith's opinion become sacrosanct? |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 01:26 PM by rinsd
On edit: I see people in this thread mindlessly bashing Alice Palmer. WTF is wrong with you guys?
|
LisaM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. Exactly. I don't call this "debunking" at all. |
|
First of all, I think it's clear that Alice Palmer could have easily garnered the signatures. She thought they were legitimate (in fact, the CNN story said they threw some signatures off because they were printed, rather than in cursive). Second, if you look at Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, you'll see that his primary opponent, then GE opponent, were derailed by last-minute stories on items that were in their divorce records. It's clear to me that Obama doesn't really like competition (which is probably why his campaign is so enraged that Hillary wouldn't fold, and why they had to demonize her in order to spread the hope and change message).
I think it should give people pause that in three different races, Axelrod managed to effectively clear the slate of opponents. You don't have to call it dirty campaigning if you don't want to, but perhaps the opponents don't feel the same way.
And to characterize Alice Palmer as a bumbling inept who couldn't gather enough signatures is really low. She was a well-liked representative and would have been stiffer competition for him.
|
JackintheGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I *also* say 'potato.' But some will say 'po-tah-to,' and I suppose that's their right to interpret the facts differently.
But I love love! LOVE! your new verb: 'chicago', as in "George Bush chicagoed John McCain down in South Carolina in 2000 by spreading rumors of a 'black baby'."
|
Why Syzygy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-03-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Thx .. the Clinton freepers love this one. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 08:31 AM
Response to Original message |