I have to write in straight from Western PA and tell readers that what is being suggested in this post is simply not happening. NO ONE here from the Obama Campaign is suggesting or implementing any plan for getting Republicans to register as Democrats for the Primary only even if they switch back to the R column in November.

What we ARE doing, is registering young people especially high school students who will be 18 by April 22, as well as other college students, young professionals, who are excited by Obama's message. What we are also doing is reaching out to registered Independents and asking them to change their registration to Democrat so that they can vote for Obama in the PA Primary. Unlike Virginia where there is no party registration, every registered voter must pick a party when they register. Call them stubborn, but many people here who vote Democratic 100% of the time just dont' want the party label so they switch back and forth during primary season. Frankly, having lived in VA for 21 years under the "open primary", I am happy to have returned to PA's "closed primary." It takes time and effort to switch party registration and can't be done simply by showing up at the polls on Election Day. These people are not switching for the sake of muddying up the results as I have known some Republicans to do in Virginia on a Primary Election Day.

We welcome anyone who wants to help Obama win PA to join us. But please don't post messages that mistate what the campaign is doing here and -- by the way-- getting another VA blogger so angry that she is denouncing her support for Obama. (Anonymous is a Woman).

PA is a very diverse state. Pittsburgh is no longer the blue collar city of the past. Professionals are now the majority of the voting populus.  

You say, "NO ONE here from the Obama Campaign is suggesting or implementing any plan for getting Republicans to register as Democrats for the Primary only even if they switch back to the R column in November."  

Why not?  I lived in Pennsylvania for over twenty years and it was quite common for Republicans to split a ticket and vote for some Democrats and vice versa.  Party registration in Pennsylvania is (or at least was, when I was there) more of a family tradition than a political commitment.  I'm sure there are quite a few people in Pennsylvania who don't want to permanently abandon their Republican registration but DO want to vote for Obama instead of McCain and will do so in the general if they have the option.  I see no problem with these people registering Democratic for the primary and switching back later.

And, I don't think the post misstates anything.  The post states:

"persuade Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Obama to switch their party registration for the primary. (They can always switch back for the general election.)"  

I read this as an attempt to gain the votes of Republicans and Independents who want to vote for Obama in both the primary AND the general, whether or not they want to remain registered Democrats.  I hope you ARE doing this.

has gone from Edwards to Obama and now to Clinton.

Anonymousisawomanofconviction.

She never takes a position that she can't back up with reasoned analysis and her analyses always give pause for thought.  She and I disagree.  I went from Edwards to Obama and do not see myself ever switching to Clinton unless she's the nominee, at which point I will vote for her.  AWIW has a different perspective and has decided her initial enthusiasm for Obama was mistaken, but this does not mean that she lacks conviction.  On the contrary, she has been searching for the candidate who seems to best support her convictions, and upon reflection has decided that candidate is Clinton.  Vivian Paige is another blogger whose opinions I value and she also supports Clinton for her own good reasons.

Perhaps if the supporters of Clinton and Obama would spend less time trashing each other and more time trying to find common ground there would be some hope of such consensus trickling up to both campaigns.  I've been pretty critical of the Clinton campaign, but all is not wonderful with the Obama campaign either.  Both campaigns need to get back on point and maybe take a page from the other.  Clinton's campaign should stop sniping and start speaking to the things at which Hillary excels - her knowledge and strength about things like health care (BUT PLEASE, stop with the 3 a.m. phone calls and the overt ridicule of Obama's camp).  Obama's campaign could give a lot more specifics and start discouraging some of the more worshipful nonsense.  Will.i.am's little song weirds me out.  I don't like worship songs for humans.  

from the self-announced populist Democrat, anonymousisawomanofconviction, on how the Clintons went from being deeply in debt to their lawyers in 2000 to being worth $ 50 million seven years later.

on why it would take until after "April 15th" to release tax returns from past years.

she's too busy.

No, she did not have to break ranks with the Democratic party to vote for the Iraq mess.  She was not an outlier.  In fact, Clinton and Lieberman were the chief Democratic cheerleaders for the Iraq war, and steadfastly refused to back down as recently as a year or so ago.  Bill and Hillary Clinton's prominent televised support of the Iraq war did more than just about anything to land us in the middle of that mess.

Now she wants to pose as the anti-war candidate.  Like the man said, give me a break.  If AIAW truly cannot see the difference between Clinton and Obama on Iraq, she is either blinded, or not paying attention, or just lying her *** off in support of this cynical candidate.  Regardless of which it is, spare me the sanctimonious drivel about principle.

When he quit the campaign.  I stayed with him to the bitter end and could hardly stay beyond that.

Please don't misrepresent me as a flake who changes her mind because I switched from Edwards.  I explain on my site why I have rescinded my support for Obama.  And I also state that I will support him in the general election.

And yes, this tactic offends me deeply.  Calling it ethically challenged is putting it mildly.

If we can't win a primary fair and square, it will hurt us in November.  All those Republicans flocking to support Obama may just be doing it because they perceive him as more beatable by McCain.

I certainly hope not.  But you can't discount that.  It's what makes this a dumb tactic. Besides being unethical.

out the Clinton campaign for b.s. like comparing Barack Obama to Ken Starr.

Before a pissing contest errupts wherein someone wonders why you didn't explicitly call BS on the Obama campaign w.r.t. the spokeswoman who called Clinton a "monster," let's simply say this: Karen has, Karen does, and I'm sure you already know it.  Just like I'm capable of knowing that you don't approve of the way that particular spokeswoman handled herself even if you haven't said so, I think we can just take for granted that Karen is a decent person and not, in fact, a flake or a hypocrite.

I left my comment to you over at your blog, AIAW, but I want to make sure it's clear in as many places as possible that there are few people who are more deserving of respect for their thoughtful opinions, even when they diverge from my own.

is that in the case of the Obama campaign advisor, she was fired immediately.  In the case of the Clinton campaign comment on Ken Starr, the person is still employed.

That is an interesting dichotemy.  Which isn't to say that either example is somehow less-wrong.  But it is a fair point.  There are a lot of things that bother me from both sides of these contrasting incidents--like the spokeswoman who used the word "monster" clearly thought she had the right to retroactively go off the record with the reporters.  I don't understand why she'd think that was appropriate under any circumstances, an opinion you've also expressed below.

Frankly I wish we'd get away from all of this nonsense and stop talking about the candidates and start talking about the country.  This election shouldn't be about Obama or Clinton or McCain, it should be about America.

It is wrong to compare Obama to Ken Starr and it is legitimate to ask to see her financial records.

I've said many times, it's perfectly legitimate for both sides to criticize each other and to point out their opponent's perceived weaknesses as well as to tout their own strengths.

And when each side goes to far, I don't have a problem calling it out.

Much appreciated.

calling Clinton a "monster" or other names is in any way acceptable.

for Clinton in the general election.  I have absolutely no quarrel with your principled support of Obama.  And you are still a loyal Democrat who understands why our core values are so important, and why defeating the Republicans is so necessary.

But I don't know if it's big enough for that last sentence, Spotter.  Personally, I think that you should take a brief moment to recognize that you feel ashamed of what you've implied about a very smart, very decent lady, apologize for not thinking twice before hitting send, and ask for forgiveness.

Virginia's a rapidly changing place in this modern day and age, but I'd like to think it's still the sort of place where you can't say something like that about a woman without cause.

events continue to overtake your faux outrage.  I used to think Geraldine Ferraro was a very smart, very decent lady, too.  Again, race-baiting is not negotiable with me, ever.  If it is with you, you need to ask yourself why.

that:

1) Hillary Clinton did NOT condemn the remarks, just sort of chuckled and said she didn't agree with them and we should focus on the "issues."
2) The focus on race might actually HELP Clinton in Pennsylvania, where Gov. Rendell has said that there are some whites not ready to vote for a black.

Man, we have a long way to go in this country.

....then they weren't too sure about their support in the first place... don't worry about it.

The main point is that volunteers are needed in PA and this is some good info to those who wish to help the Obama campaign.

"We are the people out parents warned us about"- Jimmy Bufffett

Let me just clarify what I wrote last night. We certainly do want to help Republicans who want to vote for Obama and the Democrat in both the primary and the general. This is not new. We did this in the Webb campaign. What I think AIAW was objecting to was the sentence in parentheses that suggests that Obama volunteers were pro-actively seeking out Republicans and asking them to switch to the Democratic Party just for the Primary in order to influence the results. Although I do not go as far as AIAW because Rush L and his other cronies on talk radio are encouraging this and because I know R's in NVA who have done that in past elections. I also wanted to point out that even though Republicans are encouraged to support Obama, the emphasis here is to register Indy's, youth, etc.

Yes, we can use all the help we can get here in PA and the informational post on this is welcomed. My point (not well stated because I was tired) was just that we shouldn't encourage people to think that the Obama Campaign is just about beating Clinton and not about promoting the Dem Party.

I would never in a million years object to Democrats targeting disillusioned Republicans to vote for one of our candidates in both the primary and the general election. I enthusiastically support persuading moderate Republicans who have had enough of their party's extremism to check out our party. That's called party building.  But that's not what I'm reading in this post.

As any long time RK reader would know, I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Jim Webb and believe in persuading Republicans to change parties.  Just as I believe we need to get back the so-called Reagan Democrats.

What I object to is a tactic to encourage Republicans to cross over just to vote for Obama for the primary. That's not persuading them that core Democratic values like fairness, peace and prosperity are better for this country.  

Again, they may cross over to vote for a Democrat gleefully but not for the reason you think.

It's always a bad tactic to encourage the rival party to pick our candidates.  They don't have the Democratic Party's best interests at heart.

...I definitely do NOT approve of trying to get Republicans to switch parties for the primary, just so they can "switch back for the general election."  If anyone wants to join the Democratic Party, obviously they are free to do so, but I don't believe that encouraging them to do so for one specific election is either the right thing to do, or will be particularly effective regardless.

As most of you know I am a big Obama backer who has been with him since day one of this campaign.  However, he really, really, really needs to get a hold of the discussion in the race.  Sure he won WY and will win Miss, so thats great to get two more wins.  But, to my dismay, HRC is continuing to control the discussion right now.  She's setting the agenda of what is talked about.  Over the weekend it was floating the idea of Obama as her VP.  It seems like the past 2-3 weeks everyday is "_____(insert Hillary or Bill here)_____ Clinton today said xyz about Obama," leaving Barack to respond with some clever comeback buried 4 paragraphs below.  He needs to camp out in western or central PA and have health care week or getting the economy back on track week, or anything to change the subject, becuase until he does he's going to keep getting hit with the bathroom sink, the shower, the toilet, or any other plumbing that hasn't been nailed down yet.  This would start to talk about substantive issues more, and try to connect with the same voters who didn't go his way next-door in Ohio.

How low will things go in this primary. I'm glad it's almost over.  

Hillary can quit.

That will bring the process to an end.

Hillary can't win through delegates given in elections at this point.

So Hillary is planing on winning through undemocratic processes that have been built into the nomination. Hillary can only obtain the nomination by undermining the results.

Hillary will not be technically cheating because the democratic nomination process has the undemocratic superdelegate bloc built into it.

This undemocratic process  came about in the 1980s because the party leaders didn't believe in the democratic process. They decided to grant themselves more power because they are better than us regular democrats, or so they thought. The regular voter was too stupid to know what is best for them.

But the democratic principle would be violated anyway, whether it was within the rules or not. The person with less pledged delegates at the start of the convention would win.

The whole process does need to be fixed.  There is a problem with the caucuses, which is that they are not really democratic either.  They exclude absentee ballots from the military fighting overseas; are often held on Saturdays, which excludes Orthodox and Conservative Jews, who also can't vote absentee ballot; likewise excludes people who might be in the hospital; and excludes those who have to work on the caucus day.  

In addition, you have to declare your vote publicly in front of your neighbors rather than in a secret ballot. The secret ballot is the heart of a true democracy.

In Nevada, where the caucuses were held at the workplace, caucus goers were forced to vote in front of their union bosses.  Even though I'm pro-union, even I think there is a problem with that.  And Hillary won Nevada, so this is not sour grapes talking nor an attempt to demean Obama's successes in other caucus states.

In addition, proportional weighting even in primary states is problematic. A candidate can win a clear victory in a large state and still end up losing in the delegate count.  That's not democratic either.

I don't want to see this thrown into a convention in August.  Nor do I want to see the super delegates have the final say.  I agree that if either Hillary or Obama don't win a clean, unambiguous victory, it will sow dissension and bitterness going into November.  

A phyrric victory that turns into a defeat in the general election is a useless victory.  So I too want to see the primary contests wrapped up in a way that is fair to both sides before that happens.

But we need to recognize and fix the problems with our system for the next time.  But after this election cycle.

BTW, for the same reason, I would like to see do-overs in Florida and Michigan.  Those states do need to be seated at the convention.  And rules that were agreed upon at the beginning by both sides do need to be upheld.

 

They are not democratic either.

In my opinion, we should get rid of caucuses and super delegates.

Even better, let's just get rid of delegates :) Let's just add up the votes from each state.

And yes, it has to happen after this election cycle. Hopefully we will all remember to do it.

It is far from fair to decide after the fact to eliminate caucus-selected delegates.  Not that long ago, Virginia was a caucus state?  Imagine how irate we'd have been if someone suggested that our delegates be discounted.

The time is not ripe for changing the process.  Only after November should that be done.  Then the party should eliminate the superdelegates and caucuses altogether.  The legalities will be tricky.  But the party could enact a commitment from all the state parties to have primaries from here on out.  

It's ironic that, on this issue (direct vote and one-person, one vote) only, the Democratic Party is less democratic than the Republican party.

The changes must happen after this year. :)

I am blessed with two great parents who happen to be Republicans. Since the 2000 election I have been continually working on my mom to vote Democratic.  She's a thoughtful Republican and they both grew up in the Alabama portion of PA in Lancaster county.

During the 2004 election my mom was considering Dean.  She appreciated his direct dialogue and might have voted for him but wouldn't vote for Kerry because she felt that Teresa wouldn't make a good first lady.

Recently, I have been feeding her clips from Obama's speeches and talking with her why we need a Constitutional scholar running a people-powered campaign to be in the White House.   There is absolutely no way she would consider voting for Hillary in the primary or the general election.

While I was working the election for Obama in Montgomery county Ohio I got an IM from her that she voted for Obama.  Two of her dearest friends - both former Republicans voted as well for Obama.  She mentioned that she didn't want to make a habit of voting Democratic - but I believe we have a good chance of earning her vote this fall with an Obama-McCain race.

Ultimately what it comes to is that Democrats with authenticity who earnestly stand for something have a chance of capturing these thoughtful Republicans.  We saw it in 2006 with Webb and now with Obama.

I believe that she did not ask for a Democratic ballot to cast an anti-Hillary vote - that this vote was for Obama.

I think alot of people here in Virginia can't understand the depth and sincerity of Obama's Republican support in Pennsylvania.  As I tried to explain earlier in this thread, my experience has been that Pennsylvania Republicans are much less robotic in their voting patterns than Republicans here in Virginia.

I keep in touch with quite a few friends and relatives in Pennsylvania and five of them are registered Republicans.  Four of those five have told me, without any prompting from me, that they will vote for Obama over McCain if they have that option in the general election.  Granted, the subset of Republicans who willingly choose to discuss politics with an outspoken Democrat like me is not a perfect reflection of the broader Republican population. However, if eighty percent of the Pennsylvania Republicans I know will vote for Obama, he's likely to get the support of an unusually high percentage of all Pennsylvania Republicans. And, he'll do especially well among the college educated, urban/suburban, Philadelphia/Pittsburgh Republicans.

I don't have a quarrel with somebody crossing over to vote for a candidate whom they will truly support in November.  That's not what was being talked about.  

The stratgegy being suggested, which I object to, is attempting to register people who are really Republicans, for one day only.  That's unfair interference with the opposite party's primary system.  And those Republicans agreeing to do this, might be doing it because they think the candidate they are voting for is the weaker one. In fact, those whom the Obama supporters succeed in registering this way, could end up screwing them and voting for Hillary if they think she's the one most likely to lose.

Talk about good intentions gone awry and supporters being too clever by half, that's a strategy just begging to bite them in the butt.

Law of unintended consequences indeed.

All of us, from time to time, see, hear, or read things that just aren't there.  This may be one such time for you.  

What was written in this post:

"...persuade Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Obama to switch their party registration for the primary. (They can always switch back for the general election.)"

What you thought you read in this post:

"Hey guys, just so we can cause trouble for Hillary, let's go out and find all those Republicans who are going to vote for McCain in the general and convince them to vote for Obama in the primary."

If this post had contained anything resembling what you thought you saw, I would agree with you.  That tactic would, in my opinion, be unethical (not to mention stupid and counterproductive, as well).  But that tactic was neither "suggested" nor "talked about" by anyone but you.

Ideally, we would want to see all primary voters not only become registered Democrats but also remain registered Democrats.  However, if there are any Republicans or Independents who sincerely want to vote for Obama (and there are) but who would not be comfortable remaining registered Democrats, I think it's a big mistake to tell them they can't vote for Obama until the general election.