home

Clinton To Press For Revotes In MI/FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:19:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Now she wants to fight for revotes:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hopes of ending the primaries with game-changing victories from new contests in Florida and Michigan grew dim on Tuesday as Florida officially scuttled plans for a new vote and Michigan lawmakers appeared far from a deal.

In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates.

“We will go and make the case for a revote,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign has resisted a new contest, saying that Michigan Democrats are divided, that a revote would not make much difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton camp was trying to change the rules to suit itself.

(Emphasis supplied.) I hope this ends once and for all the silly theory that it was Clinton who was resisting revotes. The Clinton Uncertainty Theory propagated by Mark Schmitt and adopted by pro-Obama bloggers should be officially dead now. BTW, Clinton was too slow on this. She needed to do this last week.

< Star Witness Testifies in Rezko Trial | Supreme Court Reverses Conviction Based on Prosecutor's Exclusion of Blacks from Jury >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton To Press For Revotes In MI/FL | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree that she needed (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    to do it; not sure last week was the best week considering it would've taken press away from Wright.

    At any rate, I'm glad to see her fighting for this.  It makes a difference in a state with a dem governor.  She could use MI to shoehorn FL as well.

    Though, being honest, she hasn't been as active on this issue as I would have liked.  I still contend there are things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.  Clinton is having to fight a war on several fronts: the super d's, the press, Obama's spin  machine and the voters.

    I think this is the part that makes me (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    want to spit nails (my emphasis):
    In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates

    Love that "desperation" narrative, as opposed to the one that should be on people's minds - the right of the people to be heard...

    We know that in the eyes of the media, Hillary is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, but it seems to me the best question to be asked by her, and by her spokespeople is:

    "What is Senator Obama afraid of?"  

    Or perhaps this version:

    "Maybe Senator Obama would like to fill the voters in on how, if he gets the nomination and wins the presidency, he will have any credibility on voting rights if millions of voters are disenfranchised in the Florida and Michigan primaries with his passive cooperation."

    Or maybe:

    "If Senator Obama will not fight for your right to have your vote counted, how can we count on him to fight for anything else?"

    Oh, wait - I know: after the re-vote dies a final death, Obama can give an invitation-only speech, to be carried live on every cable network, in which he lectures us on the need for every citizen's vote to count.

    Yeah, that's the ticket...


    Parent

    Yeah, this is the week to do it ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    as I said last week, it's a timing thing.

    Parent
    too late (none / 0) (#113)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    The michigam legislature goes on a two week break on Friday.  With all of the disagreement it is not going to happen.  She waited too long before realizing that the initial vote would not count.

    Parent
    I give Clinton more credit than that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    She didn't wait too long because she didn't know it wouldn't count. If, as Robot suggests, it was a timing issue, then it was quite a deliberate choice, made with full knowledge of the ramifications.

    Parent
    ramifications (none / 0) (#122)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    well,  unless there is some other unknown play in this game, she miscalculated badly.

    As BTD has said and I agree with,  she will not have a narrative that she has the "will of the voters",  all the parameters are out of reach without legitimate data from FLA and MI .  The Supers are not going to choose otherwise.    

    Parent

    What about Obama's role in running out the clock? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    That's what he and his supporters are doing and have been doing.

    Parent
    But she was seen by VOTERS to be working for them. (none / 0) (#180)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST


    Parent
    she looks a little tired today (none / 0) (#164)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    so I hope she takes a little time off.

    But gotta hand it to her, she's a fighter!

    you go girl!

    Parent

    Ill served by surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    Once again, if she wants anything done, she has to do it herself. I'm sure somewhere in history there has been a candidate who got less help from his/her surrogates, but damned if I can recall one.

    And another thing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    I'll add that she gets so scorched in the press, especially the liberal talk radio, by fighting for this that I don't blame her for trying to do it more behind the scenes. It is one of the best examples of Clinton Rules - anything she does to get these votes counted, or to get revotes, is portrayed as breaking the rules, or changing them mid-game, Clintonian ruthlessness, etc.  You have all heard it.

    It is only appreciated by those of us in MI and FL.

    Agree, this IS the right time (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    there is a specific proposal in the legislature to support; the parties/individuals throwing monkey wrenches in any of the proposed solutions are finally identified; and it is clear to everyone what Obama's true position and intentions are. That there is a pattern of saying one thing and doing another. The Obama camp no longer has the option of pitching both ways, as BTD has shown in several posts.

    It may not change anything in Michigan, but it certainly affects perception of Obama coming on the heels of the Wright factor, negatively.  This could help with the actual votes in the remaining states and the Super delegates.

    Parent

    She's seizing the moment (none / 0) (#166)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    good for her. Obama major speaks today too?

    whats up with that? Like he wants to hog the airwaves, well just one, MSNBC will be there for him.

    Parent

    Not so ... many of us non-MI or FL Dems appreciate (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    this too.

    Parent
    attacks by the liberals yak radio is getting (none / 0) (#165)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    on my nerves. I'm not happpy with Randi Rhoads in particular.

    Parent
    she just needs to be perceived (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    as being on the side of counting the votes. that's really all she can do. her campaign by itself cannot make a revote happen. so if they go all in to make it happen, they risk looking like "losers" in a state they "won" when the revote does not occur. at which point, the obama camapaign spins the lack of a revote as "a victory" over hillary.

    it is amazing to me, as a democrat, how deftly and easily obama has managed to encourage the idea that votes should be neither encouraged nor counted.

    and kathy is right: let the wright thing roll on. it will sink obama. he cannot recover from that. he cannot be president now. i wish it were different. the only question is, can the dems wake up in time so that he is not on the ge ticket.

    hillary's "revote" plan is ultimately (and only) an attempt to salvage MI for the ge.

    but can she beat the DNC?

    The Height of Arrogance (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    Mr. Obama's campaign has resisted a new contest, saying that Michigan Democrats are divided, that a revote would not make much difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton camp was trying to change the rules to suit itself.

    It's not up to Obama to decide whether a MI re-vote would change the overall delegate count.  It's for the voters to decide that. And if a re-vote won't make much difference in the overall delegate count, why is he so reluctant to let it happen?  

    The Roolz were designed to be changed at the discretion of the DNC.  I don't understand why Clinton's campaign has not challenged the perception that she is trying to do something the rules don't allow.  The rules don't exist to completely disenfranchise voters -- they exist to penalize state parties who ran primaries out of the preferred order.  In the end, the preferred order was maintained, and the state parties still got penalized.  But even if you let those penalties stand, what possible moral or political justification is there for disenfranchising voters?  Especially for a "grassroots, 50 state strategy" candidate?

    Parent

    I don't thinkit will happen (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    Republicans and Obama supporters are controlling the process right now, in both Florida and Michigan. The Obama supporters don't want the re-votes because they'll weaken Obama's electoral victory, and the last think the Republicans want is anything to happen that will give Clinton a shot at the nomination. I believe that the right-wing knows that their best shot at the Presidency right now is that Obama wins in spite of being tarnished by Wright.

    By the way - I know it's off topic, but I finally watched some of the videos. I've focused on the fallout, not the video's themselves. I was sympathetic to Wright's anger, since I can understand why a black man, especially one of his generation, would be angry at the nation. I get angry at the nation, too. But what he said is really hateful. The one about Clinton made me cry. The man has no empathy. He said the Clinton never knew what it was like to be called a "nxxxxr", but he cannot seem to fathom the pain of being called a "bxxxh*. He said that she has never had to work twice as hard to be accepted, and she has never had deal with simply being dismissed. He has no clue about the challenges women of Clinton's generation faced if they chose to not stay home and be wives. I don't think Obama's speech will resolve this. The video's are still out there. His supporters are portraying the speech as the best thing since MLK's "I have a Dream", but no speech can counter those video clips. Obama's supporters think he can counter these video's with powerful words - but they seem to forget that Wright had powerful words, too. "Just Words" will make a lovely commercial title, and I'm betting that there are a dozen 527's out there putting the commercial's together.

    your comment is OT - mine is too (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    but I just HAD to post this great anonymous comment on Obama's speech...

    >>>Barack Obama needed to create a positive story and as usual used a speech, his greatest strength. Who would trash a speech on race relations? So this morning we wake to almost unanimous adulation for the speech.

    The NYTimes brought up an interesting point about this speech. Barack Obama is asking us to take Rev Wright's fiery rhetoric and to put it in context with his entire life, to put it in perspective. We are not supposed to judge the man based on these "few" anti-American speeches. Overall, Obama says, Rev Wright is a good man. Yet when it comes to his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, we are supposed to focus on one thing: her "bad" judgment on Iraq. We are to ignore the context of her life, or the bigger perspective. It seems as if he's guilty of doing the same thing people may already have done with Rev Wright. This is politics as usual, nothing new, nothing fresh. Just politics.


    Parent

    If only Ferraro would had stayed a little longer (none / 0) (#57)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    it would have been hard for him to sympathies with Rev Wright while calling for Ferraro to quit on racial grounds!

    What an irony...

    He is the adjudicator for racial conflicts.. if he says this is ok.. well then ok.. if he says this is not.. then who the hell are we to say anything.?

    Parent

    Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    Could we have an open thread?  I would also like to participate in OT topic.  

    Parent
    To paraphase ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    another famous Democrat, Senator Obama, "you're not the final authority on this."

    Parent
    Who the heck (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    OK this keeps getting quoted and I can't find it. I vaguely remember it, but can't come up with the name.  Give it up....

    Parent
    Barbara Boxer? (none / 0) (#145)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    She said something very similar to the utterly odious James Inhofe when he kept trying to cut off Al Gore at a hearing on global warming.

    Parent
    Here is a link (none / 0) (#148)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    The hearts of both Clinton-haters and Obama-bashers can be warmed by this exchange.

    Parent
    Al Gore ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST
    in a phone call to George Bush on the night of the 2000 election said, "Your younger brother is not the ultimate authority on this."

    Parent
    So you're comparing a cowardly vote... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    ...to start a malevolent war of aggression with some two-bit preacher yapping?  

    I'm not a partisan of either candidate, but Hillary's Iraq vote is, in a word, incomparable.

    You know why?

    Because WAR is incomparable.

    The vote she cast to enable Bush in his murderous misadventure cannot be rationalized or its wretchedness lessened.  All who voted as she did disgraced themselves and the nation.  

    The only thing Wright disgraces, if he does, is himself.

    Parent

    just a sec. here. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    Hillary voted for war, but was sold on it because GWB said we'd soon be out(not 5 years later) and did you forget that famous photo op on the USS Lincoln when the president was tethered in full flight suit, Mission Accomplished or something to that effect?

    Tell the whole story, Hillary voted for the war, but also said she did so believing that the president was being truthful and he wasn't. The premise for war was based on LIES. Even so,she didn't give him unconditional authority,because she expected him to use
    it as a LAST RESORT. She wanted him to try diplomacy. Important distinction.

    Parent

    Bad Argument (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    Tell the whole story, Hillary voted for the war, but also said she did so believing that the president was being truthful and he wasn't.

    Anyone that trusted Bush has zero judgement in my book. She is too smart and experienced to believe anything Bush says and so I do not believe her justification for the vote. IMO, she voted yes, not for Bush, but to satisfy some of her vengeful and warmongering constituents.

    Parent

    check out diaries during 2005-06 (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    asking senators to vote against war funding and to support redeployment bills.
    Obama kept voting with Republicans to fund a war he "opposed."


    Parent
    Wright anti-American? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    Josey:

    Could you give the full quote where Wright's anti-American. The one where he says that America shouldn't act like God? Is that anti-American to you?

    Nice to see that the invented "race issue" of Wright was more important than Clinton actually coming out for revotes last week (until now that it's too late). It shows me that Clinton supporters believe that repeatedly raising race and racial divisions helps their candidate. In a strange way, that admission may one day help you to self-understanding, maybe.

    She cannot win. She can only destroy.

    Parent

    You don't think (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    "God D*** America" isn't anti-American?

    Parent
    the man was a marine (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    I got bashed for bashing McCain the other day citing his service.
    maybe you should consider that when he came home he could not stay in most hotels or use the same water fountain as us.
    the man is provocative for a living. maybe cut some slack.
     

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#117)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    I don't care if the man won the Medal of Honor.  That doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has to like what he says.  I can still think he spews hate and divisiveness and I can still can use Obama's association with him as one of the reasons I won't vote for Obama.

    I honor his service, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the man.

    Parent

    You Do Not Know The Man (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    But why let that stop you from jumping on the bandwagon. Many base their opinion about people on soundbites, you are not alone.

     

    Parent

    My point was (none / 0) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    you cannot excuse Wright's comments just because he was a Marine. And this is about Obama - he has shown poor judgment (you know, that thing he keeps he says is superior to HRC's) in who associates himself with.  First there was a 17 year relationship with Rezko, whom he says he never knew any of the allegations against (which is incredulous, since it's been in the Chicago papers for at least of couple of years now).  Now he says he never heard Wright say any of those things (well, then he said he DID hear him say them).

    His whole campaign is based on the claim that he has  the best judgment of all the candidates and should be elected POTUS. When one claims the moral high ground, the harder you fall back to earth (to mix a metaphor). I say assessing his "judgment" is fair game.

    Parent

    fine (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    there is a difference in all the things you said and saying an ex-marine is anti american.
    I know some marines.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    I would guess that if anything Rev. Wright's problem is that he cares too much about America. Besides, I thought that the GOP owned the empty phrase anti-american, as a method of sliming those who favor dissent over lockstep mentality.

    Could it be that some commenters here are GOP HRC supporters?

    Parent

    I know some (none / 0) (#156)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    Marines too, and most of them would not like a "Preacher" saying "G*d Damn America." The ones I know are angered that any marine would say that. They wear their patriotism tattooed on their hearts.

    They may frequently damn an administration or a president, and  most residents of the Pentagon,  but they love their country and don't like anyone, anywhere talking down the United States.

    Parent

    I cut him a lot of slack (none / 0) (#135)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    I found most of what he said, while a bit overheated, to be either true or at least arguable, and merely critical rather than anti-American.

    God D*** America is, to me, anti-American.

    Parent

    I am glad to hear you say that (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    I have not seem many willing to do anything but bash the guy for a lot of stuff that seems pretty obvious to me. if completely foolhardy in the middle of a political campaign.
    the phrase you mention. meh.
    its open to debate if one admittedly anti american statement makes a person anti american of if you need to look at the totality of their life and contributions to america.
    sall Im sayin.


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#159)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    I don't think Wright IS anti-American, I just think he has said some offensive, and in a few cases, anti-American things. I have a fairly high tolerance level for that kind of speech. (My then 16 year old daughter and I once had a flag burning ceremony at home -- with a miniature flag -- just to show her that we could.) I had heard that Wright was a "black liberationist" minister months ago, without hearing any specifics, and it didn't bother me.  He's somewhat more over the top than I had imagined, but for the most part he did not cross the line for me.

    The issue for me is primarily political: whether Obama's affiliation with Wright is inconsistent with his post-partisan message, whether he's answered questions about the affiliation honestly, and whether it makes hypocritical some of what I consider to be gender-insensitive statements on his part, as well as certain unfair accusations against the Clinton campaign on racial issues.  

    The issue for others, however, will be much more fundamental, and how Obama handles this will be critical to whether he can be a successful GE candidate.  That may not be fair, but its the way it is.   I thought his speech yesterday was pretty good, although I would have been happier if he hadn't equated Gerry Ferraro with Rev. Wright, and if he'd spent some time talking about gender as well.  Hillary's never been called the n-word, its true, but she's been called the b-word many, many times.

    Parent

    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST


    Parent
    opinions opinions opinions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    arent they grea?  its her opinion he is anti american.  its your opinion Hillary cant win.
    its my opinion you are both wrong.

    Parent
    For what it's worth (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Grey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    The DNC says that Michigan's re-vote plan is A-OK.  Here is the memo.

    I'd add that a re-vote in FL and MI benefits all parties, not just Sen. Clinton, because I think the legitimacy of the process and of the nominee is at stake.  All 50 states should count, and be counted, before the convention and not after.

    So, (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    Doesn't that mean Obama should go with it? He said whatever the DNC decided.....

    Parent
    It should mean that (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Grey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    But Sen. Obama has said a lot of things...

    Parent
    No one has been more self-contradictory (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    on Michigan and Florida than Clinton (and Ickes).

    Big Tent is right that Clinton is too late in finally coming forward to push for a revote. She and the state parties who pushed the non-recognized primaries have played chicken with the DNC. Bad move. Maybe Michigan can squeeze a do-over in, but Florida is over. Those who believe that Clinton will be able to bully the DNC to change the rules after the fact are dreaming. There will have to be some kind of negotiation, some kind of accommodation. Michigan may come to that too.

    The delay in negotiating between January and now falls squarely in the lap of Clinton and the state Democratic leaders.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    I am always amused by these bold "this is how it's gonna be" pronouncements.  I sure hope someone informs the DNC that a blog commentor has spoken.

    Parent
    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#127)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    with all these crazy predictions about certain people being "toast" in the general because of the scary scary GOP 527s.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    It seems to me that the existence of only one recent poll in MI, which shows a tie, sort of has a distorting effect on the narrative.  I wish someone else would poll the state.

    Obama still stalling (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    story here

    stalling how (none / 0) (#66)
    by philly48 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    how is he stalling? There were rules set forth and in place/ Please tell me now that she is losing why should these votes count now?

    Parent
    And that's why waiting until the last second was (none / 0) (#71)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    a huge mistake.

    If she had been pushing for this for months, it would have happened.  When you push for it the day before the vote has to happen, it's a little less likely.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#75)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    if she had pushed for months, the media would have attacked her even more ruthlessly.  Now, they've got too much going on, and Obama's teflon is not so shiny anymore.

    And you can't ignore the polls.

    Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

    If Zogby is admitting it, it's gotta be bad.

    Parent

    She's still down in that poll (none / 0) (#106)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    How can she still be behind Obama?

    Parent
    Because the media (none / 0) (#137)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    says the speech worked.

    Parent
    I am keeping an eye on the polls... (none / 0) (#118)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    ...and I'm going to see what they're like next week.  If Obama's speech stopped the movement away from him and moved people back towards him, then I don't know what's left out there that can prevent this.   If he continues to bleed percentage points, then I'm going to start worrying.

    I suspect the former will be the case, especially because he's back up in the Rasmussen tracking poll today, but just because I want it to be over doesn't mean that it will anymore than my hopes that the Whitewater stupidity would fall off of everyone's radar.

    Parent

    Here we go (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    So Clinton is against disenfranchising two big critical states and Obama is for disenfranchising them. At least Hillary is covering herself should she be the nominee. If Obama wins the nom without MI and FL, and being on record as saying they shouldn't have a voice, I don't see how he wins either state in the general.

    Maybe he doesn't care (none / 0) (#110)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    because polling shows that he will lose FL in the GE anyway. Where it gets touchy is that polls have him winning MI by a slim margin over McCain. I'm not sure how the revote issue factored into those polls, but if he winds up losing MI, that's 17 EV and enough to swing the GE to McCain.

    All of my numbers are from the SUSA electoral map poll conducted a few weeks ago...I'm not saying they are still current, but my point is that at the time that poll came out, a lot of Obama supporters were selling the fact that FL does not have to be part of the Obama equation in November.

    (Not that I necessarily agree)

    Parent

    I'm very disappointed with Conyers (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    "While a redo would be an excellent way to solve it, there's a little problem of about $12 million," Mr. Conyers said. "I also question the legality of someone raising private money to conduct a public election."

    I have always believed him to be a fighter for voter enfranchisement.  And if private money is an issue, does that not put caucuses that the DNC pays for into question too?  

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    This is a political party candidate selection process.  There is nothing wrong with having contributors to that party pay for it.

    Parent
    Lizza article on Obama's IL career points out his (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    willingness to use any means to gain power. Supposedly it's something he learned from his Saul Alinsky school of community organizing when he first went to Chicago.

    This article is from March '07 and covers the arc of his Chicago years.  He is idealistic, according to Lizza, but has learned that power is the only thing which permits change.

    Lizza notes that Obama's political team is a traditional and very experienced in Chicago machine style--the press treats Obama as a politician unwilling to use strongarm tactics, but it is the Clintons who may not have the stomach for the types of attacks Obama and team use.

    He is willing to cut people out, use people, seduce people, work with people he disapproves of in order to achieve his goal of achieving power. Power is what permits change.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/bobamasunlikelypoliticaledu.html

    Found this link from commenter UpstateNewYork at The Confluence, riverdaughter's blog. Longish, but well-worth the read. Supports much of what has been written about Obama's political climb.

    http://www.riverdaughter.wordpress.com

    Oh,yes--On Topic bcz it goes to Obama's (none / 0) (#101)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    willingness to use tactics others might find worrisome or even wrong.

    Such as not counting votes, coming from a transcendent, new-style politician.

    But, it's not the voters or the votes--it's the winning the power.

    Is that the new-style politics? Actually, for Bush it was--say anything to get elected, do anything to win an "election," where votes do not have to be counted. Getting the power, then using it as if it were a huge manadate to do whatever BushCo wanted. Maybe not such new politics!

    Hopefully, Obama is not another Bush type!

    Yesterday's speech seemed to begin to lay out what he would do with that power--but is it just more leverage to gain power? Is it what he will really do? What do we get with Obama?

    Parent

    Nope, blatantly off-topic (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    The topic here is Michigan revotes, not how Obama is  eeeeeeeevil.

    Parent
    Seems like the Same Thing (none / 0) (#150)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST


    Parent
    put urls in html format (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    or they skew the site and your comments with them risk being deleted.

    Parent
    Delegates Can Be Seated Right Now - Legally! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by wacowheels on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    Please note this wonderfully succinct summation of the rules, posted by Jon Winkleman on myDD:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956

    A strict interpretation of the rules says Hillary would get half of her delegates and Obama would get no delegates from MI or FL. No revotes, no redos, just applying current rules.

    If the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee does nothing at all this would be the interpretation of the rules. These committees have to actually exercise their power to change the strict interpretation of the rules. And they have almost unlimited power to do so! And there is the rub - how can anyone claim that someone is trying to change the rules when the rules are extremely fluid in the first place!

    If anything - it is in Hillary's best interest to do nothing and to allow the strict interpretation of the rules.

    Great (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    Now Clinton has to do Dean's job too.

    If I was Barack Obama and cared about what my candidacy meant to black people, I'd be fighting for revotes too.

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    has run his campaign on being grassroots and building a coalition where every voice counts and every person is a part of it.

    He cannot run on that platform and ignore millions of voters in two states no matter what the rules are.

    Rules may be rules but perception is everything.

    he can and will (none / 0) (#177)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    because he is a a regular ole hypocritical pol - nothing more. people making him out to something more than that are setting themselves up for some big-time disappointment.

    Parent
    Misdirected (2.60 / 5) (#13)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    I understand most people want their candidate to win. But changing the rules after the fact doesn't add to the legitimacy of the contest.  I understand the anger of voters in MI and FL but their anger should be directed at their elected officials who put them in this position to begin with.  To change the rules at this juncture would send the wrong message for future elections.  FL and MI can still vote in the general election they will just be like the other states in a normal election cycle, "they won't have much of a say in how the candidate is chosen in the primary.  Coming from a smaller state that normally has no say in the process I have no sympathy for the voters in these two states.  

    kto (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    could you please cite the rule that Clinton is trying to change and provide a link, please?

    Parent
    reply (none / 0) (#29)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    I was referring to the punishments about moving the primary up within the DNC.

    Parent
    Then your comment is off topic (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    Shall I delete it for you?

    This is about revotes.

    Parent

    A revote does not change the rules (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    It adheres to them.

    I am amazed that some Obama supporters are so intent on NOT winning Florida and Michigan in November.

    Your telling falsehoods here. Falsehoods long debunked at Talk Left.

    Please avoid doing this any more at this site.

    Parent

    Yep say buy buy to MI and FL (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    The Republicans will blast ads across both states talking about how the Democrats disenfranchised the people from their voice in the primary process. It will call into question of Obama's legitamacy as the nominee if he gets the nomination. I don't see much chance of Democrats winning either state if this doesn't get resolved. Obama supporters saying this is no big deal are really living in a fantasy world.

    Parent
    The way to avoid this is the 50% penalty (none / 0) (#96)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    the delegates should be seated based on the vote, but with the same 50% penalty that was given by the Republican's to take away that issue.  The tricky thing is what to do about the uncommitted MI delegates.  Do those all go to Obama?  

    Parent
    no because that violates (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    the one person one vote rule and disenfranchises half the voters.

    Parent
    What you don't seem to understand is... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    ...some Obama supporters don't believe a screwed up primary means MI & FL are lost.  Some of us believe the FL & MI delegates will be at the convention in August.  What exactly has got you so panicked about losing FL & MI?  Do you think voters care more about a screwed up primary or $3.50/gal gas?  I really don't understand the panic.


    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    Yes, people really do care about their votes not counting.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    I don't know how huge an issue it actually is. I consider it to be more of an opportunity to gripe, an all-American pastime.

    Even this early, the polling I've seen says 25% in FL might not vote for the Dem in the general. I don't see that attitude lasting until November. YMMV.

    Parent

    Right now polling indicates (none / 0) (#134)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    a close election. A lot less than 25% of Dem votes swung FL to Bush (almost) in the 2000 election. A change of less than 1% would have swung WI to Bush in 2004.

    Parent
    The people standing behind Clinton (none / 0) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:09 AM EST
    right now are holding up signs saying count my vote.  I have no idea how big the crowd is but she is saying it is within the rules to count the votes.

    CNN question... does Obama mean what he says?

    Parent

    does Obama mean what he says (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    I have no doubt we will eventually get "what he really meant" either way.

    Parent
    Enough to vote for McCain? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    If I were a MI or FL resident I would be angry with the state party for screwing the primary up. I wouldn't vote for McCain in November because of it however.  That is what some Clinton supporters are suggesting and I think it is a highly dubious theory.  

    Parent
    if Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    a lot of democrats are going to be voting for McCain in states with perfectly legal primaries.
    I hear from them every day.  McCain is less scary to many blue collar democrats than Obama.
    that is a fact.


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Not all voters cast their vote for the same reasons you do.  This sort of thing does make a difference and the polls back it up.

    Parent
    I don't think... (none / 0) (#67)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    they are suggesting voting for McCain - just not voting for POTUS if Obama is the nominee and working for candidates down-ticket.

    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    the ones I am talking about mean exactly that.
    voting for McCain. no ifs ands or butts.

    Parent
    Polling in March is not reality November is (none / 0) (#91)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    and just as Clinton backers argued that polls showing her behind are meaningless at this stage (which i agree with) so are these.  There is anger now but once it is a question of McCain v. Obama or Clinton I think those numbers will change.

    Parent
    I agree that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    The number may change. It may shrink somewhat in spite of the fact that I'm sure they'll be many reminders of all of this during the general election campaign. And that is fine.

    But I think some will hold firm. I know I will. I've said since last summer that no primary vote would mean no general election vote from me. And my decision isn't based on anger.


    Parent

    It is March 19, 2008 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    Any polls taken seven months before the GE are pretty close to useless.  Do you really think people will hold a grudge for seven months?  Do you really think FL & MI won't have their delegates seated at the convention?  

    Parent
    Yes, and yes (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    Yes, voters will remember.

    Yes, I don't think MI and FLA's votes will be counted in determining the nomination. "Seating" their delegations is not a matter of letting them sit in the convention hall.  It's about letting those delegates be chosen in a manner that is consistent with the will of the people in those states.

    Parent

    And... (none / 0) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    I saw a poll a few weeks ago (so take it FWIW) that showed HRC was preferred overwhelmingly by moderates (as opposed to independents), so I think that would factor into those either abstaining or jumping ship if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    So.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    And we aren't even talking about moderates / independents yet. I know it might come as a shock, but moderates that may have been previously leaning Dem this year do not have any loyalty to the party.

    They have no loyalty to the party yet they care so deeply about what happens in the party's primary and a party's convention that they won't vote for that party in November.  I have a hard time believing that.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    It is PRECISELY because they have no particular loyalty to the party that they are inclined to say "that party doesn't even care about my vote, I'm not going to support them."

    You seem to have trouble grasping that not everyone perceives the difference betweeen Republicans and Democrats in the same stark ideological terms that you do.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#146)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    Non-Democrats certainly have principles.  I just refuse to believe they will care more about a primary vote that got screwed up than than they will about gas prices, a credit crisis, a housing slump, bombing Iran, a horrible Iraq policy, abortion rights, illegal immigration, inflation, NAFTA, etc., etc., etc.  

    Is it that hard to believe that some of these moderates, after being disgusted by the bungling of the Bush administration, might think twice about voting for a Democratic nominee after witnessing the bungling of the Democratic party?

    Yes. I would much rather have a screwed up primary than a war with Iran.  

    The only dubious theory being circulated is the one that suggests this mess will not effect any of the Dem and Independent voters of these states.  If the GOP picks up a mere 3% because of this, that will be a huge handicap.

    So our victory in November will be even sweeter because we overcame this huge handicap.  I guess I have more faith in the Democratic Party than you do.   Even if I didn't I certainly wouldn't be panicking about this.  At this point in time no solution is going to make everyone happy.  Someone is going to be pissed off about what happens in MI or FL.  I have faith that the Dems' policies will win over the voters in November.  

    Parent

    I'm hearing some split ticket talk. (none / 0) (#157)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Some will vote McC and all dem down ticket. Some will just not vote in the prez, but vote dem for the rest. They would rather see a veto proof dem majority with new leadership that would actually fight for change than Obama and the bluedogs calling the shots, Kennedy and Durbin notwithstanding. Just anecdotal, of course.

    Parent
    But your views are? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    They will care more about primary votes than gas prices in November because you say so?  I can't argue with that.  

    Parent
    100% ? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    I am sure a non-material number of voters will either stay home or vote for McCain in the GE as a direct result of the primary snafu.  My position is there will not be enough of them to sway the election one way or the other.  

    Parent
    Does Obama really want to bet (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    the election on that?

    Florida cost Al Gore the election in 2000 -- and he WON it. But it was so close it could be stolen. You want to risk a total of 44 electoral votes?  Why fight for them with a handicap?  It takes a lot of small Western states to make up 44 electoral votes.

    If Obama is really so sure that re-votes in MI and FLA won't change the ultimate result, he should let them happen. It enhances his statute, his legitimacy, it fosters reconciliation and party unity. Isn't that what he's supposed to be all about?

    Parent

    Is it Obama betting? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Consistently people here presume Obama is somehow the puppetmaster here. The DNC is the party that declared the two primaries to be in violation of their rules and thus uncounted. Why pin it on Obama when it was the Clinton campaign that until now has fought against do-overs?

    We know there will a Florida delegation seated at the convention, just not based on the January primary. There may actually be a do-over in Michigan.

    If, in fact, Florida Dems can't get beyond the fact that their January primary was declared void beforehand, and they choose to vote for McCain rather than either Clinton or Obama, then we'd better look for a candidate who can win in other states.


    Parent

    Why pin it on Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    Because Obama is resisting re-votes now.

    Seating delegates from FLA is meaningless if the delegates are not selected in accordance with the will of the people.

    Parent

    The Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    has never fought revotes.

    Parent
    that's false (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    she repeatedly said from the beginning either the votes should stand or their should be a revote. She endorsed Michigan's revote plan.

    Parent
    Bob in P, every other thread (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    seems to have to arc off for a while to deal with your untruths, including many you give again and again.  Please stop it.  With the limits, you are preventing others from introducing new thoughts.

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    this sounds a lot like the Nader excuse.
    if we had super candidates Nader wouldnt have mattered.


    Parent
    Yes.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    ...he is willing to bet Florida & Michigan on that.  Seven months from now no one will remember much about this.  

    It enhances his statute, his legitimacy, it fosters reconciliation and party unity.  Isn't that what he's supposed to be all about?

    Nope, he is a politician running for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  He isn't the messiah.  If Clinton supporters think sitting out the vote in November is the right thing to do then I don't think a MI or FL revote will do much to change their opinion.  


    Parent

    Yes, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    I've known that Obama is an ordinary mortal for some time now, but he continues to portray himself as something different, while his supporters condemn Clinton for be clear about being an ordinary mortal politician. "Hillary will do anything to win, she's so calculating, blah blah blah."

    Glad to know I have your permission to talk about Obama's willingness to do anything -- including disenfranchising voters -- to win.

    Parent

    You are confused (none / 0) (#151)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    Barack and I just disagree with you about MI & FL voters are being disenfranchised because of this primary snafu.

    Also, Obama wouldn't do anything to win. No candidate would.  If you want to condemn hyperbole from the other side then please don't use it yourself.

    Parent

    Well, when voters can't have their votes (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    counted through no fault of their own, I call that disenfranchisement.

    Particularly when "the rules" are not as rigid as most Obama supporters seem to think.  Nothing in the rules prohibits re-votes.  Nothing in the rules prevents the DNC, or the credentials committee at the convention, from lifting the penalties under a variety of circumstances.

    The DNC wanted NH, IA, SC and NEV to go first, and they did. Disallowing all delegates elected in FLA and MI was, at best, highly disproportionate. There is really no justification for it.

    Parent

    No fault of their own? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    The duly elected and appointed surrogates of the FL & MI Democratic party decided to hold an election in violation of the rules.  Unless you want the general public to vote on when the primary should be held then I can't understand where you get the idea the people of FL & MI had no say in the matter.  

    The DNC wanted NH, IA, SC and NEV to go first, and they did. Disallowing all delegates elected in FLA and MI was, at best, highly disproportionate. There is really no justification for it.

    We actually agree on this. :-) I think Chairman Dean  and the gang were too harsh on FL & MI.  A 50% delegate penalty would have been a big enough punishment, IMO.  

    Parent

    They had no say on this matter (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    Some of the "decision-makers" here were not even elected officials, and many of them were not Democrats.

    Parent
    I want to applaud the voters of FL and MI (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    for taking one for the team.

    Even though their votes won't count for this election, and the candidate they voted against will become the nomineee, nevertheless, at some unspecified future point, their sacrifice will, in some unspecified way, be meaningful. You can trust us on that.

    Especially with the candidate they voted against, and the party apparatus that has just slammed the door on their hopes, in charge of the entire process.

    Yes, indeedy.

    Parent

    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:27:39 AM EST
    Oh behalf of Florida voters I accept your gratitude. We serve at the pleasure of your nominee and look forward to being similarly discounted in 2012.

    Parent
    I love apologists (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Too little too late (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    I'm afraid.  Now the debate has moved on to deciding  whether Obama is the reincarnation of MLK or Fred Hamption.

    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:32:28 AM EST
    You yourself documented several instances where the Clinton campaign sent out ambiguous signals on this point at crucial junctures.

    Was she just being coy? Hoping to be forced to do what she most wanted to do anyway?

    Letting them stand was the first choice (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM EST
    I think it was clear that the Clinton campaign's first choice was to get the FL and MI delegates seated as currently constituted by the Jan primaries. When it was clear that would not happen they were unambiguous, in my view anyway, in trying to get some kind of a revote.  I admit that what form that would take has gone through so many trial balloons and competing suggestions that I have not been able to keep track.  Perhaps they sere less supportive of some ideas than others.  I can understand that if you are tracking the day to day comments from the campaign as closely as BTD does, it might have seemed ambigious, but I have always seen the big picture as Clinton wanting a revote if she could not get the delegates seated 'as-is'.


    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    I think Clinton is playing this exactly right. Sorry. There's a larger campaign to be run.

    I think her campaign is positioning itself well for the rules committee. I think they will take care of the FL/MI question.  

    yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by corn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    I don't think she's ever really resisted, but this is more about showing 'best efforts' and putting pressure on Obama.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    She doesn't need to put pressure on Obama. She needs to recognize what horse trades will work to her advantage when the rules committee meets. And that will never be done in public.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by corn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    but think pressuring him is still relevant.  If he believes that a re-vote is imminent he's going to cut a deal.

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    I really think it depends on what each candidate and his/her supporters has to offer the members of the rules and then the credentialing committees.

    But yeah, considering she's in a win/win situation wrt FL/MI, good idea to keep a little pressure on her opponent.

    Parent

    It also (none / 0) (#28)
    by corn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    builds the public expectation that the votes will and should count.  Good pr.

    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    if Clinton had taken as firm a stand two weeks ago, before Obama became weakened by the Wright stuff, if she would've had a chance.  Maybe she saw that this was her opening and decided to take it.

    We're not seeing what is really going on behind closed doors.  The sausage is being made.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by corn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    we're privy to extremely little of this.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM EST
    I hope someone can get enough info to write a good book about all the behind the scenes stuff in this campaign. Fascinating.

    Parent
    I would imagine (none / 0) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    there are some heavy duty confidentiality agreements.

    Parent
    Even I, the hardened pragmatist, think that (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    this nomination is likely to be illegitimate without a proper role for FL and MI.

    illegitimate? (none / 0) (#20)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    How does not having FL or MI in the mix make it less legitimate than someone having the nomination sown up before a state like Pennsylvania has the opportunity to vote?

    Parent
    They will at least have the opportunity (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    to vote. Mind you, I think having states vote at different times, as opposed to having a national primary, is outrageous by itself, but stripping states of any representation at all is just not acceptable.

    Parent
    This is a strange comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:37 AM EST
    After your first comment, I wonder if you know what much about what you are discussing.

    Parent
    reply (none / 0) (#33)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    Given your rambling statement, you still haven't answered the question.

    Parent
    who has the nomination "sewn up" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    I dont believe anyone does.

    Parent
    So you believe (none / 0) (#142)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    that if a candidate appears to have the general election locked up when the polls close on the east coast, west coast votes shouldn't even be counted?

    Because that's what you're saying.

    Parent

    Not the same (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM EST
    I hesitate to point out the obvious, but that is not an accurate analogy.  In the primaries/caucuses there are a fixed amount of delegates to be won and the contests are not all on the same day. If a candidate has the needed delegates by March, then yes, the remaining states do not get much attention even though they do count.  After all, it is a combined toala of ALL the numbers that determine the necessary threshold to begin with, in that a later state with a large delegate count, like PA, skews the required number of delegates for victory higher.

    In a one day election all the campaigning happens up front and the votes aren't even all counted on the east coast before the polls close on the west coast. (TV projections aside)

    Lord, anyone need me to explain anything else?  I'm on a roll here.


    Parent

    It amazes me (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    that Obama seems to be content to win the nomination this way, if the final numbers end up such that FL and MI would have given it to Clinton. On the other hand, what is he supposed to do, just give it to her?  I understand he has no choice but to stick up for this insane situation the "punishment" created.

    That's why I always thought a re-vote was the only untarnished solution, and let the chips fall where they may.  But I can understand the practical roadblocks to that at this stage of the game.

    Aaarrgh.

    I don't think I have mentioned my ultimate solution in this forum:  2008: Clinton - Obama ticket, with the agreement that in 2012 it will be an Obama - Clinton ticket.  This shows deference to Clinton's seniority and lets her be in charge of righting the ship of state in the first term, but gives the future to Obama.  Any thoughts?

    Parent

    It would have staunched the bleeding in our party (none / 0) (#52)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    and I had thought that was what the party elders were trying to force them into behind closed doors, but when Hillary came out of that and suggested a (nonspecified) dreamticket at a rally, Obama supporters assumed she meant "with her at the top", and were further enraged.

    And Pelosi came out against it, so I guess its not possible.

    Parent

    I think with the expicit switch in 2012 (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    it might have gotten some traction. Maybe not in an all or nothing world.

    Parent
    Who gives a sh*t what Pelosi thinks? (none / 0) (#109)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    Even her staunch ally Penna Rep John Murtha doesn't think too much of her opinion on this.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    But does she know the lawmakers are not in Detroit, but in Lansing?

    Well, they do watch teevee, I'm sure n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:07 AM EST


    Parent
    I assume she will go to Lansing too (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    But perhaps I am wrong.

    Parent
    Hehe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    Hillary campaigned extensively in MI in 1992.  I'm sure she knows her way around the state, I was just goofing.

    I note, however, that she is scheduled to appear in WV later today, so she might not have much time to devote to the Wolverine State.

    Parent

    She had two campaign stops scheduled (none / 0) (#74)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    in WV today.  One a town hall meeting in the state capital, the other a roundtable with veterans at the American Legion post in Huntington.  The veterans' roundtable was originally scheduled for the morning, but they moved it to the afternoon to accommodate the Michigan event.  

    We are looking forward to seeing her, but I'm glad that she's stopping in Michigan first.  (And note: we here in West Virginia must invariably connect through Detroit or Charlotte if we plan to traveling anywhere more exotic than Myrtle Beach or Ft. Lauderdale.  Of course, most of us don't tend to travel anywhere more exotic than Myrtle Beach or Ft. Lauderdale, so that's not usually an issue...)

    Parent

    Not on the Washington Post's schedule (none / 0) (#65)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM EST
        *  9 a.m., Rally in Detroit, MI.
        * 10:15 a.m., Speech in Detroit, MI.
        * 11:45 a.m., Rally in Bethlehem, PA. (Spouse)
        * 2 p.m., Town Hall in Charleston, WV.
        * 4:30 p.m., Town Hall in Huntington, WV.
    Link

    Parent
    Uh-oh - dang advance team! (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:50 AM EST
    The scheduled purpose of the trip was a town-hall event in Detroit.

    Parent
    Just so she doesn't head to (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    Emmet County!

    Parent
    Have we found common ground, then? (none / 0) (#32)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    I hope this ends once and for all the silly theory that it was Clinton who was resisting revotes.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who lead the charge against revotes in Florida, is a Clinton campaign co-chair. And yet you believe that Clinton has not been resisting revotes?

    Does this mean you've come around to my way of thinking: namely, that local politicians protect their own interests before those of national campaigns, and that national candidates cannot necessarily be held responsible for the actions of their local surrogates?

    Politico (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    Taking a morning stroll over at Politico.  A couple of Ben Smith items... Michigan has a plan, DNC says they are happy with plan, Obama not.  Ben says Clinton's small consolation is she can blame Obama.  Eh... yeah, that's great for the GE.

    Clinton in MI on right now (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    She's on CNN, MSNBD and Fox right now talking in Detroit.  MSNBC of course is talking over but at least they show video.

    revotes (none / 0) (#51)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    Clinton waited far too long to get on the revote bandwagon.   The legal and political issues can not be overcome now.   Obama slowed the process -  he may pay the price in florida - I doubt he would have won there anyways.   I do not think it will cost him in Michigan.  They will seat the delegates at the convention.  I know MI does not think they had a legit election.  

    Little Confused (none / 0) (#63)
    by philly48 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    First of all, I do not trust any politician whatsoever but it is my understanding that there was an agreement that all candidates signed before running. Now, that Hillary is losing she wants to count those votes in MI & FL, can anyone in all honestly and and without and biased opinion let me know how that is possible without breaking the rules set forth?

    You apply to the rules committee (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    to get the punishment dismissed or reduced. Increasing the Dem chances in November in FL and MI is a good case to make for the committee.   Perfectly within the rules, as is having DNC approved re-do elections before June 5 or 8 or whatever the cut-off is. No one is proposing breaking any rules.

    Parent
    Obama should drop out now (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    Any candidate opposing revotes in FL and MI will not do well in the general.
    Ok - I've made my case. ;>


    Parent
    I agree he would be a disaster in the general (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    but he should not drop out.  the only way Hillarys candidacy will be seen as legitimate is if it becomes very clear to everyone (except the most ardent koolaid drinkers) that he is unelectable.
    we are not there yet.
    in my opinion that is where we are headed.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    I don't think the media wants to deal with the electibility issue.  I think the nomination is his.  The superdels are not going against this nom.  They can argue this issue should not determine whether someone is fit to be President.  I also believe the Repubs when they have already stated the think it is relevant.

    Parent
    You do not understand the pledge (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    which had nothing to do with revotes.  Just entering the conversation now, you could reduce your confusion by researching and reading up on past threads here.

    Parent
    It is what Obama will do at the convention (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    if the numbers are such that seating FL and MI will not kill his nomination. Will he be breaking rules then if he asks the rules committee to seat FL and MI? NO.

    Parent
    Seating FL and MI after he's locked the nomination (none / 0) (#147)
    by mm on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    Yes, this is his strategy.  It's been his plan all along. This strategy is as cynical as it is transparent. I hope he's not stupid enough to believe that anyone's going to be impressed when he allows the delegates once it doesn't mean anything.

    The problem is he can't be mister magnanimous good guy until he's forced Clinton to drop out.  And this has been and will continue to be the focus of his campaign. That's why you can't watch cable tv for more than 10 minutes before some mathemetican explains for us dummies out in tvland that she can't possibly catch him in the elected delegate count.  

    Parent

    several current pieces on the revote situation (none / 0) (#79)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

    Shift in media coverage (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    It appears the media is covering both sides which shifts towards Clinton on this one... CNN: does he mean what he says and covering that the rules allow for a re-vote.   Fox: it's not the money, private money can be used.  Obama has supporters in the legislature against it for their own interests.

    In Michigan (none / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    Obama has definitely been coming off badly in media coverage.

    The Republicans are looking for any excuse to screw things up for the Dems, and they have been using Obama's noncommittal stance as their justification.  So the papers are full of legislators saying it's Obama's fault this situation is dragging on.

    Parent

    Obama on Larry King (none / 0) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    tonight to discuss Iraq.  It is dead in liberal media.  There are a few articles linked at RCP that express the opinion the issue will never be dead.

    Parent
    Makes me think the Clinton strategy (none / 0) (#102)
    by illissius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    is to let the revotes die, and then blame it on Obama to get a few news cycles against him. (While the Obama strategy, of course, is to let the revotes die and then breathe a sigh of relief. Michigan seems like it could easily be an Obama state though, so I am not sure why. But doing the polling and the math and all the rest is their job, so they probably know what's best for them better than I do.)

    Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    would likely vote like Ohio, even setting aside any fallout from the dispute over the revote.

    Both campaigns have internal polling and you'd better believe Obama would enthusiastically support a revote if his polling showed him tied or ahead.

    Parent

    There was one poll a while ago (none / 0) (#120)
    by illissius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    which had them tied exactly, 44-44 IIRC. And that was before Obama even did any campaigning there. (Most states, even the ones which later went for Obama, tended to show big leads for Clinton early on, before campaigning. But maybe the poll was just an outlier.) I think their main problem might be that the revotes would necessarily be about the last contests in the nomination process, and by far the biggest ones, and so they would almost surely push the campaign through until June -- and losing a huge state at the last minute, even if they keep a big lead in delegates, would be pretty terrible for momentum going into the convention and the general; they don't want to be the next Mondale. Yes, a crisis of legitimacy with MI/FL would also be very bad, but they probably think it's safer to try and lock up the nomination after IN and NC, get Clinton to drop out (with pressure from the party), and then seat the existing MI and FL delegations once they are certain that Clinton won't or can't play any tricks to steal the nomination, than to risk a revote (even a potentially favorable one in Michigan) which they might lose.

    Parent
    One poll (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    I feel very very confident it will prove to be an outlier.  There is very little difference between the electoral dynamics in Michigan and Ohio.

    Parent
    I would applaud Senator Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    if she were to tell "the Party" to drop dead after all they have
    tried to do to stack this whole process against her. And "tricks to steal the nomination"? Because she would do anything?

    Parent
    Extrapolating from OH exit polls (none / 0) (#130)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    applied to MI demographics, I guess this turnout:

    White: 75%
    Black: 20%
    Latino: 3%
    Other: 2%

    Using OH numbers for male/female/race breakdown and guessing a 50/50 split for Latino and Other results in 53/46 Clinton/Obama.

    (This is obviously wild speculation, but some fodder for chatter)

    Parent

    The Florida delegate lawsuit (none / 0) (#152)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    does not look promising:

    Democrats Self-Destruct in Lose-Lose Florida Case:

    Nancy Pelosi - Smarter than we think (none / 0) (#154)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    Though generally received as an implicit vote for Obama, Pelosi's comments might have had the exact opposite intent.

    By stating strongly that only pledged delegates can be counted, Pelosi Nancy has signalled that if anyone out there wants to stop Obama, they'd better get busy.   Voters in the remaining primary states had better come out in droves for Hillary, and party officials had better move mountains to get MI and FL counted.  

    And both may be coming to pass.

    Clinton To Press For Revotes In MI/FL | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment