home

Michigan Legislature Adjourns Without Passing Revote

Bump and Update: Michigan Legisature adjourned without taking up the revote plan. More here and here.

There's only one fair solution left: Award and seat the delegates per the first primary vote. Obama made his bed, he can now lay in it.

***

Obama Again Asks for 50/50 Delegate Split in Michigan

Barack Obama is back to his unfair plan of demanding 50% of the delegates in Michigan.

I explained in detail last week why this is unfair and I'm going to say it again here.

On January 15, 2008, 594,398 Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. The official Michigan election results are here.

[More...]

328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

That's called stealing an election.

Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat.

By early September, 2007 when Obama took his name off (pdf)the ballot, he trailed Hillary in multiple polls.

For the reasons I set forth here and here, the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida) and award and seat the delegates from the Jan. 15 primary now.

As Hillary told NPR last week about Obama's withdrawal of his name from the ballot:

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."

That's being generous. Several media commentators have suggested he withdrew his name was for strategic reasons, wanting to keep Hillary from claiming a win in a race he knew he would lose. That could also be why, unlike Hillary, he refuses to support a re-vote, maintaining it wouldn't be fair and would be fraught with peril of fraud. Only if the DNC orders it will he agree to the process.

And this is rich:

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

His reasoning seems to be, if we don't seat the delegates until the convention, we don't have to count their votes now and I'll be ahead by convention time. Once I'm the nominee, by all means, let's seat them.

There's a very simple, fair answer to the Michigan dilemna: The DNC does a big "mea culpa" and removes the penalty. Hillary gets the delegates according to her vote total. The uncommitted and other candidates' delegates remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention in Denver.

For others angered by Obama's audacity in proposing a 50/50 "give me the votes I didn't win" plan, check out Corrente, RiverDaughter, Angalchel. Read their commenters too.

NOTE BTD - Comments closed.

< PA Poll: Clinton By 16; WV Poll: Clinton By 28 | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    obama has not shame or conscience (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    in my opinion. we need no more of this in the wh.

    I am really fed up with Obama now (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    and have tried to tell myself that I could get over the past crap and could vote for him in fall . . . but he just keeps providing more reasons not to do so.  An undemocratic so-called Democrat?  No thanks.

    Parent
    Bipartisanship? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    With who? not with Dems.  

    Parent
    This is my major concern (none / 0) (#35)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    And why I am unable to fully grasp the "change" element of Obama's hope and change platform. What I am seeing varies only slightly, in insignificant ways, from what we have been seeing and railing against for quite a long time.  Where is the change?

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    Maybe this was his strategy all along and why he removed his name in MI.

    Are you going to post the TalkLeft letter for people to sign and send to the DNC?

    I am stunned.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    he took his name off the ballot and now he is using that as an excuse to steal votes that no one ever intended to be for him. he could have stopped all that with a revote but he doesn't want that for the same reason be pulled his name from the ballot.

    I really hope the SDs are watching.

    Check the quote (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    Here is the quote about the 50-50 idea:

    Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated.
    State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.

    "If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."



    Parent
    He's refusing to negotiate (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    He said he would go along with whatever the DNC decided.  The DNC decided the proposed plan was acceptable.  Obama said no.

    Parent
    I would like to see (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    a better discussion of Obama's alleged foot dragging on this....I have seen reports that he has not endorsed the current plan, but that is about it.

    The link above to Obama's "refus[al] to support a re-vote" is to an NPR article from March 14, 2008.  That was almost a week ago.....

    Parent

    the fact that he isn't endorsing a (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    perfectly decent revote plan means his foot dragging is not alleged.

    Parent
    Please cite the DNC saying that any plan... (none / 0) (#160)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    ... is acceptable.  I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

    Parent
    Time factor (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fredster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    coming into play isn't it?  When does the MI lege adjourn for the holiday?  B.O. is stonewalling.

    If B.O. gets the nomination this way count me out as supporting him or the Dem. party in the G.E.  And with all the Wright mess and such, look for the Dems to lose the G.E.

    Sad.


    Parent

    Obama is blocking the re-vote. (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    What is your point? Clinton favors a revote.

    Parent
    Obama's position (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    is not simply a plain 50-50 split....There is more to his position than that....

    Parent
    Right, his position is two-step: block the (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    revote, then go 50-50.
    There's no meaningful difference.

    Parent
    But he is blocking a re-vote (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    that the DNC has approved (even though he said that he would do what the DNC approved), and his 50-50 split nullifes the actual vote of the MI Democrats.  It would be more honest to simply disallow the vote.

    Parent
    Please cite a credible report... (none / 0) (#185)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    ... of the DNC approving any re-vote procedure in Michigan.  I haven't seen one, and would like to read it.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Never mind... (none / 0) (#196)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    ... I found it.

    Like I said on the Big Orange, Bill Burton should SHFPH.

    Parent

    his handlers apparently wish to win the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    nomination more than they care about the general election...Very very selfish....If they put their party first they would have gone for the revote...

    Sound of one hand clapping (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    The problem is that any solution other than a revote is disenfranchising. I'm positive that at least one person in the state of Michigan didn't vote that day because they were told their vote wouldn't count - that's taking the vote away from someone.

    Heck, people who waiting too long in line Ohio in 2004 were considered disenfranchised by people on this site just for being inconvenienced.

    Many people (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    fail to vote in primaries every cycle because they feel their votes won't count. That is no reason to disenfranchise the ones who cared enough to make their voices heard.

    It sure isn't any reason to take the votes that were cast and give them to someone else.

    Parent

    this is why we cannot take seriously (none / 0) (#214)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    the caucus wins. same problem. people cannot vote b/c of life-conflicts.

    Parent
    I thought his first consistent (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    position before his second consistent opinion was that he would support what the DNC decided.  Now that the DNC has approved the MI revote..not so much.

    Consistency (none / 0) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    is lacking all around here.  I think he should encourage a revote under ammended rules.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    she believes every vote should count. Not just the ones for her.

    The New Democracy at work? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    This is an entirely new form of Democracy. Delegates can "participate" in the process of electing a candidate without ever being voted on by the people. Why bother having elections at all - it's so messy and wasteful. Why not just annoint the chosen candidate and assign delegates based on ...well, nothing.

    Audacity is a good word for Obama.

    not surprising (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by joyce1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    If HE had won in Michigan, don't you think he would want the votes to count now? Of course! He is nothing but a hypocrite and I hate the way he thumbs his nose at Hillary. This guy is arrogant, like the pResident presently in office. Sad

    Being a Cynic (none / 0) (#39)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    If Obama had won in Michigan under the same circumstances, would Hillary the "let every vote count person" do anything different than what Obama is doing?  Somehow I doubt it.
    If Al Gore hadn't been so passive in 2000 he might have won.  Obama is showing the necessary ability to push for his self-interest in an election.  This is a test-what if November 2008 ends up like 2000?

    Parent
    Yes, he is showing Bush-level (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    initiative. He LOST MI and FL, so he is acting like Bush in trying to stop those votes being counted.

    Parent
    And yet he complains that (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    HILLARY will "do anything to win."

    The fact is that what Obama is willing to do is (1) grab votes from people who didn't vote for him; and (2) render the results of the MI completely meaningless. A 50%-50% split means that the votes of MI Democrats will not affect the spread between the candidates' delegate count, and therefore, as a practical matter, will not "count."  

    In short, Obama's position is even more undemocratic than disallowing the MI primary vote altogether.

    So much for the "new politics."

    Parent

    Obama is showing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    that he can't handle an election without clearing the field - and make no mistake: what he wants is for Hillary to get out of the way - even if that means denying millions of people their say.

    Obama is for Obama.  Period.

    Parent

    Key difference (none / 0) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    Gore's interests in 2000 were aligned with voters' interests. Here, Obama's interests are not aligned with voters' interests.

    The right answer in both cases is not to fight for self interest but to fight for voters' interests. Both Gore and Obama are disappointing in this regard.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    it actually is in Obama's interest to fight for MI and FL voters to be enfranchised -- if he thinks far enough ahead to November.

    Parent
    Let's see how MSNBC spins this for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    because on one hand, you've got an approved method for revoting that is paid for (and Obama is welcome to throw money into that pot) and ensures that every vote counts, while on the other hand you've got just ignoring the state all together, which-let's be honest-is what the 50/50 split does.

    He said he wanted transparency--well, a blind man could see through this ploy.  There has to come a point in all of this where someone says that the only reason Obama doesn't want revotes is because he knows he will lose.  If Obama cannot win in MI and FL, then why on earth would he get the nomination?

    I feel like we're all playing political Jenga here, and someone-anyone-just needs to pull that one piece out and the whole thing comes crashing down.  The question is: who on TV (who will be heard) is willing to do that?

    MSLSD will probably be like Stephanie Miller (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    today where she said that any way you try to count the votes in MI and FL would be unfair to Obama, unless you split them 50/50. And by the way, yes she said Hillary will do anything to win.

    Parent
    Here's how Ed Shultz spun it (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    I paraphrase..Sure a re-vote would be fine with me!  Hillary will lose it! First Lady records show she talked about NAFTA!  

    Then I turned it off - I have my limits.

    Parent

    If I posted what I really think of Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#219)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    it would get me banned here.

    Parent
    MSNBC spin (none / 0) (#205)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    Simple: They won't mention it.  This one stinks out loud, so they'll have to choose between telling one heck of a lie or avoid the "inconvenient" parts altogether.


    Parent
    It should be obvious (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
     that no proper, fair or legal grounds exist for any solution other than accepting the status quo that is not ratified by all "stakeholders."

      Clearly, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are stakeholders. A compromise will either be reached or it won't. The voters -- and not just in Michigan and Florida although they would have valid  claim to bigger stake-- are fairly considered stakeholders as well but in our system they have no direct voice and can only exert their wills through representatives and those representatives have competing and perhaps conflicting loyalties so they may not accurately reflect the "will of the people" even to the extent it can be imperfectly ascertained.

      So the people to whom power has been delegated will decide but they must decide knowing that they simply cannot impose a solution that each campaign will not back. The only other outcome is paralysis and default to the existing, previously enacted rules. If we don't want that then we have to understand each campaign is going to continue to press for proposals tilted in its favor to preserve bargaining position so that the compromise if reached is marginally more favorable to it. Does anyone ever do anything differently?

       There are numerous possible solutions but none of them can provide total fairness in any objective sense of the word. Some important interest[s] is going to have to give way to some other important interest[s] to some extent. We all should know that.

      The incessant assertions that one particular proposal is so overwhelmingly more correct than some other is just not tenable.

      Argue for and fight for whatever you prefer, but to do so honestly requires explaining why it is better. That requires acknowledging the interests opposed to it and making the cases the interests in favor of it should be accorded greater weight. It is not accomplished by duplicitous arguments that countervailing interest do not exist or are illegitimate.

       

    This is all just obfuscation (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    There are only a few simple principles for a free, fair election.

    1. Voters have an unimpeded opportunity to vote

    No literacy tests, poll tax, police intimidation, etc. No one is alleging any of that took place.

    2. Votes get counted and count towards the outcome of the election.

    (I'd add a 3rd requirement - secret ballot - but even caucuses meet the first two requirements at least, and secrecy isn't an issue in the case of FL and MI either).

    Either count the votes from January, or let those people who didn't freely choose to vote in the GOP primary participate in a revote.

    There is no "pop-psychology" or "because" corallary to either of those - it doesn't make any difference why voters chose to vote in the GOP primary in MI or stay home in FL. It comes down to freely able to vote and having their votes recognized, period.

    Anything else is pure bull-sophistry.

    Parent

    How is urging a re-vote duplicitous? n/t (none / 0) (#100)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    when it is being done (none / 0) (#117)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    out of the belief it favors the candidate one supports but one is posing as having other reasons.

    Parent
    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I don't care who a re-vote benefits. I would support a re-vote no matter what. If Hillary loses a re-vote, or does worse than she did in the first vote, so be it.

    The issue is not which candidate is benefitted most -- the issue is the will of the voters.  In 2000, I believed that a recount would show that Gore won Florida.  But there was always the risk that it would not. I wanted the recount anyway, because if Gore didn't actually win Florida, at least it would show that the rightful president had been installed in office.

    Parent

    It may not be the issue to YOU (none / 0) (#126)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
     but it is the issue that matters and the motivation for which plan the campaigns and their supporters try to portray as the "only fair one."

     

    Parent

    the only thing that matters is that (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    americans have the right to vote and anyone and i repeat ANYONE who tries to deny it has no business running for the white house. now you can shwirl and twirl but you can't deny that fact. though i think you will.

    Parent
    I haven't seen any comment on this (none / 0) (#165)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    Why is it up to either (or any) campaign to decide or weigh in on a re-vote plan in the first place?  Is it in the DNC rules?

    Why is it just not up to the MI and FL Dem parties and the DNC?

    Why do the candidates have more standing on this matter than the voters themselves?

    After all, the candidates only become the nominee with the acquiescence of the voters.  

    They have no "right" to anything.

    Neither do they have the "right" to preclude or obstruct an otherwise valid re-vote plan that meets the national party's needs and falls within its rules.

    Providing the candidates this "right," IMO is merely a means by which the DNC has avoided taking responsibility for any of this.

    Parent

    I don't know if it's a "rule" (none / 0) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    But the DNC and the Michigan Leg would not consider a plan unless both campaigns agreed.

    Parent
    i agree! it isn't up to obama or clinton. (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    it is the people's decison. we don't care what pelosi or dean thinks. you deny our votes, then expect to have a major loss in november.

    Parent
    I wasn't on the MI ballot either (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Can I please have 50% of the delegates, DNC?

    Sincerely,
    Warren

    If the DNC doesn't punish FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Neal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    for moving their primary's up, we'll be voting in July in 2011. Seat the delegates at the convention, but don't let them vote until the 2nd ballot. Lord knows it will take at least two.

    It won't take two... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    ... unless you make the threshold for nomination 50% of all the delegates, including MI and FL. Someone's going to have 50% of all the votes that are cast, since only the Edwards delegates don't belong to anyone, and they're still going to vote for somebody.

    And if you do make it 50% of all the delegates, it's more or less guaranteed no one can win, so the first vote would be meaningless.

    Parent

    bull, then do it to the rest of the states (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    that violated the so called scared position on the schedule. all the ra tatata about rules all the while deny franchisement to voters disgusts me.

    Parent
    bottom line (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    from this is if you think the voters of MI and FL should be heard, then Obama doesn't want your vote. That's my opinion only of course, but that what he is saying to me. And when he says Hillary is being "completely disingenuous" about wanting the voters in MI and FL to be counted in some way, then he not only doesn't want my vote, but he is showing he doesn't want me to like him either. I'm happy to oblige him on both counts.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tomangell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    While you say that to adopt Obama's 50/50 plan would "be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama" your position seems to assume that everyone who voted for Clinton on the incomplete ballot would still have done so had the other candidates' names appeared next to hers.

    I don't think we can be so sure.

    Tom, I think that's not the case (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    for the reasons here -- check out the ads that blasted the radio and what MI voters were told -- if you want Obama (in particular) or Edwards, vote uncommitted.

    On at least one county website , they posted:

    There is an "uncommitted" selection on the ballot. By voting "uncommitted" you are indicating that you have chosen to vote in a particular party's primary, however you do not wish to vote for one of the listed candidates.

    Rep. Conyers and his wife's radio ads (the actual script) in Michigan:

     

      MALE: The presidential election is confusing. I want to vote for Barack Obama, but Obama's name is not on the ballot.

        FEMALE: There is no one on that ballot I want to be president.

        MALE: Well, these folks can help us. Excuse me, Congressman Conyers and Councilwoman Conyers, we need your help.

        FEMALE: How can we vote for Obama on Tuesday?

        REP. CONYERS: You can't. You cannot even write in Obama's name. If you do, your vote will not count because Obama's campaign chose not to place his name on the Michigan ballot so as not to violate national Democratic Party rules. But you can vote "uncommitted."

        COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS: If at least 15 percent of the people vote "uncommitted," the state Democratic Party must send that percentage of delegates to the national convention uncommitted.

        REP. CONYERS: My wife and I are voting "uncommitted." We will work with the Democratic Party to make sure that uncommitted delegates go to that convention truly uncommitted so that Obama can compete for their vote.

        MALE: Thank you, Congressman Conyers and Councilwoman Conyers. I will join you and vote "uncommitted" on Tuesday.

        FEMALE: Me too. At least my vote won't be wasted.

        COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS: This truth-in-politics message was paid for my Friends of Monica Conyers.



    Parent
    good point, but (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    50/50 is clearly a horrible vote stealing solution. At least with the current vote, it's actually how people voted. I agree that it has flaws. So a revote is the best solution there.

    FL on the other hand has a much more fair solution: let the current votes count. Of course that's not quite fair either, it's pretty much the best option. A revote would be ok there too though.

    flip flop Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    one day he says he will go with the DCCC,
    next he wants what he wants.

    The more Hillary is out there, the more she's getting traction, and good democrats are coming home. Thank Goodness.

    She is the agent for hope and change. Think the
    Clinton years, and yes its the economy !

    How anybody can claim that (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    seating the MI delegates in accordance with the January vote is fair is absolutely beyond me. The DNC rules were the votes weren't going to count and the candidates agreed not to campaign. Obama and every other democratic candidate took his name off the ballot. How can seating delegates from that kind of vote come remotely close to any approximation of fairness?

    Geez.

    Obama's surrogates campaigned in MI, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    and told them to vote uncommitted.
    Giving Obama the uncommitted votes is quite fair actually, because it gives him more than he actually earned.

    Parent
    That's not what Jeralyn's saying (none / 0) (#182)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    and frankly not even Ed Rendell, Clinton super supporter, is wililng to argue that it's fair to seat MI delegates as voted.

    Parent
    Try again (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    Given the numerous recent discussions on this site about the MI primary, I'll just assume that you typed in haste when you said that "every other democratic candidate took his name off the ballot." As I'm sure you're aware, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich also appeared on the MI ballot. As Jeralyn likes to remind us, the preview button is our friend.

    Parent
    Oh my (none / 0) (#180)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/ys24q4

    Gravel and Dodd. The article says Kucinich pulled his name.

    Parent

    Odd, Kucinich (none / 0) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    was on NPR just the other day saying he didn't remove his name.  He thought it was less than intelligent to suggest and did not support it.  I guess I would want to see an actual ballot.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#223)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    Seeing as Kucinich pulled almost 22,000 votes in Michigan, I'd have to say the article was wrong. :)

    CNN Election Results

    Parent

    got it (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    will start looking yesterday

    If the DNC goes for this... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    bird-brained idea (as I said on another site), not only will I march to their HQ (I'm near DC), I will take a second or third job to send to the RNC.

    This is the last straw.  I. Will. Not. Vote. For. This. Man. Ever.

    This sucks (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by rafaelh on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    And I support Obama but I think this was the wrong decision, it was dumb decision. They had to make sure Clinton's supporters had nothing to claim his victory was not fair.

    I think that Clinton is playing politics by now claiming those votes after approving of the DNC's penalties but who cares, she also has a point. Obama would have done better in Michigan anyway so the whole point in not having the elections is to avoid a string of victories for Hillary, and that is just counterproductive. He can win the whole thing in the ballots, there's no need for all this 50-50 crap. C'mon, 50-50 is the same as 0-0, it's insulting.    

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Jaman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    This is obviously a Clinton place.  But are you people going to be OK when she is defeated?  The reason she is doing so poorly is because she turned into a Hawk as soon as she was elected to the Senate.  She did not expect a primary challenge.  Another judgment call.  Michigan and Florida are not going to revote and it is not because of Obama.  I just hope you all will do what is right for the country after all this venom.  Peace out.

    Re: Whatever (none / 0) (#207)
    by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    It usually helps to have facts behind you when you make a point. This may be more Hillary focused, but TL doesn't trash Obama unless there's facts to back it up.

    Parent
    Gotta love those folks (3.50 / 2) (#146)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    who claim to "abide by the rules" when they clearly have no idea what the rules are. And the hostility is truly a gem. Is this the "unity" schtick I've been hearing about? If you don't agree with us, you can just get the hell out of the party? Another glowing missive from Camp Obama.

    He made a choice to abide by the rules (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:46:06 PM EST
    Spin it how you like.

    Why anyone should think themselves entitled to count unsanctioned results is literally incredible.

    If Clinton gets the nod by virtue of the superdelegates or some other reasonable process, then I'm voting for her.

    This election is bigger than the candidates, and if you can't see that  I'd suggest you pull your head out of your bs meter and look around.

    by saying (none / 0) (#188)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    Obama is abiding by rules, you are implying others are not.  Who, please, is not abiding by rules?

    Parent
    No, I am not implying that (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    Why on earth do you say that if O is following the rules then C must not be. If I thought that C wasn't then I'd say so. She's playing politics right now and losing.

    What infuriates here is that the point that matters most to me, how to stop the republican rot in DC, is being lost in internecine party squabbling. Dems seem content to tear each other to shreds even if it means throwing the election to McCain. It would have been preferable for MI and FL to get their act together, but they gambled, the DNC took a hard line, and here we are. You can't count unsanctioned elections and have an iota's credibility.

    You need to be reminded that we've just had almost 8 years of the worst president in history. A man who has squandered lives, prestige, money, the future for the benefit of his oil buddies. I'm ready for the dems to lead, even though I left the party years ago. Are you?

    Parent

    no excuse (none / 0) (#2)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    for his slimy political position on this. It's politics at it's worst, vote stealing. Of course all pols do some slimy things, and I don't pretend any candidate is above some slimy things, but vote stealing is close to the lowest you can go.

    To me this is a major test of character and judgement. I can let it slide if there is a quick turn around with this crazy idea, and we see some support for the revote right away.

    50/50 is not stealing (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    It's simply a wash, equivalent to not seating the delegates at all.  Are you suggesting that not seating the delegates would be stealing the election?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    (bears repeating--it IS stealing)

    Parent
    Well, good luck with that one (none / 0) (#24)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    If you take votes away from one candidate and give them to another that is stealing the election.


    Parent
    Not seating the delegation (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    is not taking away votes from one candidate and giving them to another.  To quote Clinton supporters Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell:
    there is nothing fair or democratic about seating delegates elected in states that were not honestly contested or where all of the candidates were not even on the ballot.
     
    People, when your own candidate's prominent supporters reject your arguments, you are not doing very well.

    Parent
    They are making the case (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    For a revote.

    Obama is blocking a revote.


    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    I support a revote.  

    But it doesn't follow that not seating the delegation based on the January vote is stealing the election.  

    On the contrary, seating the delegation based on the January vote would be stealing the election -- as even clear-headed Clinton supporters recognize.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    Stealing is in the eye of the beholder at this point.  And everyone is dug in and they believe in their heart of hearts that they are right.

    Revote is the only pathway to reconciliation.


    Parent

    I doubt this is a wash (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by 0 politico on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    to the people who bothered to vote.

    Parent
    Anything other than... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    ...choosing the nominee based on fair elections in all 50 states produces a tainted nominee. And a tainted nominee who actively worked to prevent states from being represented because he thought he would lose there is certainly going to look like he stole the race.

    Parent
    50/50 is not a wash (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    To spread the delegates on a 50/50 allocation takes the delegates that HRC won from her and to Obama.  That's called stealing delegates.  HRC is for a re-vote if Obama does not agree to the prior vote as fair.  There is no reason not to seat the delegates as they voted in January because Obama took his name from the ballot and now uses that reason to nullify the vote. Obama is like a car dealer, all talk, but when one looks under the hood there is an empty space where the motor ought to be.

    Parent
    It is stealing (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    because even though it is a "wash" in terms of affecting the spread in pledged delegates, it gets Obama closer to the "number" needed to win the nomination than he would otherwise be. Hillary won 55% of the votes, but would in effect be "giving" those votes to Obama. In addition, all of the votes for "uncommitted," as well as to other candidates who remained on the ballot, would be given to Obama, even though a significant number of uncommitted votes would likely have gone to Edwards.

    It would be much fairer to give Hillary 55% of the delegates, and let both candidates scramble for the votes that went to "uncommitted." Obama might end up with every single one.  Or not. Plus, Obama could go after the delegates pledged to candidates who have since withdrawn.

    Since I don't expect Obama to agree to that proposal, a re-vote is the only fair alternative. 50-50 will never fly.

    Parent

    nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    but saying 50% of MI voters voted for someone they didn't his stealing. I agree when you count it up in the end, it has the same effect as not counting them. But just the same, counting some for Obama when he clearly didn't get and would never get 50% is unsavory.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
      IF  I need 101 out of 200 votes and potential votes are contested, it is to my advantage to split 50/50 if I aleady have 96 and my opponent only has 94. If the votes are counted 50/50, I win.

      If they are not counted no one wins and we go to a 2nd ballot where other votes might switch and I lose.

    Parent

    No, it's not a "wash" -- we went (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    through that in earlier threads.  When one candidate is closer to the total needed, xxx votes will mean more of a talking point than to the other candidate.

    It only would be a "wash" if what a candidate needed is the most votes.  But that's not how it works, and I thought we put that myth behind us here, too.

    Parent

    Wrong (1.00 / 0) (#135)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    The number of delegates needed will increase if the MI delegation are seated.  50/50 would bring Obama no closer to the nomination, relative to not seating the delegation at all.

    Parent
    Wrong. Read up. Whateve the total (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    needed, whether 2025 or 2205 or in between if only one of these two states is seated -- the same number of delegates for each candidate means a higher proportional reward for the candidate who is closer.

    Draw it out on paper. . . .

    Parent

    "Proportional reward" is meaningless (none / 0) (#221)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    The candidate with fewer delegate gets a higher "proportional reward" relative to  delegates already earned.  The candidate with more delegates gets a higher "proportional reward" relative to delegates needed.  Who cares?

    The absolute number of delegates needed by each candidates and the number of delegates available to compete for remains exactly the same.  

    Parent

    Obama's position (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    on a re-vote according to the link above is:

    Clinton has said she wants to count the 55 delegates she won in the Jan. 15 Michigan primary or have a second election; Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated.

    State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.
    "If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."

    The 50-50 idea is not a quote, and I am sure Obama would accept such a resolution.  However, he has not rejected a re-vote either.

     

    That's old news MKS (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    More recently, it has become clear that Obama is blocking the revote.

    Parent
    The 50-50 (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    proposal is if a do-over is not negotiated.....

    It is analogous to Hillary's position that she have the delegates seated as is if there is no re-vote...Yet, we do not hear the argument that Hillary is opposed to a re-vote and demanding her delegates be seated as is....

    Parent

    The difference is (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    That Hillary is actively pursuing a revote, while Obama is blocking it.  What you are saying was plausible last week, but it is no longer true.

    Parent
    stop, he hasn't endorsed the revote (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    knowing the deadline is today. See our other posts, and don't chatter by continuing to repeat the same inaccurate point.

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#17)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    John Edwards will be on Jay Leno tonight.
    Maybe FL-MI will be mentioned?


    if he endorses Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    I am burning my edwards t-shirt


    Parent
    i don't see him supporting obama (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    especially considering recent events.

    Parent
    I Couldn't Agree More . . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    I wonder if the term "Pyrrhic victory" ever popped up at Harvard Law?

    Pyrrhic victory (none / 0) (#49)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    And Hillary's throw the kitchen sink, burn Obama to the ground approach isn't setting up a pyrrhic victory of much more major proportions than who gets seated at a convention, which everyone will forget once the nominee is chosen.  
    DRAFT GORE.

    Parent
    a quick survey of the landscape (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    gives us a pretty good idea why Gore stayed out of this.
    and will continue to.

    Parent
    Everyone will not forget it (none / 0) (#109)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    Especially voters in MI and FLA, who control 44 electoral votes between them.

    Parent
    Fair to who? (none / 0) (#20)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with fairness, the will of the people or legitimately choosing a nominee for the Democratic party.  This is not even fair to Obama as it is giving him votes he did not receive.  

    I am so disgusted with Obama, Dodd, Conyers, the DNC, the Democratic party and more that I can't even think of at the moment.  This is nothing short of a farce and not what I expect from a party that I want to support.  

    Edwards could put a stop to this in a moment.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    likewise Gore. Gore has the stature, and Edwards has credibility this season. If either of them said that Obama was trying to cheat, he would have to back down.
    I think Edwards is a reasonable shot to say something. He must be really disgusted with Obama now.

    Parent
    I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    The last thing any party elder (or perspective party elder) wants to do right now is to pick a side. That would be a disaster. The party has to keep those guys in reserve to help put the Democrats back together after Obama and Clinton finish squabbling.

    Because the way this is headed, we're going to one hell of a patch job.

    Parent

    I think they should lean on Obama privately (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    I'd agree they shouldn't be openly coming out on either side in public.

    Parent
    Party Elders (none / 0) (#57)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    The party elders want things to stay the way they are so that the negative Hillary can't claim the nomination.  Then we'll see the Gore-Obama dream team drafted.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#212)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    can they lean on Obama when they've been pulling out all the stops to make sure he's the nominee?

    Parent
    I dont' think telling Obama not to cheat (none / 0) (#40)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    amounts to picking a side.

    Parent
    Of course it does. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    Because everyone has a different definition of cheating.

    Did you see Hillary's rally at the AFSCME union headquarters yesterday? We're talking about a Democratic union rally in Detriot...and there was scarcely a black face to be found. That's enough to put the fear of God into any party elder.

    They're not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole. And rightfully so. People will lambaste them for doing nothing, but it's far better to do nothing and be grumbled at now than do something and alienate a core Democratic constituency in November. The seams of our party are beginning to give under the gale-force winds of this primary. We've got keep to keep as many people as we can above the fray so they have a chance of stitching it back together when the storm passes.

    Parent

    AFSCME rally (none / 0) (#137)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    You must be looking at other pictures than I am looking at in the Detroit Free Press.

    Parent
    Remember, this is Detroit. (none / 0) (#154)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    The population is over 80% African American. AAs are the most loyal democratic demographic out there. Now look at those pictures again.

    Trust me, party elders are worried. And they should be. This is starting to get seriously ugly.

    Parent

    AAs (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    We already know that AAs are voting for Obama by 80% or more in most states.  The party elders are worried, yes indeed.  But I can guarantee you that they are not just worried about the AA vote.  Both candidates have a well documented set of constituents.  

    Parent
    Voting for Obama isn't the problem. (none / 0) (#167)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    Not voting for Clinton is.

    And yes, I agree with you that party elders are worried about more than the AA vote. Having older white women not show up for Obama is just as big a problem as having AAs fail to show up for Clinton. Both candidates have well documented sets of constituents...and both candidates need the other's in order to win. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that the camps are hardening, with the topics getting more divisive and the rhetoric getting steadily uglier.

    I just hope we're able to patch everything up before November.

    Parent

    Obama pulls only a third of whites (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    so far in the primaries as well as in the polls.

    They're a core constituency, too.  We're in trouble.

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#99)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    I don't know who is going to be able or willing to do what is necessary.  I would have expected that someone would have had the sense to stop this trainwreck before now.  We are nearing the point of no return with no revotes and the appearance of tilting in one candidates favor over another.  

    Parent
    I lay this at Dean's feet (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    He let this happen.  He continues to let it happen.  He tells the candidates to work it out -- like a parent trying to get two little kids to work it out -- except in this case, the failure to work things out doesn't just affect the two little kids, it affects the voters in two states, and possibly the whole country.

    That is not leadership. It's either favoritism, or cowardice.

    Parent

    Ditto. n/t (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:05 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#130)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    but want to be sure Donna Brazille is given fair credit for her role in pushing the nuclear option.  

    I am really feeling the entire Democratic party is bereft of leadership.  I can't understand how they can justify taking a position that excludes the voters of two states that have a right to be a part of the process.  And I am sick to death of hearing about the concern that they have to be careful to not lose this new generation of voters and the AA vote that is behind Obama while the women and hispanics that support Hillary are apparently of no consequence in this election.  

    Good luck to them with in trying to win the general election when they have a candidate who's spiritual advisor is scaring away independents and has a significant portion of the Democratic base not willing to vote for him either.  And to think I had high hopes for the 2008 election.    

    Parent

    Again Off topic (none / 0) (#26)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    I am new to posting comments. What does a (5/1) mean next to the subject line?  I posted a comment in response to a comment, now the original comment is gone and I got a (5/1) next to my response. Sorry, I'm a newbie.

    rating system (none / 0) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    If you look below the comment (in any comment other than one of yours), you'll see a widget that will let you rate the comment. It's fun, everyone should play along.

    Parent
    Make sure you rate comments (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    according to the quality, not whether you agree with them. Anybody consistently low-rating comments because of the point of view expressed will have all their ratings deleted and may be banned.

    Parent
    I think there could be other reasons (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    the campaign is milking this.  and they are milking it.
    as long as we are talking about this we are not talking about "other things".

    Parent
    Level playing field (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cayey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    He should get 50% of the uncommitted(40%)and the other 50% will go to Edwards and Biden. Hillary will keep her 55%.

    Why doesn't he just ask McCain... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    ... for 50% of the electoral votes? Then we can dispense with a costly and time-consuming election.

    Delegates can vote anyway they want (none / 0) (#45)
    by seattlegonz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    I have a question -- supposing it looks like BO has won the nomination via delegates and we all go to the convention and when they call the MI roll all the delegates vote for HIllary instead of voting 50/50 the way they are "supposed" to? What happens then?

    Aren't all delegates able to change their point of view? Maybe some of the early voting states no longer want to cast their delegate votes to a man who support anti-american and racist rhetoric for 20 years...aren't they able to change their votes?

    This varies by state (none / 0) (#116)
    by DaleA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    recalling past conventions. In some states, delegates are legally obliged to vote whomever they are pledged to. But this is almost never enforced. Don't believe this has come up in 40 years.

    Parent
    Read it carefully. (none / 0) (#48)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Dodd spoke to campaign leaders. Burton said they agreed it would be an equitable way of handling Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in a renegade Jan. 15 primary.

    The Clinton campaign immediately rejected the idea of splitting the delegates. "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

    If you want to crucify someone, crucify Dodd for suggesting it.  While Obama agrees that it would be fair, Clinton disagrees.

    Title is slightly misleading.

    Also:

    Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat.

    This is from you.  Can you support this or is just a theory of yours?  Guess work?  Attempt to rally a pro-Clinton base?

    just an FYI (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    the pro clinton base does not need to be rallied.
    we are rallied.  we are uber-rallied. we are so freakin rallied it is unbelievable.
    we have
    never
    been
    more
    rallied

    Parent
    days late and dollars (and votes) short (3.00 / 2) (#158)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    but that, apparently, is what inevitability leads to.

    and it is quite apparent to the rest of us not so worked up folks that the Clinton camp is uber-rallied (interesting word choice this week).  that, imho, is one of the problems.  y'all should have gotten uber-rallied before Super Tuesday.  But then, only the big states are where it's at, ain't it?

    Parent

    If its not in quotes (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    it's from me, my opinion, that's what bloggers do. We opine on the news.  However, this one is backed up by recent polls in Florida, showing 1 in 4 Dems may not vote Democratic in November if their votes aren't counted. I've got several posts up on that this week.

    Parent
    I Object to your letter (none / 0) (#52)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    In light of the Iowa county conventions, your letter should read:

    "Please don't take any MORE votes you didn't win."

    Vote Stealing/Voter Disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    That's the talking point. It's simple and clear.

    And where the heck is Howard Dean anyway? Hiding under a rock? How could I ever have thought he could run the country when he can't seem to run the party apparatus?

    actually (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    I think running the country might be easier

    Parent
    Hmm. Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    Since running the Democratic party has always been like of herding cats.

    Parent
    pushing a rope (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    etc etc

    Parent
    A narrative is emerging for Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    Looking quite insecure about holding on to his "victory" by going on all the media shows, giving interviews left and right (will appear on the View soon) giving 3 "major" speeches in 3 days... Boy oh boy talk about overcompensation for sagging poll numbers.

    This stonewalling on Michigan is beyond inexcusable.  People are beginning to see he is just trying to run out the clock instead of being a fearless LEADER who confronts a challenge head on and says to America: "watch me earn this, watch me win this..."  Shying away from these kind of bumps in the road is not the mark of a great President.

    50/50 SD split in FL and MI; seat (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    the delegations as is, giving Obama all the uncommitted vote in MI.
    How about that?

    Hillary had more votes in each (none / 0) (#118)
    by DaleA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    state. As shown above this would be vote stealing. Unacceptable idea.

    Parent
    SD's are allowed to vote as they please. (none / 0) (#133)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    I am giving her the delegates from the regular primary, then saying the SD's will agree to be split 50/50.


    Parent
    Letter to Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn,
    Is there any way we can all write or sign our  name to a letter to Senator Obama--like the one at the bottom of your post?

    they're not, she's not, he looses (none / 0) (#89)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    I don't know if Hillary would do that or not. I'd like to think not. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Like I have given to Obama on many occasions. What I do know is Obama stands for disenfranchising the voters of this country. I can't support him.

    If Clinton tried something like this (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    the 50/50 split, she would be excoriated by the press and drummed out of the election.

    This is the only thing we need to know: Obama is against revoting in FL and MI because he knows he will lose these states and the nomination; ergo, he should not "win" the party nomination by other means.

    Parent

    She hasn't been excoriated (none / 0) (#153)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    by the press for changing her position on MI and FL after the voting took place. I see very little on that. In fact, she is being portrayed as heroic for her efforts to "count every vote". I agree with a re-vote, but am honest that Clinton did not support these delegates being seated until she fell behind and needed them.

    Parent
    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    If she didn't want the votes counted before - she was wrong. She wants them counted now (yes, it's political - so what, this isn't a tea party).  In this case, what is politically expedient for her is actually good for voters, so I say again, who cares?

    Parent
    Nonsense. It's stalling (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    and hardly the start of negotiations, after weeks of this debate.  Obama knows the legislature heads home now for the holiday weekend, so he is balking at new points and dragging out old ones -- and the MI press and public are not fooled.  Go read the press there.

    Ok, here is the plan (none / 0) (#95)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Rock, Sissors, Paper. Might as well when you are talking 50/50.

    Obama is not sounding very hope and change like, is he. Well, change the votes would qualify. And this is how it would be under a Obama Presidency. He would just give it to the Republicans. We already have one stuborn do it my way or the highway sort of guy in the WH now. Sounds like the same ol same ol.

    he has hope (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    that he'll be nominated before people catch on to who he is and what he's about. Maybe it will work. It's audacious to be sure.

    Parent
    You are mocking (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
     but the practical reality is that any solution will be a "deal" and there will be no deal unless both sides agree to it. Mutual agreement will be achieved through negotiation based on self-interest of the candidates. Obama's self-interst calculus has to (or at least should)  include consideration of how much he will be hurt by the perception he is being obstructionist compared to how much he will be hurt by conceding Clinton gets X number of first ballot delegates.

      Would any candidate endorse a revote if he believed it was likely to result in more delegates for his opponent than would an arbitrary "numbers deal? Not unless he was onvinced that would somehow hurt him more than revote because of perceptions. But, is it possible for that to happen if he would be able to defuse criticism by pointing to the fact Clinton too agreed to the deal?

       Clinton then, has to decide whether refusing to accept a "numbers deal" and a bird in hand, so to speak, is preferable to the advantage of continuing to hold out for a revore she most likely cannot attain because it would give her the ammo to call Obama the party in the wrong for blocking the revote.

      But, where in any scenario is there advantage to Obama from a revote. Zero delegates from those 2 states for Clinton is obviously in absolute numbers better than her getting a majority of the delegates. Only if he though he would get the majority would he want a revote and if he has the ability to prevent it why would he not? In the land where everything is Hillarific his valid arguments as to why the revote is as flawed as any other "solution" is seen as unsupportable. I doubt that is the case in the larger world.

    Parent

    50/50 is not a deal, it is a gift (none / 0) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    To Obama. I understand where you are coming from, but would your opinion be the same if the tables were turned? If Obama needed those votes to win?. I say he gets the undecided and be happy he gets those votes.  There was no reason for him to take his name off the ballot. He was either trying to make it look bad for Hillary or it was a bonehead mistake. Either one is not complimentary. And I was for Edwards at the time and thought it was dumb for him to do this too. IMHO.

    Parent
    The benefit to Clinton is not the delegates (none / 0) (#162)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    The benefit to her is that it will extend the race into June.  If MI & FL are voting in June then Team Clinton can argue that she is staying in the race until all the people have spoken.  It looks like that is their argument no matter what happens but that argument is easier to make when big states like MI & FL are in play in June.  


    Parent
    Getting an "extra" say? (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Nobody's getting an "extra" say. That would amount to having their votes count twice towards delegates. But their votes haven't counted for delegates even once.

    There is not much time to waste. Obama is playing out the clock on this one. P^%!ing and moaning about the Michigan Democratic Party is useless and counterproductive at this point. Dean needs to take the lead in making sure their delegates are seated or the retribution from Michigan Democratic voters is going to be disastrous in November. Same with Florida, as Jeralyn has mentioned repeatedly (25% pledging not to vote in November if delegates aren't seated).

    This is the perfect example of "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." Democrats are going to end up looking pretty ugly come November.

    Obama Wants to Win (none / 0) (#102)
    by stevenb on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    It is obvious that Obama can sit idly by and wait out the nomination process now, since he leads in all areas that matters (delegates, popular vote, etc.).  Barring more scandal from Obama, Clinton needs MI and FL to win on numbers.  Camp Obama knows this, and they are willing to block any attempts at revoting because they know full well they'll lose.

    Unfortunately, that is fair and smart politics...but seriously flies in the face of Obama's Hope and Change campaign.  But, Obama wants to win, his constituency wants him to win, his donors want him to win, so they'll stand behind this artificial blockade as long as necessary.  

    How about we start a "Rescind Your Obama Vote" petition? Maybe that will equal the possibly lost additions from MI and FL.

    Rescind Your Obama Vote (none / 0) (#123)
    by DaleA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    Great idea. How to get it stated?

    Parent
    Rescind your Obama Vote (none / 0) (#125)
    by stevenb on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#129)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    you got something there. If I had the net savvy, I'd get this ball rolling.

    Parent
    I agree that it's fair politics... (none / 0) (#147)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    ...but I disagree that it's smart politics.

    Obama's best bet would have been to support (and offer to go halvsies on paying for) re-votes in both Michigan and Florida.

    Doing so would not have hurt his candidacy in any material way.

    Not doing so, fair or not, gives Hillary a big, fat talking point that she can repeat over and over again.

    Parent

    Except Obama Wants to Steal Votes (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by stevenb on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    How about this:

    "328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

    Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

    Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama."

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/20/13130/8225

    Parent

    delegates for change (none / 0) (#106)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    I have a question for the readers here. Can the regular delegates change their vote? I know the supers can do anything, but I'm not as sure about the regular ones. Perhaps it varies by state.

    But wouldn't it be cool if they did a 50/50 split in MI saying you're officially for Obama and you're officially for Clinton, and then at convention time, those delegates said something else.

    And similarly, can delegates from other states change? Then a campaign to all the other regular delegates could be interesting.

    And yes, my subject is a bit of a snark. :-)

    Technically, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    Realistically, no.

    You don't get to be a delegate unless you're utterly, completely, fanatically devoted to a candidate. They're not selected on the basis of their intelligence, or their political savvy, or their party contribution. They're selected on the basis of how committed they are to seeing their guy win.

    Parent

    It is a time committment as well (none / 0) (#124)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    Once you are chosen as a delegate in your precinct, you continue on to the county convention, then the state convention, and finally the national convention.

    So, truly, being a delegate is not a game.

    Parent

    and yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    some could say that sounds like vote stealing. But I'm not a candidate. I can push for that if I want.

    A related question would be, can the delegates selected by a caucus change their votes to better reflect the will of the people from their state?

    Parent

    The answer is "yes" (none / 0) (#128)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    Any pledged delegate can still switch their vote at the convention.

    Sort of off-topic, but that same Politico article quotes Doug Wilder as saying there will be rioting in the streets if Clinton wins by getting the necessary superdelegates. Since when is Wilder known for making such incendiary statements? That really disappoints me.

    Parent

    I have one thing to say (none / 0) (#136)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    about these threats to riot, that is intimidation.  We are still in the middle of a primary process where people will still be casting their vote and any member of the Democratic party making such incendiary comments should be receive a good smack down from the party.  

    Parent
    Oh yeh? Has he seen a million women march? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    We have, and we filled the streets of D.C.  It's easily done in Denver.  Watch a million women march for Clinton -- and do our part for law and order by keeping the Obamans from rioting.  

    If it's a million moms, we'll send 'em to their rooms, too.

    Parent

    I am a little over a half days drive to Denver and (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    will definately take my walker and my grandaughter and attend that march...Would love to do it for Hillary...I might look silly with a walker but what the heck....LOL....

    Parent
    OK then (none / 0) (#173)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    Cream City's got the spare bedroom. Athyrio's got the couch.

    I still have floor space and a big back yard and a couple of tents.

    Come on to Denver, everyone. We'll march peacefully together to the Pepsi Center.

    Parent

    I don't think adding more angry people will (none / 0) (#148)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    do much for stopping riots.  And if a riot is anything like a caucus they probably be outnumbered.

    Parent
    I think it depends on state law (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    Some states say you are committed to the candidate at least through the first ballot (I think)

    Parent
    Please see shoephone's (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    link -- DNC rules supersede, as it's a party matter, and what state parties say does not matter compared to DNC roolz that a pledge is only a pledge.  Meaning, delegates can vote differently from their pledge even on the first ballot.  In the interim, stuff happens . . . as we have seen this week.

    Parent
    i don't like being threatened! (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    and i can assure you the typical voter in this country won't take to it either. so wilder, rev sharpton and brazile can threaten all they like. it won't change obama's dropping poll numbers.

    Parent
    The rules allow the delegates to be (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    seated. I am all for abiding by the rules and seating the FL and MI delegations.

    The rules may allow (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    but the deal, at the outset, was they wouldn't be seated because the state parties didn't / wouldn't / couldn't get their acts together and set a "correct" date, i.e. one acceptable to the national party.  That was the deal, i.e.  the rules all of the candidates agreed to play by at the beginning.  Now, when Clinton needs more votes she wants to reinterpret / reinvent / revote the deal.  That wasn't part of the deal and if the 2 remaining candidates can't agree, then no deal on redoing the deal and the old deal stays.  That's fairness, frankly.  And if Clinton is so in love with the popular vote, let's just hear her say that she'll abide by the nationwide popular vote -- no delegates / superdelegates.  Yeah, I'll hold my breath on that one, you?

    Parent
    Huh? I'm sure Clinton would prefer that the (3.00 / 2) (#150)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    national popular vote---including MI and FL---be used.
    The rest of your comment I didn't quite understand, but I take it you are in full agreement that seating the FL and MI is completely acceptable, according to the RULES. Excellent.

    Parent
    Of course, the real fair solution... (none / 0) (#140)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    ... is to follow the rules that Harold Ickes (among others on the DNC Rules Committee) voted to enforce last year:

    As several states continue to elbow each other to go earlier and earlier in the 2008 presidential calendar, the Democratic National Committee decided to draw a line in the sand and say "enough."

    "The whole system is goofy, completely out of kilter and way too early," said Harold Ickes, a rules committee member from Washington, D.C. "The whole damn system is way, way too early."



    Note that I have said much the same thing... (none / 0) (#170)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    ... about the rules in much less offensive language, above.

    Parent
    Try reading the rules (none / 0) (#142)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    and come back with a rational argument.  

    Here are a few links to get you started:

    From the Florida Dems FAQ...

    Florida Law, DNC Rules, Punishments, and Primaries

    And the actual rules can be found here

    In fact, the rules: (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    1. Mandate a 50% loss of delegates to violative states(Rule 20.C.1.a.),

    2. Permit the DNC rules committee to impose a stricter penalty, up to a 100% loss of delegates Rule(20.C.6), and

    3. Permit the DNC rules committes to impose a more lenient penalty, up to and including no loss of delegates(Rule 20.C.7).

    The rules are quite flexible.

    Parent
    The rules are flexible (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    but did the DNC complete an investigation or hold hearings before deciding to impose the strictest penalty?  

    Rule 20.C.7

    In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

    I don't think you are trying to be argumentative and do not disagree with your points.  I do take exception to demsforlife suggestion that "If you don't like it. Find another party. We abide by the rules."  

    The DNC has created a situation where no one wins.  

    Parent

    All I know is that Harold Ickes thought so.... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    ... at the time.

    I haven't heard him express what changed his mind.  I do have my suspicions about what it was, and they do not improve his stature.

    I do agree that this whole thing has been a cluster#*@! from the word go.

    Parent

    I didn't start (none / 0) (#225)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    actively posting on TL prior to the Iowa caucus but I can guarantee you I have never agreed with the DNC's penalizing FL and MI with the full removal of their primary vote.  I am also opposed to caucuses and believe the DNC did not need to interfere with or change the Nevada primary either.  

    I speak for myself and don't make the assumptions you do about others.  I don't care if Ickes voted for or against the penalties.  I believe strongly in fair elections, whether a primary or general, that allow every voter to participate and their vote to be counted.  I used to believe the Democratic party was the party that stood for the same and am disheartened to see that is not the case.  

    Parent

    no, we don't know it. please stop with this (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    business as usual stuff. obama is taking a bone headed position that all of us will have to pay for and i for one don't appreciate it.

    How was it a bad campaign choice? (none / 0) (#183)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    Right now, it does appear that the decision will have no bearing on the election results.
    One thing Obama has done is run a good campaign.

    Obama (none / 0) (#216)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    made a choice to remove his name for the ballot - campaign strategy - to appease the voters in IA and NH - because he knew he wouldn't win in MI - and knew that if it would come down to matter in the end about Michigan, he could claim "my name wasn't on the ballot".

    Did someone miss that his name WAS on the ballot and he CHOSE to remove it (and no, the candidates NEVER promised to)

    And if we're going to compare who followed the rules - then why did Obama hold a press conference and run a nationwide ad that could be seen in Florida markets (which he could have had blocked from those markets)?

    He who is without sin yada yada yada...

    Parent

    I did not bring up rules (none / 0) (#224)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:14:25 PM EST
    I'm not disputing his name was on the ballot and he removed it. I'm saying it was not, as you stated, a bad campaign choice, it was a brilliant one.

    Parent
    Only if you think (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    he can have a legitimate nomination or be elected by disenfranchising the voters of Michigan or Florida.

    Parent
    The real question (none / 0) (#191)
    by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:09 PM EST
    Can this revote still happen when the legislature reconvenes in two weeks. Have we crossed the point of no return for a revote? If something major comes up (i.e. Barack, under pressure, says a revote may have been possible, but the time has elapsed), is there still time left to hear the will of the voters?

    Never mind. (none / 0) (#194)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    I found the report myself, no thanks to you.

    I hope (none / 0) (#209)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:51:50 PM EST
    we're not going to end up with a situation where Clinton is the preferred candiate of Dems and we get Obama as the nominee.

    Carville and Dashle (none / 0) (#222)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    were just on the Situation Room about this very subject and Carville ate his lunch while carving up the Obama campaign's objections to a revote. my favorite quote?

    "They don't want a revote because they are afraid they will lose."

    Then when Tom kept bringing up the legal challenges Wolf would go to Carville who would say, "anyone watching this right now can see the fear."

    There Is Another Alternative (none / 0) (#228)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    It's too bad that HRC supporter Jennifer Granholm disenfranchised Michigan Democrats by signing the bill that changed Michigan's primary date to one that violated the DNC's rules.

    But all is not lost.  Michigan delegates can still be seated at the convention if the Michigan Democratic Party holds a DNC-approved caucus that will choose delegates to the national convention.

    If Michigan Democrats choose not do so, then they have made their own bed.  Let them sleep in it.  

    Is That An Official Obama Position ? n/t (none / 0) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST


    Hillary said Michigan votes dont count (none / 0) (#231)
    by Raheem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:21:19 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

    but now they should? crazy...

    Comments Closing (none / 0) (#232)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    Ones with insults deleted.

    Deconstructionist is in time out, he repeatedly violated the sites rules on the two threads I've read so far today. He's also chattering. If he's allowed back he'll be limited in the number of comments he can make per day.

    One last thing: To clear up the issue of Kucinich being on the ballot, if you read the links in this post to my prior posts, you will see that I not only explained it but linked to the actual notices from the Michigan Secretary of State explaining this.

    There was a deadline to take your name off the ballot. Kucinich missed it. He tried but his notice got in too late. So he ended up being on the ballot, along with Hillary, Dodd and Gravel.