home

Obama in His Own Words on Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22:56 AM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As Big Tent Democrat wrote below, Obama is the obstacle to the Michigan re-vote.

Ten of Hillary Clinton's individual donors have pledged $12 million for a revote.

Barack Obama tells CNN:

In a CNN interview, the Illinois senator recalled Clinton's statement last fall that Michigan's primary was "not going to count for anything."

"Then, as soon as she got into trouble politically, and it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having [Michigan and Florida] count, suddenly she's extraordinarily concerned with the voters there," Obama told CNN. "I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics."

His spokesman says: [More...]

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the group's offer showed that Clinton was "willing to do absolutely anything to get elected."

"This letter from some of Clinton's biggest campaign contributors eliminates any pretense that Clinton's efforts in Michigan are about anything other than an attempt to bankroll an election in which they appear more than happy to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters," he said.

Barack Obama could care less about disenfranchising voters. That's his goal for Michigan and Florida and more than 2 million of the states' voters. Now, that's politics. And hardly the politics of hope or change.

< Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not: Obama Objects To DNC Rule In MI Revote Controversy | Study: What Immigrant Crime Wave? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama in His Own Words on Michigan | 201 comments (201 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It is awfully cynical of him to say (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:45 AM EST
    that SHE is engaging in politics when he is violating his pledge to do whatever the DNC decides is within the rules.

    What Obama fails to realize is that ultimately what matters is not which candidate is benefitted most by a re-vote; what matters is that the VOTERS are benefitted by a re-vote.

    And he also fails to realize that not agreeing to a re-vote is not only politics, its bad politics.

    Some might say (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:10 AM EST
    he is willing to do anything to win, including disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan.

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    How does Mr. Unity deal with that narrative?

    Parent
    I want to find out (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    I certainly will be pressing this issue.

    And Kid Oakland's acquiescence to this is noted.

    Parent

    and TINS is screaming for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    to get out of the race yesterday.

    Oh the webs we weave. . .

    Parent

    Imagine (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    where we would be now if Hillary dropped out in light of the Polling data from earlier threads.  

    Parent
    60-40 for McCain. (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:29 AM EST


    Parent
    They are frothing today (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    over this bit by Obama.

    And throwing the Michigan voters under the bus, but that part doesn't seem to bother them at all.  They blame it on the Michigan legislature.

    So it's all Hillary's fault except when it is the Mi Leg's fault, and of course, it is never, ever Obama's fault.

    Parent

    What magical powers does Obama have (none / 0) (#201)
    by Knocienz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    That requires Michigan to hold off on a new primary? They can just schedule one and go with it.

    I doubt the DNC would dare refusing to seat a new vote at this stage.

    Parent

    The people who were the silliest droolers (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    6-12 months ago are all frontpagers now---every day.
    TINS is a prime example.

    Parent
    Not an FPer (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    but still prominent--and quite shrill.

    Parent
    Sorry, i meant to say they were (none / 0) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    regulars on the Wreck list.

    Parent
    Wrong diary premise. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    Today's is:

    Super Delegates - You can end this "gruesome process" now!

    (Yes, the "gruesome process" is an exact quote.)

    Parent

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    She's not that far behind in delegates for that call to be made...not even close.

    Parent
    Even if Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    got all the super delegates to go his way--all of them--he still could not win the number needed for the nomination.  Neither, of course, could Clinton.

    We need the coming elections to decide who wins the nom.  FL and MI are an integral part of that.

    Obama knows this.  He also knows that MI and FL are going to be terrible for him.  This is the only reason he is pushing against the revote.  

    Parent

    Ah yes, I remember that well... (none / 0) (#44)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    The "casual poetry" of the ("respectful," "inclusive") Obama campaign now includes disenfranching the voters.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    All falsehoods from the biggest dissembler in the blogosphere, Kid Oakland.

    Parent
    But I remember the one (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    where he asked the question - "what Democratic Party will we be?" One that looks to exclude the voters?

    He is the living embodiment of the Obama Rules. He is a phony.

    Parent

    Anything to win the primary (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    He doesn't seem to be worrying too much about the general election. He should be in Michigan showing that he cares about their votes, not doing interviews attacking Clinton for wanting to win an election.

    You'd think that Clinton was trying to cheat, not just to have all the votes counted.

    Parent

    I see a rout in November (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    Obama losing MI, OH, PA, FL = lost election.  And with this pastor disaster, I can see him losing WI, MN, VA, MO, IA...lots of states that aren't hard blue and more secular than most.

    Like someone said yesterday, it isn't about Barry's skin tone, it's about "God d*** America" and about preaching "chickens coming home to roost" the Sunday after 9/11.  

    Parent

    Obama as nominee (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    also puts MASS in play in a big was according to SUSA today. He is currently tied with McCain 47-47.

    Yikes...

    Hillary is ahead of McCain by 13 in MASS in the same poll.

    Parent

    IA, really? (none / 0) (#142)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    In IA on Saturday, Edwards delegates who switched switched to Obama despite the Wright story having broken on Thursday. Of course, GEs are not won with delegates so...

    Parent
    Too soon. We catch up on Sundays (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    with the news in the heartland.  Except for those of us nooz junkies on blogs.

    We don't change our minds easily, either.  That's so, y'know, coastal to do.  But when we start the slow burn, it smolders for a long time. . . .

    Parent

    You said it (none / 0) (#191)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    GE's are not won with delegates. They are won with independents and moderates. Dems by and large will not be effected by the Wright story. Most progressives are open-minded enough to accept that Wright's anger doesn't disqualify Obama from being President, even if we don't like the association. But no election in decades has been won by partisans alone. The delegates represent the partisans, not the voters.

    Parent
    And that is the clue: the general election (none / 0) (#162)
    by lily15 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    If these phonies are not interested in the general election, perhaps there is a reason.  Trojan Horse theory.  Some people in the progressive blogosphere may in fact not be sincere.  We don't really know what we are dealing with.  But some simple facts to consider.  Wright's rants were available on DVD...they were being sold for profit...and Obama did nothing to insulate himself from damage in the general election were he to be the nominee.  Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot initially to avoid losing and looking bad in an early primary, even in a beauty contest. And this furthered the argument he is making now. Don't count the votes.   It was a tactic as was the 100% delegate punishment of Michigan and Florida. Clinton didn't see it coming of course. And her failure to object was not strategic. But Obama has manipulated the system and Democrats. This all looks planned to me.  Obama did well in caucuses, that are not at all democratic.   The last thing Obama wants are democratic elections.  And this is supposedly why there are super delegates...to negate the effect of this type of rigged process.  Once Obama demonstrated he wasn't interested in re voting, he demonstrated that the success of the Democratic party was less important than his own personal ambition.  That should be sufficient to not vote for him.  He is a divider not a uniter.  He will do anything to win, including fracturing and sinking the Democratic party.

    Parent
    So he's qualified (none / 0) (#199)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    Lots of people in the past say that what makes Hillary qualified is that she'd do anything to win in November.  I guess that Obama is as good of a politician, which is a big relief in case another Florida 2000 comes along.

    Parent
    It shows the opposite that it is Obama (none / 0) (#159)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    who is actually the one who will do anything say anything including disenfranchising voters to win and gain the nomination.  When this all started some time ago, and I wish I could find the clip, Howard Dean said in an interview that Fla and Mich where never intended to not be seated for the convention that they just had to stop the dates moving and that there was historic examples of delegates being seated later.

    And not sure we ever got an answer maybe we did but my question is, the ruling of the Party was not to seat delegates I don't see anything that then said the voters then dont count too so are they not to be included in any view of the  popular vote.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#173)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    it's hypocritical.  Hypocrisy thy name is Barack Obama.

    Parent
    It's politics (none / 0) (#200)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    And I guess Hillary's change of mind since last Fall is not hypocritical but the result of a Damascene conversion experience?

    Parent
    Haha-- (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the group's offer showed that Clinton was "willing to do absolutely anything to get elected."

    For instance, she's willing to win in MI and FL again just to get elected.

    Very unseemly.

    It is hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    and it is not working for Obama in Michigan.

    Parent
    Working nationally (none / 0) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    It may not be working in Michigan, but only one poll has Clinton on top over at RCP.  Why don't they use SUSA.  Does it have a bad track record?  I would have thought ARG was worse.

    Parent
    That is a false measure of (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    the Florida and Michigan issues.

    Parent
    Rasmussen's Daily (none / 0) (#58)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    tracking just came out:

    In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama now leads Clinton 46% to 43%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led by eight. (see recent daily results). New polling data released today shows that Clinton leads handily in West Virginia's Presidential Primary.

    I doubt this is the direction Obama was hoping to see the polls trending after his speech.  Nothing yet from Gallup.  

    Parent

    ahhh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    What is wrong with doing anything to win, especially, when it looks that Obama  would lose badly against McCain?  She is trying to save the Dems from their own stupidity.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#174)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    that's their favorite mantra.  Obama just loves those right wing talking points. They're not going to give it up now.  After all, it's carried them through several caucuses.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#175)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    LOL!

    Parent
    It's scandalous! (none / 0) (#182)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    Trying to win an election by winning votes?

    The audacity!

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    My title would have been "Obama Admits He Does Not Care About The Voters of Michigan."

    That's the genius of the 48 state strategy! (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    We don't need to care about FL and MI!

    Parent
    He's right that it's politics (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    but so is his position: the immensely more damaging proposition that MI and FL voters should not have a say.

    The politics have him (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    NOT caring about the voters of Michigan.

    Parent
    Yeah Barack it's just politics (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    but when one person's politics includes giving voters the right to have a meaningful vote, and the other person's politics involves denying people the right to vote, which one has the better politics?

    Or is this just more of the 'politics of change', i.e. a change from democracy to a more exclusive system?

    Well that was just (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    unpleasant.  CNN is really trying for Obama.  They have Cooper traveling with him.  They are reporting everything he is doing live, in fact they have him on right now.  But I am getting annoyed every time he opens his mouth on this.  He's overly concerned with the Republican vote and it is Clinton's fault.  I want him to talk about himself.  I want the media to quit quoting him every time he blames Clinton.  It is unfortunate there is no foul language allowed.

    The same Obama that would not blog (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    or appear on all the news shows? It sounds like the 'Chickenman Wing Warrior of the 60's that I hear on XM Radio". He's everywhere, he's everywhere.

    Parent
    MI Republicans (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dave B on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    I saw them state on CNN that Obama was concerned about independents and "others" who had already voted in Michigan's earlier primary being disenfranchised.

    The conveniently left out Independents and "Republicans" who had voted in the Republican primary.

    That's a fine example of slanted reporting right there.  They will not come straight out and report that Obama is concerned for Republicans.

    Parent

    CNN hearts Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#164)
    by qnr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    How can they be "disenfranchised" if they have already voted and had their votes counted?

    Parent
    From the cited LA Times article: (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    The group includes Los Angeles investor Haim Saban; Fred Eychaner, a Chicago contributor who made his fortune in TV and radio; and three attorneys: Peter G. Angelos, who owns the Baltimore Orioles baseball team; John Eddie Williams Jr. of Houston; and Calvin C. Fayard Jr. of Louisiana.

    Others signatories include New Yorkers Bernard L. Schwartz, former chairman of the satellite communications firm Loral Space and Communications; former Clinton administration Treasury official Roger Altman of the private equity firm Evercore; and John Catsimatidis, whose business interests include real estate and oil.

    I may have to think less unkindly about Angelos, who has ruined the Orioles.

    LOL (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:33 AM EST


    Parent
    So if Obama doesn't want revotes... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Alvord on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    ... in MI/FL and Obama doesn't want to accept the results of the January elections in MI/FL and if the DNC won't step in and insure that MI/FL voters aren't disenfranchised, maybe MI/FL should boycott the Democratic convention this summer. And maybe the supporters of Hillary Clinton from New York, Massachussetts, Texas, Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and beyond should boycott the convention as well. Maybe it is time to play hardball with the Obama campaign and with the DNC.

    Road-Barack in Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    We've said all there is to say, all that was left was coming up with the catchy name for it.

    to win this way is in no way democratic or (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    honorable. The Obama campaign should be ashamed that they wish to win more than they want the democratic candidate to prevail in November, it appears at least...IMHO

    This is a very bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:21:51 AM EST
    for Obama.  As the Dem nominee he will need every electoral vote he can get, including Michigan and Florida.  

    Rasmussen has a new breaking poll -

    The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

    Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama's chances of winning the general election against John McCain. The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven't bounced back.

    In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama's speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday's polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.

    If this trend continues, Wright is hurting Obama's prospects more in the GE than the Dem primary.  Obama's short sighted plan to win the nomination by casting aside MI and FL will not make him a stronger candidate in the GE.  

    I've gleened (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    that this is their line of thinking about everything...just get us to Point A and we'll think about Point B later. (e.g. when they make some really wierd statement to win one state while not really thinking about the fact that they whole country can hear them!)

    Not a good electoral strategy and CERTAINLY not a good presidential strategy -- want my president to be a planner...

    I think a point to keep highlighting (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    is that a lot of the problems in Michigan are a result of Obama taking his name off the ballot in an effort to game the system. I find it offensive that he is now using the result of his own actions to claim that the process is unfair. Other than his admiittedly powerful speechifying, I've seen very little from Obama that doesn't seem like politics as usual. He advocated positive campaigning because it worked for him (although he certainly didn't have a problem with slamming Hillary regularly). With the overwhelmingly positive media he was enjoying, only Hillary was in a position to point out his shortcomings. Now, he's going on the attack because it's the tactic that's necessary for him. But of course his campaign portrays it as "look what Hillary made us do."

    I don't see how the OBama camp's response to the MI and FL problem, "Hillary will do anything to win," advances a positive agenda.

    I have lost all respect for him. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    Every time I look for action behind his pretty words, I see nothing to back it up.

    It's just beyond the pale to accuse Clinton of disenfranchising voters.

    In a democracy, and especially in a party called "Democratic Party", you always want as many people participating as possible. Leaving the votes of people in two entire states out is just ridiculous.

    Sure, in this case, Hillary Clinton's interests are better served by a re-vote, so sure, she and her supporters have political motivations by providing money.  But that's not the point. The point is that the people of MI and FL deserve to have their vote counted. It doesn't matter whom it benefits And we don't even know whom it will benefit. It will certainly benefit the eventual nominee by validating his or her victory.

    Anyone with the gal to call a re-vote "buying votes" or "disenfranchising voters" is either a very cynical, ruthless politician (Obama and his campaign) or is way too invested in their candidate to see clearly (some Obama supporters).

    We need to pressure Howard Dean, the party (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    I don't care what election, what party, what year it is. If you have two candidates running pretty close for the nomination, and you say two major states can revote ONLY if both candidates agree on the conditions, that revote will never happen!

    This is the fault of the Democratic party. The Democratic party is allowing Obama to do this. The Democratic party is ignoring Michigan and Florida voters and this will be remembered for years. Years!

    Ten wealthy (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by 1jane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    Ten wealthy Dems offered to pay for a new presidential primary in Michigan; 5 of them are large donors on Clinton's campaign website and have donated to her senate race and to Bill's campaigns. The donors special interest is not about the voters in MI, or some high minded. "every voter counts," it is just pure politics. The Clinton campaign has tried to have it every which way. Clinton's chances continue to narrow.

    This isn't about the rules in MI, it's about buying a re-vote. If Hillary were in Obama's shoes she would sit tight just like he is.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    can produce half the money if that is his concern. It is not nor is it yours.

    There is no buying votes here. There is financing a revote.

    But like Obama, you fear the voters' will in Michigan.

    Parent

    Shameless (1.00 / 2) (#124)
    by 1jane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Thanks for using your crystal ball BTD. No where in my post did I say or imply anything about buying votes. The post is about 10 wealthy Dems, 5 of whom are cited in newpapers all over the country as large wealthy donors to the Clinton campaign who are willing to finance a re-vote in MI. We agree the post is about financing or buying another do-over attempt in MI. The assumption that I fear a MI vote is hogwash. In fact, based on factual data Clinton should fear a re-vote in MI while the news of her support for NAFTA is splashed across the headlines this morning. Check.

    Parent
    do you have a cat (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    or perhaps a small child who sometimes posts in your stead?

    This isn't about the rules in MI, it's about buying a re-vote.



    Parent
    Everyone (none / 0) (#161)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    Knows that cats are in the bag for Obama, Kathy ;-)

    Parent
    Nuh-uh! (none / 0) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    My three only like old bags. :-)

    Parent
    Pony up (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    I believe the DNCs position is that soft money is ok.  If Obama doesn't like that one side is paying for it, tell him to pony up.  If you support him, send him an e-mail you and let him know you are willing to contribute if you are so concerned about where the money comes from.  I'm sure if Obama sent out an appeal, his small donors would come running.

    Parent
    I don't normally respond to you (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    mostly because you tend to be deleted, but tell me how this is vote-buying.  If Obama got his wealthy donors to put up half of the money needed to do the election, would he be buying votes, too?

    Because the simple solution if, in fact, the money is the obstacle, is for both candidates to put up half of the money needed.

    But then Obama would have nothing to whine about as far as a revote, right?

    Parent

    Thanks for (none / 0) (#138)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
     indenpendently confirming the fact I often  get deleted for expressing my opinions  here. as some yesterday seemed not to believe me.

      Why was it a bad idea? Because the proposal that a candidate should have the ability to have new election if he or she  is willing and able to pay for it is unseemly. At the least, it would have been smart to establish the appearance that this was a non-partisan group concerned with votes counting out of REAL principles and not "Hillary supporters." That was dumb both in terms of appearances and making it less likely there will be a new election financed by any method.

    Parent

    Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    was speaking to 1jane, not to you.

    Parent
    It doesn't matter who covers the cost (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    The primary would be run by the state.  The whole objection to the donors is nothing but a strawman.  No one questioned the fairness of a state run primary the first time  around.

    Parent
    Then invalidate all the caucuses, because (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    they are paid for not by their states but by their state parties -- which raise the funds from private donors.  Same deal here.  So, pot meet kettle.  

    Parent
    LOL !! Unseemly? (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST
    Omigawd, that is hilarious.

    Was I napping when politics became a white-glove garden party?  (In Chicago, yet!)

    Too funny...

    Parent

    If There Are 10 Wealthy Dems Willing To (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:57 AM EST
    contribute money for the revote and 5 are Clinton supporters according to my math that leaves 5 wealthly donors that are interested in the "every voter counts" and not trying to buy an election.

    You must be starting to feel like a prezel after that comment.

    Parent

    Mi Vote (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by velveteagle on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    Hillary has some friends with deep pockets for the Michigan So called re-vote... She remindes me of the old cartoon Popeye. She is like Wimpy going around saying Gladly pay you thursday for a hamburger today. I am sure her rich friends giving up millions do not want anything back in return.. Yea...

    Parent
    That's not going to happen (none / 0) (#109)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
     but it was  really dumb to float the idea. it gives a new meaning to "buying elections."

    Parent
    don't equate the two. (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    disenfranchisment of voters is the issue and stop trying to pin the tag on hillary in every post.

    Parent
    Obama's loyalty (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Woodsman161 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    I have a problem with Obama, he went to the church that talked hatred for the USA and did nothing. I also see he will not wear the flag pin, nor does he put his hand over his heart when most American do. This man is running for the highest place in our government but shows no loyalty or pride in it.

    Clearly he hates America (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    Glad to see that Republican talking points are embraced here at TalkLEFT.

    Parent
    Embraced? (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    I'm giving both of you a "1" for that stupid remark.

    Cut it out.

    The both of you.

    Parent

    Whatever (1.00 / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    These sorts of comments just roll by for the most part.  Unless of course they are directed at Hillary.

    Parent
    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#198)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    Don't respond to the trolls...

    Parent
    "Hundreds of thousands""??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    Well, under whose plan would more voters be disenfranchised? Well, Mr. Obama?

    And how can you say they were disenfranchised (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    since the voted in a primary that counted?

    Parent
    Fear... (none / 0) (#7)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    ... thy name is Obama. Sincerely, if he is so sure of his lead, why not confirm it by a re-vote and get it even farther?

    Perhaps because of the latest Gallup research?

    His contradictions are troubling, at least for me.

    On this issue (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    Obama has been repugnant.

    Parent
    I don't like what he's doing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    But to be fair to Obama, his quote was in direct response to a clip of Clinton insinuating that he was the only reason FLA and MI weren't getting counted.  As I've said, I think he has an argument when it comes to FLA.  He shouldn't stand in the way of the MI revote.
    They're both playing politics but Clinton happens to be on the right side of the issue.

    No she SAID (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    he is the main obstacle to revotes in Florida and Michigan.

    Your comment was utterly unfair to Clinton.

    Parent

    Okay, sorry (none / 0) (#33)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    She SAID he was the main obstacle to a revote in BOTH states.  The main obstacle to FLA seems to have been FLA with the DNC running a close second.  I'm not sure how my comment was unfair unless you mean that I'm not giving her enough credit for falsely equating MI and FLA.

    Parent
    I believe Obama (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    is the main obstacle.

    You certainly can not argue he is working for a solution. He has been an obstacle, admittedly not the only one, in Florida.

    He is THE OBSTACLE in Michigan.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#61)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    If I cannot argue that he is working for a solution (of course I can't, by the way) then I would ask you to acknowledge that Obama finishes no higher than 3rd in the obstacle race in FLA.  If she'd just said he was the main obstacle in MI (he is) I'd have had no problem with it.  

    Parent
    I would disagree with your argument (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    I think he is clearly the number one obstacle.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    In FLA?  I think that's a very hard case to make.

    Parent
    At present... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    He is the main obstacle for MI, which is what BTD has been pointing out for the past couple of days re: Michigan.

    The jury's still out on whether he will be the main obstacle for Fla when a decision's finally been made.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#114)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    And I agree with BTD on that.  I think FLA is a very different situation.  If, hopefully not when, Obama becomes the main obstacle in FLA, I'll happily acknowledge it.  I just think equating MI and FLA, while politically savvy for Clinton, weakens her argument.

    Parent
    They are both at issue... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    with regards to the pledge, the DNC ruling, and the turnout re: voters.

    They have been chunked together by the media and others since this entire kerfuffle began.

    Parent

    Did Obama (none / 0) (#129)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    agree to the plan that was suggested for Florida or offer an alternate solution?  There were others opposed to the Florida revote that want to have the January 29 vote count but Obama is opposed to that also so I believe he can be considered a main obstacle to Florida being seated.  

    Parent
    If you're not part of the solution (none / 0) (#146)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:48 AM EST
    you're part of the problem.

    He's part of the problem - in FL and MI both.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    He is PART of the problem in FLA.  I don't think he's the main problem.  In MI he, and I hate to say this, seems to be.

    Parent
    you know it is only fair to take a serious look (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    at your candidate and not justify some of his bad decisions. i don't like everything about hillary. she is my second choice and in discussions i note some of them. one of the things that has turned  off most about obama is the unquestioned "he's always right" mentality of his supporters. please think about it. that particular position on florida and michigan could help cost him the election if he is the candidate.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#126)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    You need to actually read my comments.  I've expressed my outrage at Obama's behavior RE: the MI vote.  I've said many, many times that Clinton is on the right side of the issue.  The "he's always right" mentality is, I think, a problem afflicting blog-commenters and not a problem most Obama supporters suffer from.  You're making a huge generalization about "his supporters."  

    Parent
    blog commenters? no i pay attention to all media (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    outlets and i find it to be a disturbing problem with obama and his entire campaign. i won't get into all of it here due to the discussion limitations.

    Parent
    I value this dialogue (none / 0) (#158)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    And I think that Hillary's gotten worse media coverage than Obama.  That said, I don't think you can argue that everyone (all his supporters, all MSM) act like everything Obama says is right.  
    As for his campaign being on board whole hog, I haven't seen Hillary's campaign criticizing her...nor should they.  
    We can agree that both campaigns tend to act like their candidate has all the answers, is always right, etc.  Can't we?

    Parent
    overall i don't see criticism of (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    obama from the media and his supporters. i saw the same thing with bush and look at the results. obama hasn't been vetted. of course there is some happening right now and that in itself is a good thing.

    i haven't like all of hillary's positions in the past and have sent emails saying that. she wasn't my first choice. edwards was and still is. i had high hopes for obama when elected to the senate. it has been downhill for me ever since.

    going to other blogs today that i used to frequent is a less than desireable experience. there is no discussion on kos like there was in the 04 campaign. there was spirited debate and all had their candidate. there was a lot of valuable information shared. now, not so! you support obama 110% or out you go. the attemtps to villify and debase supporters leaves me ill. i don't see them ever discussing his posiitons with open eyes. it isn't happening and that never is a good thing. i blame the media for a large part of this. they are pathetic. and the dem leadership, well words can't describe how i feel about them. their lack of leadership since o6 is a nightmare. and the average voter is sick of all of it.

    Parent

    sorry after posting i saw i was probably (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    off subject here. please delete if you need to do so. i'll be more careful.

    Parent
    W.O.R.M. n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Do we (none / 0) (#180)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    have to be fair to Obama?  Just kidding.

    Parent
    Are there mechanisms in place to ensure that (none / 0) (#24)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    only Democrats who voted in the Republican primaries be able to register as Democrats for the re-vote?

    Seems to me that Obama is much more interested in Hillary-hating Republicans getting to vote for him even if they already voted for a Republican candidate.

    non-partisan registration (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama's objection (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    I believe, is related to this issue, because yes they can exclude those that voted Republican.  Those are the voters Obama says are being disenfranchised.

    Parent
    Well, I want (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    a redo in Ill so I can vote in both the Repub and Dem primary.... for being a "Chicago Dem" he doesn't get how this works... you vote twice for the Dems!!

    Parent
    He wants to let them vote twice. (none / 0) (#39)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    In most places that would be considered cheating.

    Parent
    Or, maybe he wants to let every Dem vote twice. (none / 0) (#134)
    by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST

    Either Jan 15. happened, or it didn't.

    If it's a revote, everyone has to get a shot.


    Parent

    um, no. Everyone who voted in the (none / 0) (#139)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    GOP primary already cast a legitimate vote, regardless of their party affiliation.

    Parent
    Smoke and mirrors, IMO. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    It's a nifty justification, but I can't believe that's the base motive.  

    Parent
    Yes, but the nice side effect is that if Obama's (none / 0) (#48)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    objection is appeased and the DNC changes the rules to allow voters who voted in the Republican primary to vote in the do-over, then the result would be a Democratic Primary that is open to every voter in the state , no?

    Parent
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    I've weighed the two interpretations and I think Obama is proposing something that I think he knows that the DNC would never agree to.

    Obviously, it would create the most open primary ever - anyone who was legally eligible to vote could, no matter what their party affiliation.  I wouldn't agree to that.

    Parent

    It requires CHANGING THE RULES (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST


    Parent
    I realize that it would require a rules change (none / 0) (#84)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    I just don't think that a rule change is that far fetched considering the recent rhetoric of the "impartial" Donna Brazile. I mean the woman went on national television and outright stated that she'd leave the party if superdelegates decided this primary (even though at this point there is no way for this primary to be decided otherwise.)

    There is a mechanism within the rules for pledged delegates to determine the outcome of the Democratic Primary. Neither candidate will have met that threshold at the end of this primary season. The only other way to win the nomination is to win over the Superdelegates so SDs will determine the outcome of this primary whether they choose to use the delegate race, the popular vote or some other criteria as is their priviledge to make their decision.

    Personally, I'm in favor of petitioning for a rules change if a candidate wants to insist that the delegate race determine the outcome.

    Parent

    let her go! she'd be doing the democratic (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    party a big favor. trouble that name is brazile.

    Parent
    I thought the Supreme Court says its a no no (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    The other day somebody posted that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that once you vote in one party's primary you can not vote in another's primary.  So this is just a smokescreen by Obama. Many states have the R and D primaries on different dates. Can you vote in both?


    Parent
    Not applicable in MI -- separate ballots (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    for Repubs and Dems there, so there's a record of who voted Repub in the primary.  

    Next non-problem?

    Parent

    Wasn't it just last week (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    that Obama supporters were complaining about Republicans voting for Hillary?

    I'm confused now.

    Parent

    Have you forgotten your narratives? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST
    Obama => Good
    Hillary => Bad

    Time for another "re-education" session, Winston!

    Parent

    Yes, easily -- MI used separate party ballots (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    so it has a record of who cast Republican ballots in the primary.  

    Please, people, reread this and/or look it up for yourselves -- and don't fall for the argument against rerunning the Democratic primary.  They were separate primaries, with separate ballots, the first time.  That's what googling shows me.

    Parent

    Dems voted for Romney (none / 0) (#81)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    per Kos suggestion. Would those Dems get to revote?


    Parent
    As I understand it, NO (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    They voted in the GOP primary and that means they voted. They do not get to vote again. I think it fair but Obama does not. I hope he will change his mind.

    Parent
    They're not Dems now; they;'re Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    by asking for a Republican ballot.  So why would they get to vote in a Dem primary?

    Parent
    Why should they? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    If voters are so silly that they cast their vote the way "kos" told them to why on earth should they get a second chance?

    Parent
    It's all politics from all quarters (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
     Let's not forget that the makers of this problem are neither Clinton nor Obama-- the DNC and the states are repsonsible for creating the problem. That down the road competing candidates would each (or all if more than 2 were still around) seek to exploit it for their own electoral advantage would seem entirely predictable and understandable.

      Regardless of the outcome there will be acrimony and feelings that fairness was absent. Each candidate has valid arguments (motivated by self-interest as they may be). The real blame lies with those who ensured there would be a problem in every possible scenario except a quick and decisive victory by one candidate.

      I'm glad the party hacks don't run the railroads.

     

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    The obstacle to SOLVING  the problems created is named Barack Obama.

    Parent
    Regardless of who is to blame (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    for the original problem, there is only one right side of this now, and that is to empower voters and find a way to make MI and FL count so that we don't throw those states away in the GE. Obama should want those states in November, and if the math is as favorable as his supporters say, he should not fear having them vote in the primary.

    Parent
    No, there isn't... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
     only one "right" solution. In fact, there isn't any "right" solution just varying just varying degrees of wrong solutions. The idea that all self-inflicted problems can be perfectly corrected by subsequent remedial actions is false.

     

    Parent

    Is there a wrong solution? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    I.e,, disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan?

    Because that is the only solution Obama is working for.

    Parent

    As I said ALL (none / 0) (#73)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:49 AM EST
     possible "solutions" are wrong because it is a problem without a perfect (or even close) solution.

      Disenfranchisement is bad and so is post facto modification.

    Parent

    You are really wrong on this (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    We can do nothing unless we create a time machine and travel back to December 2007?

    The rules allow modification of the process to enfranchise these voters. I cannot understand your objection.

    Parent

    There is one right side to this (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    I don't know who the "self" is in your "self-inflicted" problems, but if you want to argue that we don't need the voters of MI and FL, and that the Democratic party is not about empowering voters, you go right ahead.

    The right side is the one arguing for allowing these voters to participate. Anything less than that is not consistent with Democratic party principles.

    Parent

    The "self" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    is the Democratic Party.

      Any solution now is inconsistent with some principles held by someone.

      Yes, rendering votes impotent is bad and against principles but changing the way the game is scored and the score itself  toward the end of the game is not what most sportmen consider a fair game.

     

    Parent

    Read the rules (none / 0) (#82)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    The rules specifically allow for these voters to be enfranchised by coming up with a re-vote plan. It is a fair game.

    Parent
    you miss the point (none / 0) (#94)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM EST
     if rules allow the rules to be changed after the fact then all that establishes is aonther problem with the rules not that the rules are "fair."

    Parent
    The Clinton camp is working within the rules (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    I'd say that is as fair as it gets.

    Here's another way to think of it. What the DNC rule means is that early primaries don't count (except for the four early ones that they sanctioned). Later primaries do count. So MI and FL can have their early primary, but if they actually want their votes counted, they have to have another one in the agreed upon time frame. What could be your objection to their efforts now to have a primary that counts?

    I don't care whether it disadvantages Obama in the primary. He is still the likely nominee and revotes will help the Democratic party in November, which is what we should be focussing on.

    Parent

    Against Constitutional amendments, too (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    -- are you?  It wasn't "fair" for the Founders to allow a process for amending the rules of our country?  Really, extrapolate your silly stand beyond this debate and think about it.

    Parent
    Well the constitution (none / 0) (#118)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
     does not allow for amending things and then applying those amendments to things that occurred prior to ratification of the amendment.

      By all means, we should obviously change the rules before 2012 and have everyone bound by those changes for entire duration of the nomination campaign. The undeniable problem is changing rules in the midst of the campaign. And, again, it's no appeasement  to say the rules let us change the rules to anyone but lawyers.

    Parent

    Not a change in the rules. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    This is not changing the rules. Early primaries don't count. Later primaries do count. That is the rule, no one has changed it.

    Parent
    If Clinton had the power (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    to change the rules, don't you think she'd be advocating for something much more far-reaching, such as, "Senators from Chicago cannot run for the dem presidential nomination"

    I mean--come on.  This whole "rule changer" crap comes straight from the  Obama camp.  Why are some people so easily roped into the Obamathink?  It is shameful and embarrassing that previously free-thinking and intelligent people are completely taken in by this outright lie.

    Parent

    Good try, but no. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    Rules always allow for 'undoing what was done,' for appealing decisions by the body, for reconsideration...yadda, yadda, yadda.

    See Roberts Rules...see Reeds Rules

    Only parliamentarians seem to understand that rules are meant to ensure efficiency, not to provide building blocks to prevent progress.  That's the theory, anyway.  In practice, mileage varies...

    Parent

    This isn't difficult! (none / 0) (#176)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM EST
     Proper rules,  in any context whatsoever, do not allow for changing the rules and then applying the changes to things that have already occurred.

      For eaxample if on 1/1/08 a rule is approved to become effective 2/1/8, making X BUT NOT Y unlawful, and then it is subsequently  determined Y should be unlawful, the body most certainly can amend the rule on 3/1/08 to make Y unlawful effectively immediately. BUT it cannot make  the provision establishing the unlawfulenss of Y enforecable against people who did Y prior to 3/1/08.

      This is so basic and fundamental to any notion of fairness  it should go without saying.

    Parent

    I agree with you, actually. (none / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    Seating the FL and MI delegations  is the least painful option, with huge advantages to everyone.. well, everyone except for Obama.
    However, the number of delegates he will lose probably differs little from what would happen under a re-vote.
    The RULES allow the FL and MI delegations to be seated; I say, do it.

    Parent
    Fine, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:04:18 AM EST
      that's a perfectly valid and responsible position but it's not the only one. M

      My point is we would not be needing to have this discussion and exacerbating tensions and divisions if this easily forseeable problem had not been allowed to manifest. the blame for that lies within the DNC and the states who decided to play a game of chicken without accounting for the possible if not likely result.

      If some feel Obama should accede to a solution that he thinks is harmful to him, by all means call on him to do it.  If others think, MI and Florida should be punished (which was the intent of the DNC) under the original AGREED UPON rules they by all means should stick to their guns.

       If either or both of the candidates refuse to compromise that's his or her right and as each can point to at least some important principles squandered in any concession they might make it's hard for anyone even pretending to be objective to fault them-- unless the real goal is the assigning of fault.

    Parent

    You will not get MI voters to agree -- (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    they will want to assign fault.  And they won't have the DNC on the ballot, so they will take it out on who is on the ballot and didn't work for their votes to count.

    As you say, it's their right to do so.

    Parent

    Except... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    If others think, MI and Florida should be punished (which was the intent of the DNC) under the original AGREED UPON rules they by all means should stick to their guns.

    Except that MI/FL have already been punished by having them not be able to influence the flow of the DNC's preference of influence as was the original intention of the the AGREED UPON rules.

    At this point, there is no upside for the party not to seat the FL/MI delegations (I'll even go out on a limb and say) as planned.

    I'm confident that the SDs know that Democrats cannot win in November without at least one of these states and both will be in jeoporday if the delegations are not seated. My prediction is that if Obama does not relent and soon, that his campaign will hinge on being ahead in the popular vote after PA. If he's not ahead in the popular vote after PA and the FL/MI issues is not settled, I suspect that a block of uncommitted SDs will commit to Clinton because of his present obstruction to settling the matter.

    Parent

    Yes, exactly. I've made this point before. (none / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    MI and FL got no advantage from their early primaries---in fact, the reverse.

    Parent
    That's an argument (none / 0) (#141)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
     but the better argument to some might be that there power would be astronomically magnified by getting to vote again when everyone knows it could be decisive in a 2 person race compared to the situation at the time they voted the first time.

    Parent
    You keep forgetting the Roolz (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:07:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree except that (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:16 AM EST
    "she needs the votes" is not a valid argument to disenfranchise voters. All the mistakes that have led to this are not the fault of the voters.

    Parent
    Only if you accept the premise (none / 0) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
     that he  has an obligation to solve it in a  way he feels is disadvanteous to his candidacy.

     

    So after all, Obama is just (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    another politician.

    Who will tell Kid Oakland?!

    Parent

    Kid Oakland is a two faced pol (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    not even running for office. He has no excuse.

    Parent
    "Casual poetry"! (none / 0) (#59)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    Snort.

    Parent
    This is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    Having a revote in MI legitimizes his candidacy AND victory.

    He seems uninterested in both at this point.


    Parent

    He has no obligations (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    But certainly we are well within OUR RIGHTS to point out that he is the obstacle.

    If you do not care about that, that is your perogative.

    Some of us (namely me) have been pushing for revotes for while now.

    I blasted Clinton for a week for not fighting for revotes.

    Now that Clinton is gung ho revotes, I certainly will blast Obama for obstructing the solution.

    Parent

    sure (none / 0) (#63)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
     you can most certainly point out that he is the obstacle to the solution you prefer.

    Parent
    And I shall (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    often.

    Parent
    fine (none / 0) (#101)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
      and i tend to agree with what i take as one of your premises that this fight hurts Obama worse than it hurts clinton because most people full anticipated her being ruthless and calculating so it hurts her little but because Obama attempts to portray himself as "above" that and had been successful in fostering that perception it hurts him more to be perceived similarly.

      That doesn't mean he has to agree and that he's "ethically wrong" to act as he sees as in hi8s best interest.

    Parent

    Nice slap (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    This hurts Obama more than Clinton because he is the one coming out against voters. It's very un-Democratic.

    Parent
    hurts him worse (none / 0) (#125)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
     but the whole fight (which need not have happened but for the short-sightedness of the PARTY officials) hurts her too.

     That's the point: No one "wins" in terms coming out looking better than if we were not having this problem in the first place.

    Parent

    Fire up the time machine (none / 0) (#130)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    That seems to be your only solution.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#150)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
     not endorsing any solution-- deliberately.

      I'm just pointing out that the "solutions" proffered (or any others) cannot undo all the damage and that it is perfectly reasonable for people to decide their preference based on the allocation of damage "post-solution." I'm just suggesting people should be honest about what they are doing.

      The whole argument that a revote is fair is absurd. As just one obvious problem, every candidate began the campaign with a strategy premised on the schedule that existed. The tactical allocation of resources thus employed was based on maximising impact under those terms.

      What if one candidate, relying on the schedule as it existed, allocated a greater proportion of resources to other contests than it would have had it anticipated a revote in selected states? Is it fair in any possible conception of that term for that candidate to be put a t relative disadvantage  -- not because it demonstrated an inability to marshal resources but because it expended those resources before the rules were changed?

      Obviously, it is not. Equally obviously, nothing else is fair now either.

      I'm just bemoaning our incompetence as a Party, not taking sides for either candidate.

    Parent

    Not helpful...not even entertaining. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    Not offering any solutions...just "bemoaning our incompetence as a Party."

    Full-time work, that, but the field is crowded and it doesn't pay well.

    Parent

    If he was all that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    he wouldn't be worried.

    I've noticed that some Obama supporters are acting very skittish these days.  I understand it, but it doesn't make their behavior any more attractive.

    Parent

    My main concern (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    Has always been who will be a better president.

    This is very bad politics.

    And very bad PR.  Coming out against voting is bad.

    It's disappointing (none / 0) (#69)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    It's disappointing to say the least. I think he's being foolish; in the long run it would be best to take the principled route and get credit for that. As it is, he's stoking resentment in at least some voters he's going to need if he's the nominee.

    My reply (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimb1962 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:38 PM EST
    People don't seem to understand why the DNC schedules which states get to hold there primaries and caucuses on which date.  If the big states went first then only a precious few of the candidates that have big money would have a chance to get their message out to the people.  All but the big political names would get shut out.  You just can't let the "political machine" run over those candidates who have a vision for America and want to be heard.  That's not Democracy!  Having two states decide who the nominee is and shut out the remaining 48 states is not Democracy!

    The DNC did what they had to do in order to give each candidate an equal right to reach out to the American people.  They did the right thing.  In the entire history of America there have always been those who felt cheated

    Parent

    Arabella Trefoil (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    Your comment was deleted as it violated a number of site rules.

    Please review the commenting rules at this site to insure you are in conformance.

    The new kind of politics (none / 0) (#80)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    You know I never really understood what this new kind of politics really meant. If it's the politics of disenfranchisement than I don't think the Democratic party should have any part of that.

    Odd (none / 0) (#85)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    I would think that this story, and the Detroit story also posted, would be big news, regardless of the nomination outcome desired.

    And yet, I don't see them front paged at either TPM or Kos. Strange.

    Heh (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST


    Parent
    They know about it. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    KO responded to my comment containing the Detroit News excerpt and link.

    But it's all Hillary, all the time over there.  (I'm shocked the Brian Ross article didn't make it to the Rec List.)

    Parent

    Obabstacle (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    As in 'Another day, another obabstacle to voting in MI'.

    I'll stop now.

    I want to win (none / 0) (#96)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    this thing and if we through away Michigan and Florida, as I believe we will if their votes are not counted, the path for us is up hill all the way. I have been playing with this thing on 270toWin and there seems to be no reasonable way to win without one of them. Maybe I'm wrong and the folks who voted for Clinton will vote for Obama, even though he fought to exclude them, but I seriously doubt it.

    throw...sorry (none / 0) (#104)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:04 AM EST


    Parent
    So basically (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    from what I am reading if the restriction for people who voted in the GOP primary is lifted, then the Obama people will have no issue with the re-vote.  

    So why not simply remove that restriction?  

    Because its. . . (wait for it) (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    AGAINST THE RULES.

    Parent
    But it's only cheating (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    when Hillary Clinton wants to change the rules. I read that on teh blogs.

    Parent
    Which rules would that be? (none / 0) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    The rules in which Michigan gets a do-over?

    Parent
    DNC rules (none / 0) (#192)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    say if you vote in a GOP primary in your state, you can't vote in the Democratic primary. It's not an entirely unreasonable rule.

    And you've been here long enough, you know there is no rule preventing a re-vote in MI.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST
    I'm fine with a re-vote.  Probably should be done. But this whole demonizing Obama because he isn't cheerleading for a re-vote is getting ridiculous.

    Has Michigan voted on the plan?  If not, why?

    Both sides seem willing to point to the rules when it suits their purpose.  

    At this juncture the rules are..... there are no rules.  Now that it is clear that the DNC no longer is worried about punishing either state, the rules should be whatever both sides can agree to.

    Parent

    So much for (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    "I'll go along with whatever the DNC decides".

    Parent
    Because it is cheating to allow people to vote (none / 0) (#144)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    TWICE!!!! Obama has simply out gamed himself on Michigan...first by taking his name off the ballot and second by advising people to vote for Romney when he didnt think it would count in the first primary....Very dumb on his part...His Michigan chickens are coming home to roost....

    Parent
    It's only cheating (none / 0) (#148)
    by BlueMainer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    if they voted in the republican primary, but not the dem primary?

    Parent
    You only revote if your vote is invalidated (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    i.e., not counted.  If you voted Republican, your vote was validated and counted.  If you changed your mind since, well . . . so have lots of voters in other states I bet.  Do we get to vote twice, too, by your rules, even if our votes already were validated and counted?

    I bet you agree that the Texas primary and caucus voters count as two votes, too.  Jeesh.

    Parent

    Gawd wouldn't you like to (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    interview Obama's siblings, and ask what it was like to play board games with him?

    I can only imagine.

    Parent

    Ahh, but as your Obama friends so often (none / 0) (#157)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    point out, the Democratic primary "didn't count." The Republican primary did.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#145)
    by BlueMainer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    Anybody who was eligible to vote in the original ought to be able to vote this time. Anything less is a sham.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    they aren't re-running the Republican primary, only the Democratic one.  If the voter already voted in the Republican primary, they used up their vote.

    IMHO: If you do something really hideous like trying to game someone else's primary, you deserve whatever penalty is exacted, even if in honest forethought you couldn't have predict the penalty.

    Karma is a b*tch...(or is it the new president?  I don't know after last week's SNL)

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    and if you voted in the Republican primary you weren't eligible to vote in the Dem primary, so your point is well taken.

    I have no sympathy for those who are crying foul because they voted in the Republican primary for a candidate they didn't support, just to screw up the results. It's not that I find it repugnant. I just think if you decide to play a game with your vote then you have to live with the consequences.

    Parent

    "Barack Obama could care less..." (none / 0) (#165)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    Well at least you acknowledged he cares!

    BTD, what is your current opinion as (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    to which Dem. primary candidate is more electable?

    You guys are hilarious (none / 0) (#197)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    Keep spinning the evil Obama case.  You do know we're all Democrats right?  Carl Rove's gotta be laughing himself to sleep every night from how much you guys are tearing up the Dem.Race.  

    Can't we all just get along?

    Michigan & Florida (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimb1962 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    People don't seem to understand why the DNC schedules which states get to hold their primaries and caucuses on which date.  If the big states went first then only a precious few of the candidates would have a chance to get their message out to the people.  All but the big political names would get shut out.  You just can't let the "political machine" run over those candidates who have a vision for America and want to be heard.  That's not Democracy!  Having two states decide who the nominee is and shut out the remaining 48 states is not Democracy!

    The DNC did what they had to do in order to give each candidate an equal right to reach out to the American people.  They did the right thing.  In the entire history of America there have always been those who felt cheated.  Grow up MR.& MRS. I FEEL CHEATED and realize that the rules are there for a very valid purpose.  

    Michigan & Florida (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimb1962 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM EST
    I feel silly replying to my own comment, but I need to clarify a point I made.  Big states going early favor the candidates with the most money.

    I for one, cannot tolorate money excluding those those that don't have it from being heard.

    Parent

    DNC rights (none / 0) (#206)
    by tomray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:27:04 AM EST
    The DNC plan failed. Furthermore, do they really have the right to dictate to states when primaries can be held?

    Either way, it's like a spat between your doctor and your insurance - the loser is always the patient. Likewise, the losers are the voters in these states - do you really expect Floridians to turn out in big numbers for Obama after this? And patients will continue to be the losers.

    The auto sticker du jour on Nov. 5th: "I'm from Florida - what did you expect?"

    Parent

    Obama on "Playing Politics" (none / 0) (#205)
    by tomray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:12:36 AM EST
    When one politician accuses another of "playing politics" I usually laugh. However, denying the PEOPLE of two critical states the right to vote is stupid politics.

    Obama in His Own Words on Michigan | 201 comments (201 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment