home

What's Obama's Saying About Mail-In Revotes in Fl. and MI?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
Tags: Florida 08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Can anyone tell what Barack Obama will agree to and won't agree to in terms of a Michigan and Florida re-vote? Here's the latest. The comments on Big Tent Democrat's earlier post are full, this is a new thread on it.

The AP reports a consensus is being reached about a mail-in do-over vote in Florida and Michigan. Where is Obama on this? Will he agree?

Were Michigan voters really excluded? Here's the map of how Michigan voted. It looks like about 675,000 Dems voted. In 2004, about 150,000 Dems voted in the MI primary.

It was widely circulated in Michigan that Obama and Edwards supporters should vote uncommitted. Clearly, Detroit and Washtenaw County got the message (see the map.) So did Emmet county, which by the way, went 60% to Bush in the general election. It's not clear who Emmet s votes were for. Hillary's supporters came out. How much support does Obama have in MI outside of Detroit and Washtenaw county?

Both candidates have to agree to any new plan. If Obama withholds consent, does he raise the chances the delegates from the first votes will get seated in time to count?

< The Republican Cross-Over Vote: Not a Factor | Primary Attacks, General Election Attacks >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What's Obama's Saying About Mail-In Revotes in Fl. and MI? | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I have wondered if... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    ...they would prefer that the MI and FLA delegates would be seated over their objections. It would save them from losing in the states a second time but they would be able to cry foul to the super delegates. The added advantage to them of that would be that the votes in MI and FLA couldn't be used to make a "momentum" argument for Clinton.

    That's his second best outcome. (none / 0) (#16)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    First best obviously being that they never get seated, but I agree with you.  He's dragging his feat hoping that no resolution is reached.

    Parent
    Shades of 2000 (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    all over again.  Dean, Brazille, and Obama are the Katherine Harris' this time.

    Parent
    The best thing for him (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:16:41 PM EST
    IMO, would be if the DNC got its act together, did the revotes, and publicly took the blame for how screwed up everything has been.  The more this thing bleeds into the candidates' campaigns, the worse off he will be.  But it seems that no one will take responsibility for the fiasco which in turn allows Clinton to score political points.  Holding an election shouldn't boil down to people shouting "I'll do it!  I'll do it!"

    Parent
    It's not about taking blame. (none / 0) (#66)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    When Clinton and Obama agree to the resolution it will be done.  DNC screwed up and it'd be nice if they provided leadership to work it out, but that ain't gonna happen.

    Obama's in a pickle.  Not his fault but he doesn't have a winning way out.  His delay in cutting a deal only hurts him and exposes his inexperience.  It's all moving against him

    Parent

    this is what ticks me off (from WaPo) (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    But, he argued on NBC, the Obama campaign followed Democratic Party rules that called for no campaigning in Florida and Michigan, and the Illinois senator should not now be penalized for doing so.

    The implication being that Clinton did campaign?  This is the crappy kind of "journalism" that got us into this mess in the first place.

    Parent

    And it's another of those, uh, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    What Obama Really Meant moments, since he was the one who campaigned in Florida, by the definition of the pledge he signed.  But we can be sure that, if (a big if with this uninformed media) he would be cornered on that, he would clarify for us What Obama Really Meant.  And it would be transformative.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#96)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    I saw John Kerry trotting that line out a couple weeks ago.  Punk.

    Parent
    The real question is (none / 0) (#118)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    how is or has Obama been penalized for following the rules in FL?

    What is his "penalty" thus far or what would it be if there was a revote?

    How is he penalized or benefitted any more or less than Hillary has been in all this?

    I think the only answer is that he will be "penalized" when the votes count, because she will win in FL the second time.

    Is this absurd thinking or what?

    Was that Tom Daschle that said this nonsense?

    Parent

    Maria (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    What delegations?

    There are no delegations to be seated now. If Michigan and Florida send delegations based on the faux primaries that the DNC and ALL CANDIDATES including HILLARY CLINTON agreed would not count, they will not be seated by the DNC.

    I want the states to be represented. How will that happen? With all parties sitting down and working out details to primaries. Because George Stephanopolos works on Sunday doesn't mean that negotiations for primaries are going on.

    Folks here keep trying so hard to find something to get angry at Obama for. He didn't make those primaries not count any more than Clinton did.

    Parent

    The candidates didn't agree (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    that there would or wouldn't be delegations in either FL or MI.

    Not did they agree that they would or wouldn't be seated.

    They merely agreed among themselves not to campaign in those states.

    Everyone but Obama upheld that bargain.

    Parent

    The delegations exist (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    They won't be seated and there will be revotes. But the delegations exist.

    Parent
    You know what I meant Bob. nt (none / 0) (#42)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST


    Parent
    No Agreement that Delegates Don't Exist or Count (none / 0) (#136)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM EST
    Here is the pledge from the "4 State Pledge Letter" signed by the candidates:

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    (emphasis added]

    And a link to the whole letter http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

    It says nothing about delegates or what delegates will matter or will or won't count in FL or MI.

    It's merely a pledge not to campaign in any states other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina that held a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday.

    That's it, Bob.

    Please stop spreading misinformation here or anywhere else.

    Parent

    funny article on Hillary and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    Chicago Trib -
    http://tinyurl.com/26bt34
    Several "Chicago Way" articles lately (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    from the fun-loving Chitown press -- but every one of them truthful about Politics, The Way It Is Done in Chicago.

    I even saw some "Chicago Way" pieces, funnier and even devastating to Obama as part and indeed the wholesale creation of the Daley machine, running in the European press and on blogs there.  Why the Netherlands, say, would find the "Chicago Way" fascinating, I dunno.  Influence of Hollywood, maybe.

    But this is not exactly good for our image, is it?

    Parent

    AGREE (none / 0) (#1)
    by wiredick on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    to a revote or dont get my vote in the ge.

    Clinton Surrogates (none / 0) (#69)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Clinton surrogates have been given the go ahead to send out trial balloons about potential Florida and Michigan re-votes. This is a ruse to keep Clinton in the race. For 7 weeks we can read daily headlines about re-voting.

    Clinton needs the revotes more than Barack Obama does. My guess is that Obama will compromise and allow the MI and FL votes to count as long as all the uncommitted delegates go to him.

    Barack Obama is negotiationg from a position of strength because even after he agrees to a compromise that would only pull Clinton within a 100 delegates of Obama.

    Stay tuned for another one of Clinton's end-around scenarios which will be an attempt to force a floor vote at the national convention.

    Parent

    How is it a ruse then? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    Clearly Clinton wants revotes as you say. So sending her surrogates out to argue for revotes seems an anti-ruse to me.

    The ruse here is that Obama is open to revotes - he is against them unless he is forced to have them.

    Parent

    Not sure if she wants JUST a revote (none / 0) (#91)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    I think the controversy also suits her very well. I think the Momentum she is looking for is not just in winning Florida a second time, but beating Obama on the procedural fight and thus making him look weak.

    He should probably come out with an alternate proposal and 'win' that fight to balance out a loss in Florida.

    Parent

    Better than a controversy (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    is a well covered big win in Florida and if possible, Michigan.

    Parent
    Clinton in the race (none / 0) (#99)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    Other's have suggested that without the "noise" of the MI and FL delegate re-vote arguments Clinton couldn't remain in the race. (See all the mathematics applied.)  Thus hiding behind the "noise" is keeping the ruse that she can somehow win the nomination alive. A theory runing around the blogs..that's all.

    Parent
    Um, ok (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    That makes no sense whatsoever, imo.

    If that is the case, Obama should agree to a revote yesterday and thus "PROVE" Clinton can't stay in the race.

    Parent

    Are you kidding?! (none / 0) (#78)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    Obama is negotiating from a horrible position.  Neither wants a re-vote, but it hurts him much more.  It's not about the few delegates he might pick up.

    Parent
    It's not the DNC (none / 0) (#89)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    The question isn't what the DNC will do, but what the state parties of Florida and Michigan will do.
    Howard Dean put the state parties on notice: either they can wait and allow the DNC credentialing committee to decide whether to seat the delegates or submit a re-vote sanctioned under the DNC rules.

    The state parties have to act fast; they have to submit a new plan and run a contest before June 10t.

    Parent

    The committee (none / 0) (#104)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    will approve what the campaigns agree to.  The states are a bit tougher, but mainly they just want their delegates to count.  They'd obviously prefer to go with the existing vote.

    No one really wants a re-vote.  Dean would like to save face, but he won't stand in the way of a deal everyone else agrees to.  All this talk of rules is silly.  When the parties agree, it's done.  The rules will follow.

    Parent

    Ha ha, "the rules will follow" (none / 0) (#123)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:11:50 PM EST
    I like that one ...

    Parent
    And Obama surrogates like Wilhelm (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    yesterday and Kerry today have been sent out, too, 1jane, as well you know.  But they didn't do well at all on this, which by their lack of clarification only served to clarify that Obama is in a conundrum.

    Catch up by checking back to BTD's diary on Wilhelm yesterday.  He did not earn his keep.

    Parent

    It is really not for Obama to agree or not agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    if the DNC or the State Dem. Committe of Florida or that of Michigan agree to hold the primaries again.  Contributions could be solicited from individuals to be sent to the committees.

    If tje Democratic Party decides that the rules allow for a revote, then the Obama campaign can no longer keep repeating, "rules are rules."

    If he opposes the revote, he will be perceived as trying to have it both ways and actually is opposed to a democratic solution.

    If he does not allow his name to be on the ballot, he loses for sure in those two states, and perhaps even lose support in other states, and lose the nomination.  Or, even if he is the nominee, he will lose the general election without those two states.

    Rules, Rules, Rules (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    It is not for the DNC to decide that the rules allow for a re-vote.  The rules already allow for a re-vote.  Rules are already rules.  This is why Obama looks bad.  It is up to the campaigns to submit a plan that is acceptable to the DNC.  It's not like they are proposing to have it decided by dart throwing contest.  The ideas being floated are a primary, caucus or mail-in. What basis would the DNC have to refuse any of these options?  They are apparently acceptable forms of selecting delegates in the other states.

    Parent
    So what has (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama agreed to and not agreed to? Based on whose public statements?

    If there are negotiations, how do you know who is agreeing to what? You don't know.

    Parent

    You would know if (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    you read the diaries here, Bob.  But I really think you did.  You just reply too much to have read so little here as you suggest.

    Parent
    The DNC will fight. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    any early acceptance of the existing vote, even in Florida.  They're in a pissing match with the states and if they force a do-over the DNC can claim total victory.  Certainly there will be no action taken on seating the existing delegations until after the primaries are complete.

    Ultimately, Obama will accept the do-over.  He'll be roughed up pretty badly if he doesn't.  But I think he'll show some improvement over the first votes in those states.

    If I Remember Correctly (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    Didn't he urge voters to stay home in Florida? If so, I agree that he will see higher numbers in a revote and pull in a few more delegates.

    Parent
    I'd be shocked. . . (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    if a political candidate ever told his voters to stay home.  It's hard to even imagine those words forming in the mouth of someone running for office in this country.

    Parent
    It Was Because (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    The DNC said that the votes would not count. Not out of keeping with his decision to not run in MI.

    Obviously it was not a front page thing, and obviously the sentiment did not appear to be followed.... record numbers and all.

    I do wonder if anyone did stay home because of the ruling. If so they would vote again knowing that their vote would be counted.

    Parent

    No campaigining. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    is a far cry from actually asking his supporters to boycott the election.  I find it hard to believe (not to mention that I don't remember it happening at the time).

    Parent
    Well, if his voters all stayed home, (none / 0) (#54)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    how did he get votes?  In fact, there were record-breaking numbers of people voting (1.7 million-contrast that to the 5,000 who voted in Wyoming!).  

    Parent
    Not The Point (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:39:27 PM EST
    And hardly worth belaboring.  The point was what Obama said. Basically he was preparing for a loss in FL. And obviously his supporters seemed to try to reverse his doubts by voting. My question was did anyone listen to him. That question will possibly be answered if there is a revote and his numbers spike.

    Parent
    if it's hardly worth belaboring (none / 0) (#67)
    by english teacher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    why did you bring it up?

    Parent
    Bringing Something Up (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    A recollection, a question. And belaboring a point are quite different.  But that is probably too subtle a distinction when love juice is coursing through your veins.


    Parent
    No, squeaky. (none / 0) (#115)
    by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    Obama  did  not  urge  his  supporters  to stay home.  

    In  fact,  in  the  illegal-by-party-rules  press  conference   he  held,  he  urged   them  to vote,   and  TOLD  THEM   he  would  support  their   delegates'   reinstatement  at  the  convention.    Many  of  them  voted   assuming  he  MEANT   he  would   support  that   reinstatement.  

    GAWD,  she  misinforms.    

    Parent

    Or if he did publicly urge his supporters (none / 0) (#124)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    to stay home it was so he could claim he lost because his voters stayed home... because he told them to of course.

    Yeah, right.

    Parent

    1/28 - day before FL primary (none / 0) (#24)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    >>>Obama says the primary is meaningless because of the lack of delegates and because the pledge kept the candidates from campaigning.

    http://tinyurl.com/24dfwl


    Parent

    It doesn't say (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    anything about telling supporters not to vote. This is about political positioning aiming for Super Tuesday.

    Parent
    Yes That Is It (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:30:37 PM EST
    Or something like it, was what I read.

    Obama was downplaying the primary because he knew that he would lose. His message, although hardly explicit, was why bother, your vote won't be counted anyway.

    In order to mitigate backlash from voters angered from a suggestion that they do not matter, he also said that he would vigorously campaign in FL during the GE .

    Parent

    Oh, gee, thank you for campaigning for my vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    in what might become the most important cross over state on the map.

    Parent
    I don't remember that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    In fact some Obama ads ran in Florida by "accident."

    Parent
    Yes, The Ads (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    Were run because of national syndication, not Obama's doing.  I remember reading, and cannot remember where, that the word to his supporters was stay home. I will try to find it.

    Parent
    I would love (none / 0) (#13)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    to see the "stay home" out of curiosity. But it is incorrect that it was because the ads were national, they can all have regional blackouts, which the Obama campaign "forgot" to do.

    So basically it was a way to go around the rules but stay within the rules.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    Sounds more like anti-Obama campaigning than anything else on your part. As I understand that pissing contest has been chewed and spit out as far as I can tell.

    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign wanted to run a national ad aimed at voters in the Feb. 5 states, but was told by the cable networks that it was impossible to exclude Florida. He said the campaign checked with South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler, one of the creators of the pledge, who told the campaign "it was clearly not a violation,'' Plouffe said.

    McClatchy


    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    Do some research. Of course they will say that. Have you ever run a national ad? Networks and specially cable channels have all kinds of black out rules.

    Parent
    Let Me Guess (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    You are a HRC supporter, no?  Why would I guess that?

    Parent
    With cable ads, you can target (none / 0) (#70)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    or not target specific areas if you want.  That story was always bogus.


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    Even when you buy a National Ad.

    Clinton's campaign acknowledged that it's not possible to buy 49-state coverage -- that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market.

    Asking a question on the call, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd pointed out the complexity of the matter by noting that buying advertising in Mobile, Ala., gives a campaign substantial reach into the Florida Panhandle.

    Elleithee responded that Clinton has not yet bought ads in Alabama, which has a Feb. 5 primary, but said the campaign reserves the right to do so.

    [snip]

    Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said on the call that the Clinton complaint was "both silly and a bit of an exaggeration" given that both candidates will appear on a two-hour debate on CNN, available to cable viewers in Florida.

    link


    Parent

    Then how come we did not see Clinton (none / 0) (#87)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    or Edwards ads just Obama ads in my area I'm in northern Florida.  Did Clinton and Edwards not run National Ads?

    Parent
    According To What I Have Read (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    It is because they did not buy National Ads with the said cable networks. Instead they decided it was a better use of money to run ads where they would be most effective.

    Parent
    so obama was the only one running (none / 0) (#117)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    national ads with super tuesday a few weeks away?>

    Parent
    I've never bought national ads (none / 0) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    only localities, but you can have it shown where you want down to the neighborhoods with cable ads.

    It can be done is what I said.  You said it couldn't or Obama said it couldn't.  It's more complicated but it can be done, but the rules weren't that important.

    Parent

    And, interestingly, (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM EST
    Carol Fowler is a superdelegate who is supporting Obama.

    Parent
    Yes., but oddly, Hillary's ads did not run in (none / 0) (#60)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:34:21 PM EST
    Florida, nor did John Edward's ads.  Funny how this was SO out of Obama's control.

    Parent
    Funny? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Guess that it takes belonging to a cult, to get the humor.

    Parent
    Have you ever noticed (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    local blackouts of sports events?

    Did you think your pet pulled the plug?

    Parent

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    between blacking out an event and blacking out a commercial.  The latter is close to impossible.

    He didn't sell the ad to the local cable provider.  He sold it to a network who then distributes the ad to the local providers.  The network said they had no way of limiting the states it was sent to.  

    This is a non-issue.  Obama doesn't control the cable companies.

    Parent

    No. I worked with advertising (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    and it's not difficult.  The client controls the account (it's the agency/ad pro that works with the media outlets).

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST
    Since you've worked with advertising how would someone limit a national advertisement(i.e. an ad slot sold by Fox) during the Super Bowl?  The local market affiliates are required to reserve specific slots for national ad buys.  So how would you do it?

    Parent
    By having you ad agency tell the network (none / 0) (#112)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    if you want it blacked out of a certain market.  Look it's not hard you want to believe its hard but it aint if you want to.

    Parent
    Ask Obama (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    didn't he buy an ad slot sold by Fox during the Super Bowl which only ran in selected locations?


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    He bought a regional ad slot.  That was part of the local market ad buys.

    Whatever guys.  This is such a non-issue I don't know why I'm even bothering with it.  If you think this equates to some gross violation of some rule, that's your choice.  The only other people that agree with you are the Hillary campaign and her supporters.

    Parent

    You never bother with it if it becomes (none / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    obvious you stated a non starter.

    Parent
    Its called a rollover (none / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    and its done all the time. You "rollover" another commercial by switching to an alternate commercial for the duration of the one that's being blocked. I've personally done them. They can be done seamlessly. When they aren't done saemlessly, usually because someone's timing is off, you'll see a second or so of the old commercial before the new one comes in, or the commercial prior will have its tail cut off.  

    Parent
    Exactly. Fly has been told this before (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:58:08 PM EST
    and before but seems to be an expert at advertising, tv, and who knows what all.  

    Fly probably thinks that all the commercials he sees are being seen by the rest of the country at the same time, even now.

    Parent

    My pet is very talented (none / 0) (#110)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    and sometimes she does pull the plug. :-)

    Parent
    Mine, too. But Fly (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:01:19 PM EST
    doesn't seem to know you just plug it in again -- and on come the commercials that others in the country may or may not be seeing at the same time.

    Parent
    Wouldn't that have been campaigning? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Seems so to me. (none / 0) (#61)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Larry (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    Clinton agreed with the DNC that those faux primaries wouldn't count. That's why they didn't count. That's why they still don't count. That's why they will never count.

    If Clinton wants to fight for them to count she runs the risk of denying them a do-over and any representation at the convention.

    Larry, tell us what part of experience made Clinton change her mind on those primaries between December and February.

    Parent

    No Agreement that Delegates Don't Exist or Count (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    or that the primaries in FL or MI don't count.

    The candidates didn't / don't have this power.

    It was merely a pledge not to compete.

    Here is the pledge from the "4 State Pledge Letter" signed by the candidates:

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    (emphasis added]

    And a link to the whole letter http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

    It says nothing about delegates or what delegates will matter or will or won't count in FL or MI.  Or whether a state's primary will count or not.

    It's merely a pledge not to campaign in any states other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina that held a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday.

    That's it, Bob.

    Please stop spreading misinformation here or anywhere else.


    Parent

    didn't Obama also agree with the DNC? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Uh. . . (none / 0) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    not sure what the point of your comment is.

    Dean has invited Florida and Michigan to try their luck with the Credentials Committee before the convention.  That's the opening to have the existing delegations seated.

    Leaving the current campaign aside, it's obvious that the DNC in the person of Howard Dean wants to "win" the conflict with the states by forcing them to comply with DNC rules -- that is, have their primaries within the permitted date range.

    From a purely selfish point of view Clinton would like to get the existing delegates seated and Obama would rather that the states weren't included in the convention at all.  Neither position is particularly realistic and I doubt either campaign will stick to them seriously.

    That said, the battle between the DNC and the states remains.  That has relatively little to do with the campaigns.  In that battle, I think the DNC is winning.

    I think your point is that Obama's preferred position -- not counting the states at all -- is the just one.  Is that it?  Because that position won't stand -- there's going to be some kind of do-over and ultimately both candidates will express support for it, as well as their undying and indivisible (but simultaneous) love for the people of Florida and Michigan.

    Parent

    And that is exactly what will happen (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST


    Parent
    it has to do with the GE (none / 0) (#56)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    you can think its all abour hrc getting the leads [ as she would with their seating] but anyone thinking ahead to the GE knows FL and MI are criticl and yu will not get their votes in nov if you do not let them have their votes now. regardless of who is or would win - it is about november

    Parent
    wasn't the DNC the ones who (none / 0) (#92)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    made this the mess it is right now?  

    Parent
    Several groups (none / 0) (#105)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
     factors and decisions have been involved in getting to this mess including the republican legislators in florida, DNC decision to apply the extreme measure to invalidate the vote's in toto, Obama's decision to leave his name off Mich ballot, Hillary's decision to leave her name on, etc. Finger pointing at this juncture appears nonproductive. The important question now, IMO, is what to do so as not to risk a GE loss by ticking off the voters of both states.

    Parent
    At Least She Took (none / 0) (#93)
    by zfran on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    a stand. I understand Sen. Obama voted "Present" on whether to penalize the Florida delegation. Another example (with his 130 Present votes in the Illinois Senate) of not being able to make up his mind....i.e. Should we pull the troops out...hmmm, I'll vote Present and let everyone else fight it out, then I'll make a decision. At least she is decisive!

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#5)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    Both candidates have to agree to any new plan. If Obama withholds consent, does he raise the chances the delegates from the first votes will get seated in time to count?

    Why is this?  I thought that the DNC was in charge of the process.  I'm not trying to be difficult here, just truely confused.

    I think that. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    practically speaking the candidates would have to agree (or at least not object) to any plan.  Anything else would be political insanity.

    Parent
    haha (none / 0) (#14)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST


    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    if the DNC and Michigan decide the best plan would be caucuses, then Hillary's folks are down with that?

    Parent
    No caucuses (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    they had a primary, only a mail in vote or new primary would suffice now. BTD points out often that the "caucus" under discussion in MI is a "firehouse primary" but until it's official and announced, the answer is no to a Michigan caucus.

    Parent
    The only reason is so that (none / 0) (#35)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    Obama can refuse to agree and therefore prevent the revote. And the only reason he can get away with that is that Dean wants it that way.

    Parent
    I doubt Dean will do that (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    HE is already accepting main primaries.

    Parent
    the party said so this week (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    there are four conditions and that's one of them. google it, it was repeatedly in the news.

    Parent
    Me too. Is the DNC in control or (none / 0) (#64)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    do the two candidates have veto power over any revote.  That's the part I can't understand either.

    Parent
    It's thre reverse: the DNC has to approve (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    every state's plan for primaries, caucuses, etc.

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#8)
    by pontificator on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    Do you keep deleting Kid Oakland's respectful, on-topic, substantive comments?

    Um off topic? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:10:58 PM EST
    BTW, when he writes a comment like that I guarantee you I will not delete. it.

    Parent
    As long as we're here. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by pontificator on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    What's your prediction with respect to the June 1 Puerto Rico primary (which, until about a week ago, was a caucus, and was scheduled for June 7).  I note that the PR governor has endorsed Obama, but most so -called professional prognosticators are predicting a Hillary win, probably based on nothing more than Hillary's success with latino voters.  

    As a PR resident, do you have special insight into this upcoming primary?  Will you be providing on-the-ground reporting?

    Parent

    Off topic again (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    We are pretty strict on keeping people on topic. Sorry.

    Parent
    From the WaPo article, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    It seems that Hillary either wants the faux primaries to count or to get a new primary. The faux primaries, no matter how you want to justify them after the fact, do not count. While it may be politically expedient to now worry about the representation of the peoples of Michigan and Florida (as opposed to when CLINTON AGREED THAT THEY WOULD NOT COUNT), it's so blatantly and hypocritcally self-serving as to be laughable, except that most folks at TalkLeft seem to have lost their sense of self-deprecation.

    Will Hillary get a new primary? Not a full-blown primary, because neither the states nor the DNC can afford it. And sorry, we have not reached the point where political hacks like Carville start footing the bill for elections.

    So what happens? There will probably be mail-in votes. And in a real real with actual campaigning and actual candidate teams on the ground, Clinton may gain another ten, twenty, thirty delegates on Obama. Or not.

    If you want to complain about a candidate being slow to come to the table, take a look at Clinton, who's been playing the all or nothing strategy in trying to get the faux primaries to count. If she'd come to the table sooner maybe this all would have been solved.

    Has Obama been advocating a FL revote? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST



    Parent
    I certainly haven't been (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    I'm of the opinion and have been since the beginning that these primaries should count and the delegates be seated. Check my older posts for my reasons.

    Parent
    Has Hillary been advocating (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    against something she agreed to that before she had decided to go against?

    Sorry to be so twisty with the language, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a hypocrite. Why did Hillary decide to change her position on Michigan and Florida after those primaries? Did she suddenly gain more experience about representational voting? Did her concern for counting every vote suddenly fill her heart? No, it was because she won those primaries. She is being a hypocrite because it's in her political interest.

    If people here can't admit that to themselves then I guess Hillary's your candidate.

    Parent

    Obama decided (none / 0) (#148)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    to disenfranchise his MI supporters - and agreed to the FL rules.

    Parent
    problem is (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    they weren't faux primaries. If you have something new to add, please do. Otherwise, stop chattering (see the comment rules) because you are about to be limited to four comments a day. You won't be allowed to ominate this thread over other readers.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    Those primaries were ruled not to count beforehand by the DNC and the candidates, including Clinton. You can call them whatever you want, but your investiture of authenticity doesn't trump reality.

    However, it's your blog so censure as you will.

    Parent

    saying they wouldn't count (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    was a penalty, not an admission they weren't real.

    Parent
    Yes they were Jeralyn (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    primaries that carry no delegates are very much faux primaries.  Would you prefer beauty contest primaries?

    Your desire to legitimize them for political purposes doesn't make them so.

    Parent

    It's not that there are no delegates in Florida, (none / 0) (#116)
    by my opinion on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:00:25 PM EST
    it's that the rules prevent them from being seated at the convention, which may be what you meant.

    I find your argument about someone having an opinion that fits their "political purposes" to ring hollow, since the same applies to your opinion.

    I think that minimizing some peoples votes by calling their primary "faux" is a dangerous thing to do in a democracy (or democratic republic), irregardless of whether it is a primary or general election.

    Parent

    I will (none / 0) (#127)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    plainly state when I am offering opinion and I freely admit that my opinions are influenced by my biases.

    Like I said, if you wish to call them beauty contest primaries, that's fine as well.  

    Generally speaking elections in which only one serious candidate is on the ballot are routinely labeled faux-elections, and for good reason.

    Parent

    Using any language (none / 0) (#134)
    by my opinion on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:02:08 PM EST
    that minimizes some voters is the same.

    Your new argument to call it "faux" is not true since there was not just one person on those ballots. The issue of which candidates were on the ballots is something that has been pointed out before regarding your previous comments.

    Parent

    "WHEN CLINTON AGREED THAT THEY WOULD (none / 0) (#138)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    NOT COUNT"

    One more time, Bob, for good measure.

    There was no agreement between Hillary or anyone else that FL and MI delegates don't exist or don't count if they do.

    Here is the pledge from the "4 State Pledge Letter" signed by the candidates:

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    (emphasis added]

    And a link to the whole letter http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

    It says nothing about delegates or what delegates will matter or will or won't count in FL or MI.  Or whether a state's primary will count or not.

    It's merely a pledge not to campaign in any states other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina that held a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday.

    That's it, Bob.

    Please stop spreading misinformation here or anywhere else.


    Parent

    Mail-in effect on the Pop vote? (none / 0) (#27)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    If one of the things that the SDs are going to look at is the popular vote, won't the mail-in primary in FL (and MI for that matter) be a huge boost for Hillary?  I'd expect a very high return, especially with all the attention on those states and the relative ease of mail-in voting.  If Hillary's lead holds, wouldn't that result in a pop vote lead for her?  Even more than just counting MI and FL as is?

    i think it will (none / 0) (#63)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    i know BO is trying to keep the votes out until after nom declared but that will never happen. so it seems to me he would be better served to let them seat as they are [ and for the reasons i think this should happen i agree with jeralyn]    any revote will be a loss for him and a loss in a negative news cycle. so quietly seating them seems to be less damage. and now he has been pissing the states off by not wanting the delegates seated so i really think a revote would be worse for him.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#75)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    I think that seating the delegates would not only help him avoid a negative news cycle from losing a revote, but would actually give him some positive news, since he would be 'making a sacrifice for the good of the party/country/world' in order to put the thing to rest.  A revote just does not seem to be good for Obama unless he really feels getting into the states to campaign will turn it around, which I doubt.  I know the argument is that when he gets in a state to campaign he turns it around, but I think that might have more to do with the natural tightening of a race leading up to the vote.  Not many people are paying attention more than 2 weeks out.

    I would imagine a lot of Floridians have a bad taste in their mouth about Obama right now.  Has anyone seen any polling?  I looked at Pollster and RCP and didn't see anything new.

    Parent

    You're kidding right? (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    He wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  She gains 80 delegates and 328,000 votes on Obama if they are seated as is.  

    He is not pissing the states off.  He's pissing you off, along with other Hillary supporters.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#120)
    by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    He  CHOSE  to  remove  his name  from  the  Michigan  ballot,   but  his  campaign  staffers   urged   all of  his  Michigan   voters  to   cast   "uncommitted" on his  behalf.  

    He  was  INVOLVED  in  Michigan,    actively.  

    Get  a  grip.

    Parent

    You know that (none / 0) (#143)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    He could actually get the entire "uncommitted" delegate slate, right? Which may actually be better than a revote result without having to lose again.

    Parent
    Credentialing Committee (none / 0) (#31)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    The DNC's Credentialing Committee will make the final decision on the possibility of do-overs in FL or MI. That committee is scheduled to meet over the summer.

    Back in January Hillary announced that she would work to seat the entire convention delegations for Florida and Michigan despite the serious sactions from the national party.

    John Edwards and Barack Obama withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot because Michigan broke party rules. Guess who did not.

    Meanwhile Republican heir John McCain has 7 months to roam around the country campaigning.

    No it won't, imo (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    It won't. That will be decided beforehand. The credentialing committee WILL not be involved in that decision as the DNC will accept the delegations in the pledged delegates.

    To imagine the Credentialing Committee will overturn an agreement ok'd by the DNC is incoorect imo.

    Parent

    They can't wait until summer to make this (none / 0) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    decision. If there is a do-over, they need to be working on it now.

    Parent
    The Credentialing Committee might have to make (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    some space in their schedule.

    Also for the record Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were on the MI ballot.  

    I can't believe one of the ideas floating around is to seat the delegates from these states 50-50.  That's crazy.

    Parent

    that's obama for you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    There were 2 uncommitted counties, Wayne (Detroit) and Emmett and he wants half of Hillary's votes in the others. Daschle proposed that today on one of the Sunday talk shows.

    At least Hillary's a fighter. I'm not worried she'll give away the store.

    Parent

    such a good point (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    She's a fighter and she will fight for these votes instead of doing the "democratic" thing and backing down for the sake of the...what, exactly?  How did Gore letting Bush take the win help the nation?  How did Kerry whimping out help the nation?

    We need a fighter.

    Parent

    Y'know, I now see this as a testt (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    that, after 2000 and 2004, needs to be given to all of our candidates:

    Will you fight for all Dem votes to count?

    So far, Clinton is the only one who shows that she will fight if -- shall we say when? -- the Repubs rev up their Rovian machine again.

    Let's talk it up.  Enough real Dems remember 2000 and 2004 all too well and made our mantra "No, we will not forget."  Maybe they need a reminder and a bit of a push to see that this fight is relevant to those fights?

    Parent

    Yeah, let me have a seat but just ignore (none / 0) (#59)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    how I actually voted. That's as insulting as leaving them out altogether.

    Parent
    Can someone tell me why Obama and Edwards (none / 0) (#71)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    withdrew their names in Michigan but not in Florida?

    Parent
    IIRC (none / 0) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    It had something to do with NH and IA.

    Parent
    They could not withdraw (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST
    their names from the Florida ballot unless they had withdrawn from the race - but Michigan did not have such a rule.

    Parent
    Thanks. That's the firsts clear explanation (none / 0) (#142)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    i've seen.

    Parent
    The reason all the candidates (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    agreed to not run in either Fl or Mi is because they didn't want to piss off IA and NH.  Those 2 states take their preeminence seriously.  

    Obama and Edwards too their name off to avoid what is happening in Florida in which some people are claiming it was no different than a normal primary.

    Parent

    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#122)
    by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    You've  been  TOLD  several  times  that  Kucinich,  Dodd,  and  Gravel   STAYED  on  the  Michigan  ballot,  along  with   Clinton.  

    The  only  two who  voluntarily   withdrew  their names  were    Edwards  and   Obama.  

    Now  stop   posting  the  same lie,   Hawk.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:35:06 PM EST
    So what is the "lie" I made?  

    Funny how I don't expect your comment to be deleted for a gratuitous attack even though you won't even be able to point to part of my statement that is untrue.

    Parent

    But that's not answering the question, which is (none / 0) (#130)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    why they took their names off in Michigan and not in Florida. Neither primary had occurred when they did it. I remembered wondering about it at the time.

    Parent
    "Obama and Edwards took their name off (none / 0) (#139)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    to avoid what is happening in Florida in which some people are claiming it was no different than a normal primary."

    How insightful and forward thinking of them.

    Care to support your comment with a quote or link?

    Parent

    Edwards and Obama removed (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:09:50 PM EST
    their names from the Michigan ballot because both were pandering to Iowa and NH - Obama wanted to start this primary race with a big win and thought this show of respect for Iowa would help him there, and Edwards knew a win in Iowa after practially living there for months would give him some momentum going into NH.  Hillary's views about Iowa were no doubt colored by her husband's experience - he didn't participate in the Iowa caucuses, as I recall.

    I think Hillary kept her name on because, (1) she believed she could win there and that (2) a delegation would end up being seated at some point.

    While it's true that Michigan and Florida can wait until the convention to approach the credentialing committee about seating the delegations based on the original primaries, the decision to have a re-vote will be made well in advance of the August convention.

    Parent

    Everyone- esp. the MSM (none / 0) (#51)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    seems to forget that in Fla. the early vote was forced on Dems by repub. legislature. I hope the voters in BOTH states remember that ONLY Hillary has been fighting for their votes to count all along.

    that's been mentioned over and over (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    in other threads but thanks for bringing it up again.

    Parent
    ***J E R A L Y N**** Interesting SUSA poll!!! (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    Regarding who people want at top of ticket.  Look at Item #2 in link

    Link

    I know this is off-topic, but might be a good subject for a diary.

    Um it is off topic (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    Come on Teresa.

    Parent
    You saw my disclaimer (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    I know it's off topic.  I don't think we have an open thread.

    Parent
    Wait for the next one please. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    It is not easy to moderate this blog and one of the most important ways to do it is to demand strict on topic comments.

    Parent
    just sit back (none / 0) (#102)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    There has to be a re-vote, so there will be a full consensus. When they come up with something, then we will know what Obama will accept; before then we won't know.

    Just read that Dem party officials (none / 0) (#108)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    have canceled MI's convention rooms?  LINK

    Original story by the LA Times.  What's going on here!  I think Mark Twain was right...

    Well... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    NBC news tonight started off, for the first time in months, calling the dem race a "tight" race, so obviously some of the spinning is working.  They really pushed the revotes, and had Dean's appearance from this morning where he seemed to be pushing for mail-in.  Then they had Levine saying mail-in was a horrible idea, and all I could think was, "it's simple.  It's something people can understand."  Clinton will win on the revotes because there's no simple, logical response to "let's revote" other than, "okay."

    Media not picking up on Obama's resistance (none / 0) (#135)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Even though his surrogates said all this today, the media isn't picking up on the general theme.

    I have a couple questions about the re-votes... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    ...that I haven't seen addressed:

    Would the revotes be confined to those already registered to vote Democratic? Or would there be open registration for a certain period before the re-votes took place?

    And would re-voting be restricted to those who voted in   January, or opened up to all registered Dems?

    I imagine it could be a sticking point for Obama if the state parties don't allow new registration periods.

    What's Obama's Saying About Mail-In Revotes in Fl. and MI? | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment