home

Dodd Plan For Disaster In FL/MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only. Jeralyn opposes a revote.

I am starting to worry that some Democrats do not get that they are playing with fire with this MI/FL situation. The latest is from Senator Chris Dodd, who I once supported for President, and who is now an Obama supporter:

"Split up the delegations, let 'em each have 50 percent of it and move on," said Dodd. "You don't have to go back over and re-do these things. . . . My view is make this as simple as you can."

. . . "I don't like the idea that taxpayers will have to pay," said Dodd. "Why should they have to pay twice?" . . . Some in the party have proposed having major Democratic donors pay for the do-over primaries instead of taxpayers. Dodd rejected that approach. "The idea that a bunch of fat cats are gonna finance it, I don't like that idea at all," Dodd said.

More . . .

So, according to Dodd, the taxpayers can not pay and no one else can pay either? Yep, no revote and no actual representation for the will of the people of Florida and Michigan. But what does Dodd care? Florida and Michigan deserve it according to him:

Dodd said holding primaries again would wrongly reward the two states for trying to jump ahead of other states on the national party's primary and caucus calendar. "There's gotta be a price you pay for this thing," Dodd said.

Heck of a message to be carrying for November. It was YOUR fault. To heck with you Florida and Michigan. Obama is sooo gonna lose Florida and Michigan in November if this nonsense keeps up from his camp. But who cares about that? Not Chris Dodd apparently.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< ABC News: Spitzer, Not the Prostitution Ring, Was the Subject of Investigation | Spitzer Lawyers Up, Resignation May Come Tuesday >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dodd Plan For Disaster In FL/MI | 220 comments (220 topical)
    Had hoped this was snark (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    but you nailed it. Does anyone in CampObama realize that there are millions of Democrats in these states who are entitled to be heard from?

    I know, right or wrong, rules or no rules, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    the bottom line is that the people of MI and FL did nothing wrong and their votes should be counted no matter who it helps. Take away their Super D's or something but don't punish the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Just do a freaking revote (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    There is absolutely no reason not to, unless you are determined that Obama win this thing no matter what.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was Hillary who would (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM EST
    "do whatever it takes to win."  Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]
    I do want a re-vote and I'm starting to believe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    it will happen.

    [ Parent ]
    That Is The Whole Idea (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    They are determined that Obama win this thing no matter what.

    [ Parent ]
    And why should MI and FL complain? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    They'll get to participate and cast half their delegates in the coronation.  Really, what's to complain about?

    They simply cannot be serious about this.

    [ Parent ]

    What a bunch of ... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:25 PM EST
    ... well if I use a medical term and call them sphinct-rs, am I violating protocol on this site? If so, apologies to Jeralyn, and I'll be good from now on; but this one has got me pretty riled.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe that's the only point he has. (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And you don't care about the rules (none / 0) (#209)
    by fladem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    and think you can bend them anytime.

    Hillary Clinton said in October of 2007 that she knew the Michigan Caucuses wouldn't count.  Harold Ickies voted to punish both Florida and Michigan.

    If Clinton had said one word about this before New Hampshire she would have some credibility.  She didn't, she didn't give a damn about either Florida or Michigan until she thought it would benefit her.  

    In fact, she is simply lying about her position.  According to CNN, Feb 22nd:


    Clinton told Smith that she had promised not to campaign in either state, and had kept her word - but that she had never said she would not ask for the results of those contests to be made official, a request her campaign made public on the eve of Florida's January vote.

    Ahh, but here is what she said in October, 2007 according to the Washington Post:


    As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

    [ Parent ]

    What was kos wailing about (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    re "unimportant states"?

    [ Parent ]
    Offhand (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    I wonder why Olbermann and/or Jon Stewart haven't done what they do best on a quote like that?

    Crash the Gates  ---------------->>>  Rules are Rules.

    You do not wonder (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
    You know why.

    [ Parent ]
    My wonderment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    Is of course rhetorical, that is true.


    [ Parent ]
    Olberman has been too busy slashing Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    in every show and blatantly supporting Obama to care about how he wins. The Barack camp can do any vicious thing they want, not a peep from the media; Hillary breathes wrong an is evicerated.

    [ Parent ]
    Of all the ideas I've heard. . . (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    this is by far the dumbest.  It is so horrifically stupid that I literally don't know how any sane, self-respecting person could propose it.

    If you want to punish FL and MI, deny them representation or force them to bend to the will of the DNC and hold an election within the permitted time frame.

    But by arbitrarily making up polling results you're punishing only the Clinton voters.  You're actually rewarding the Obama voters.  That's not punishing.  It's stealing.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    Obama's own idea.  No redo, no seating Clinton's delegates, give him 50% and no re-do.

    [ Parent ]
    It is s tupid for an Obama supporter especially (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:14 PM EST
    to be saying it NOW when the revote has such momentum and is almost certain to happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Good Lord (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:01 PM EST
    No one in MI/FL is going to be fooled if you pretend to count the votes only to disregard the results.

    Fat Cats? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    Okay, who said anything about fat cats? My understanding is that a couple of Clinton campaign surrogates have come out saying that Clinton will raise $15 million from supporters for a re-vote, and challenging Obama to do the same. (If they raised $50 million in a month, how much of a hardship would that really be?) Secondly, even if there were "fat cats" who donated money to the cause -- they are doing so to allow people to vote! If they also happen to live in either FL or MI then they will also have the right to cast one vote themselves. Raising the spector of fat cats makes it seem as though big moneyed interests will be buying votes, not, as is the case, buying the opportunity for others to have their vote matter.

    Yes, when I'm with the fat cats (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    and against Dodd on this . . . well, the Dem party is just doomed.

    (Carville, as I recall, did say he could line up donors to pay Clinton's half in no time at all, so that sounded like big donors.)

    [ Parent ]

    Carville (none / 0) (#70)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    said he had fund-raisers lined up.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess it's Fat Cats vs. Fat Heads? (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This whole argument is so disengenuous (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    in so many ways, I don't even know where to start. It would be like arguing with my dog. How are these people even able to keep a straight face as they take such a ludicrous position?

    The fact that this idiocy has not been skewered in the media is evidence that the Clinton Rules are still in effect.

    [ Parent ]

    They are frothing at the mouth with their (none / 0) (#42)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    hatred and can no longer recognize the truth.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, to be fair. . . (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    there's a reasonable amount of disingenuousness in politics -- Clinton's broaching of the unity ticket is another example.

    But this is just plain theft.  It's nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not what bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:05:54 PM EST
    After all the sturm und drang over Clinton Ci-C remarks and how it hurts the Party, to countenance this suicidal behavior is beyond anything.

    Here's the thing, do they NOT think Obama can do well in Michigan? I do not mean win, I mean get 45% of the vote. That is all he needs.

    WTF?

    [ Parent ]

    I assume they're not worried. . . (none / 0) (#116)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    about the delegate effect, or even the popular vote effect -- I don't think Clinton can recover from her current positions.

    I think they're worried about the narrative of having Clinton win three large events (PR, FL, and MI) right at the end of the primary season and the beginning of the super delegate primary.

    Frankly, I'm not too sure why they're worried at all because I think Obama has it pretty well wrapped up.  But clearly they are worried -- both the campaign (and their hesitancy about embracing re-votes) and also the larger Obama-sphere (witness the hysteria at Daily Kos et al -- diaries and front page).

    [ Parent ]

    I know what they are worried about (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    But it is too late to stop it now.

    Time to start negotiating the terms of the revote.

    [ Parent ]

    NO WAY should Mr. Hope get half of the delegates! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    The people didn't vote for HIM. There must be a revote, whether Mr. Hope wants one or not. He's NOT entitled to half the delegates...period.

    Dodd was my candidate for President also. LOVED the guy. What has happened to him? This is the same man   who filibustered the FISA Bill because of the "Constitutional Rights" of U.S. citizen's Right to Privacy. What happened to the importance of a citizen's "Constitutional Right" to Vote?? What the heck is going on? This is just crazy. What is Obama doing to our party???

    And Obama has barely lifted a finger (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:55 PM EST
    to help Dodd with the FISA fight.  I have to believe that these guys are all supporting Obama because they can't stand the thought of a woman President.


    [ Parent ]
    Neither has Clinton (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it's true. (none / 0) (#105)
    by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    All the Dem candidate (I think??) sucked on FISA except, of course, Dodd.  

    What he's saying now is still stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    No, these guy are climbing on board ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:56 PM EST
    ... the bandwagon of someone they perceive as a winner. Nothing more, nothing less. It's simply politics at its most cold and hardcore.

    [ Parent ]
    Dodd's campaign debt was retired (none / 0) (#118)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Either (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    that or they have personal grudges against the Clintons.  Dodd voted for impeachment with the Republicans.

    You have to wonder if they just don't want a strong president they can't control.

    [ Parent ]

    Control. (none / 0) (#191)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM EST
    Bingo.

    [ Parent ]
    Where in the Constitution does it say (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    there's a right to vote in a Primary?

    If there is, throw out all the "closed' Primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    good question. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    What is Obama doing to our party???

    i believe the technical term is "trashing". it becomes clearer and clearer that sen. obama is in this strictly for..............sen.obama. if not, he's allowing his surrogates to give that very impression to the general public.

    if sen. obama is truly concerned about the entire democratic party, and not merely his own interests, it's time for him to step up to the plate and do the right thing: endorse revotes in both FL & MI.

    i won't waste time on SC, since the DNC appears to be intentionally blind to that.

    Remember his first complaint against HRC (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:40 PM EST
    She's "divisive". For this particular umbrella claim, BO doesn't detail her actions nor character but as a passive object bearing that attribution for the actions and character of others. He holds her up as bad because a small, vehemently anti HRC and anti-dem group can't stand her, never could stand her, and never will stand her.

    He's promised to work with the RW of that group over the Clinton supporters who remain loyal Dems. If that hasn't set up a flag, nothing will.

    She's a Bad Lady in the same way Bad Men were held up by the Bushies on the promise that they were the one individual person impeding all that was good from gushing forth in a natural progression.

    And the repetition of this is why I'm veering away from giving Obama my support, much less, trusting what he says at face value. That trust in the face of no meaningful leadership in the Senate was contingent on seeing him take the lead in current burning issues. He's behaved hypocritically, stingily, weasely and, yep, DIVISIVELY -- using the word as an active verb here.

    [ Parent ]

    Gravel got more votes in Michigan than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    Why should he be cut out of a delegate deal?

    This, actually, is an inteesting argument (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    and could really expose the idiocy of Doddobama.

    [ Parent ]
    Deserved the votes more to (none / 0) (#111)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just like Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    saying that caucuses are a democratic way to elect officials out of one side of his mouth, then crowing out the other side about how even though Hillary won the Texas election handily, Obama will get more delegates out of Texas because of the undemocratic caucus system.

    Obama's roolz baby!

    Heads he wins!
    Tails Hillary loses!

    Good luck with that against McCain!

    Daschle (none / 0) (#85)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    did a poor job after 9/11.

    [ Parent ]
    Looks Like Some Dems Are Working (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    overtime to elect President McCain.

    Do they really think that Hillary's supporters will just meekly go along with a 50/50 split of FL and MI? Talk about making the nomination illegitimate.

    Do they think that MI and FL will? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    That's the point.  I'm for Clinton, but I'm for fairness first.  And I was all for Dodd, but there are many attitude adjustments to make this year.

    [ Parent ]
    Dodd has always been an opportunistic suckup (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    to the "netroots" and hence of course to Obama, the next flavor of the month.

    No offense, BTD, but Dodd's just a dim blowhard, a Kerry with better hair.

    I dunno. . . (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:56 PM EST
    Kerry has pretty good hair.  It's what's under it that's worried me sometimes.

    [ Parent ]
    They all just want to be loved... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    ..by the children.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course. . . (none / 0) (#98)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    to some of us any hair is good hair.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus, wouldn't a (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    50/50 split actually lower the number of total delegates needed to win the nom as opposed to the number that would be needed if both FL and MI had 100% of their delegates?

    A point that has to keep being made (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:19:10 PM EST
    is that a 50-50 split would give Obama votes that were never cast for him,. There is no way to argue that that is democratic. In all of these proposals, all that Hillary is asking for is that she get the votes that were cast for her. She's not asking for a single vote that a voter didn't cast for her.

    I realize there's more to the issue than this, but that is a fundamental difference that must be emphasized. I'm not sure when in our history we have awarded votes to a candidate because it seemed like the fair thing to do, or that he would have gotten them under other circumstances.

    At first I thought (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    this was a strategy whereby they propose something so ridiculous and stupid that by default their next suggestion appears brilliant!

    But seriously, lets say there is a re-vote--how does BO campaign there?  Won't HRC (justifiably) bring up "he didn't want your vote to count" all the time.  He'll be on the defense the whole campaign.  Then again, he did this to himself.  

    If all of our outrage over Florida 2000... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:50 PM EST
    ... meant anything back then, we simply have to find a way of including Florida and Michigan now. Either we were standing up for the principle of counting every vote back then, or we were just making up whatever arguments we could find to help Gore win.

    Everything that happened in Florida in 2000 went by the rules. The rules gave Katherine Harris the power to shade everything for Bush, and the rules gave the US Supreme Court the power to hand the election to Bush. We weren't angry because the rules weren't followed. They were.

    We were outraged because fundamental principles of democracy were abandoned for political advantage. Weren't we? Or were we really as unprincipled as the Republicans--using principle as a flimsy excuse to do whatever it took to win?

    NOOOO!!!!!! (none / 0) (#210)
    by fladem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    It DIDN"T go by the rules.  The Supreme Court of Florida ordered a full recount by hand.

    It was the US Surpreme Court that stepped in and bent the rules to hand Bush the victory.

    2000 did not go by the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Craig Crawford reminded me today (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    That the reason DNC is in the Florida pickle is because the poison pill that moved the Florida vote up....was attached to a measure to provide a paper trail for Florida electronic voting.

    In case anyone forgot, I'm reminding US....and please make sure you mention this the next time someone says da-Rulz is da-Rulz and we can't have a revote and we gotta split the votes to favor Obama, um, uh, for the good of the party.

    Link

    Anyway delete liberally if this is off-topic.

    I still prefer Florida as is (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
    as all candidates were on the ballot.  Michigan I would accept a 50/50 without a vote if Michigan holds an election asking people to vote on whether or not they want to support said 50/50 split.  Lol?  Not really.  The primary process is already strung out and antiquated, it gets worse when the DNC steps in and starts trying to tell a state when it can have its electorate show up at state polls.  It would get exponentially worse if we just say..."Well, heck we don't really need to let the people speak because we (the DNC, or Chris Dodd, or whomever) can speak for them, better we decide than some 'fatcat' donor."  

    No more caucuses.  No more strung out primary season.  One day, one vote, winner takes all.  For the amount of money Obama and Clinton are raising and spending they could have held enough debates, ran enough tv ads, killed enough trees for print ads to let everyone on the planet know everything we ever wanted to know before holding a one day primary.  The idea of a six month primary might have worked pre-internet, pre-televison, pre-paper on every step, but in todays world the extended time doesn't allow a less well known candidate to become better known it allows the top money raisers to assassinate the characters of anyone and everyone who stands in their way.  If the old system was still relevant Dennis Kucinich would be able to gain a respectable share of the Dem. vote because he is knowledgeable and capable (so what if he sees ufos.)

    Taxpayers Paying Twice (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    Well here is a win win solution:

    Refund the money from the first time around and then have a revote. The taxpayers would be thrilled, and so would the voters.

    Taxpayers (none / 0) (#73)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:26 PM EST
    paying twice?  Where do you get that?  Donors will pay for a re-vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Dodd's Concern (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    . . . "I don't like the idea that taxpayers will have to pay," said Dodd. "Why should they have to pay twice?" . . .


    [ Parent ]
    This is exactly why Dodd went exactly nowhere (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    in the presidential nominating process.  

    Write In Candidates? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    Because of this mess does  any one know if you can write in a Presidential Candidate in the GE ballot in every state or do all states prohibit a write in presidential candidate? Heard several people asking about this.   I know that writing in the candidate will be counter productive to winning  the electoral votes but I am just wondering if you can write in a candidate.  

    I heard on NPR today (none / 0) (#16)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    That Corzine and someone else (can't remember who) are talking about raising money to pay for re-votes. Anyone know more about this?

    Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    Gov. of PA.


    [ Parent ]
    Corzine and Rendell (none / 0) (#22)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    And both of them are quite proficient at this whole fundraising thing. They know how to shake the trees.

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell does (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    Corzine IS the trees.

    [ Parent ]
    True, that. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Surrogate number 2 (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:41 PM EST
    Surrogate number 2, McCaskill was on tonight saying some people are trying to game the system, that she was not comfortable with the supporters of one candidate financing a re-vote and that Obama was taking the right approach in that he was waiting for a decision from the DNC.  Whatever the decision from the DNC, he would go along with.

    The taxpayers don't pay for it.  Donations don't pay for it.  Who is going to pay for it?  I'm willing to donate.  It doesn't take fat cats to get this done.   It seems the Obama surrogates were out in force today not supporting a re-vote.

    [ Parent ]

    That does not even make sense (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    IT WAS DEAN who suggested to Nelson that the Florida Democratic Party could raise soft money for a revote.

    McCaskill is just full sh*t on this.

    I can not believe where Obama is going with this.

    Just bullsh*t.

    [ Parent ]

    Your restraint (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    is admirable.  I was livid but refused to use caps or cuss words or exclamation points.  I will say McCaskill had the grace to look nauseous when she was challenged, but like a good little surrogate, she stuck to the circular logic line.  I try not to get mad at Obama but I have lost it over this garbage.  These are his people/his voice/his position.

    [ Parent ]
    They need to set up a website (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:45 PM EST
    for small donors to contribute for a redo. I would be more than happy to donate, and I would imagine there are others out there as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    I believe they're circulating recall petitions against Corzine at Daily Kos right now.

    [ Parent ]
    You have got to be kidding me. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Please tell me you're kidding. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    TPM and Daily Kos will really regret this ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    ... about a year from now, when the Obamabimbos have folded their tents and gone home.  Then, Josh and Markos will finally realize that their short-term choice to dispense with any pretense of impartiality in the Democratic primary -- exemplified by their relentless smearing of Mrs. Clinton as the de facto reincarnation of the Empress Dowager Ts'u-hsi in the waning days of the Manchu Dynasty -- has so offended a great portion of their mutual constituency, that their former audience isn't going to come back to their sites anytime soon.

    [ Parent ]
    whoa (none / 0) (#62)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    honestly, you're off the edge here...good luck.

    [ Parent ]
    No, he's not. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    And it's not a good time, with this economy so cutting into advertising, to drive down long-term future growth.   There will be a shift in the blogosphere, those sites whose owners rely on it for income.

    [ Parent ]
    Verbose but true (none / 0) (#188)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:40 PM EST
    The Obama koolaid will have a heck of a hangover. I'm sure that Dkos has lost a LOT of readership because of this.

    Seriously, who wants to go hang out at the bar where you get nibbled to death by 1000's of rabid chihuahuas?

    I don't know if they'll every publicly admit their bias or their outrageous claims were, well, outrageous. Stay the course.

    To be fair, when I was reading this thread I at first thought that it was very unfriendly to any Obama supporters. But I took a step back and it is just unfriendly to B.S.


    [ Parent ]

    "It's just unfriendly to B.S." (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    and thus, there is much to talk about this year.:-)

    Great to have you here, read you over there. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    they have NO idea (none / 0) (#215)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    how many Clinton supporters have already cancelled their MoveOn membership?

    how many Clinton supporters will never watch Keith Olbermann again?

    how many Clinton supporters will never return to Daily Kos or the other blogs that have been absurdly unfair to Clinton?

    Some people have made the decision, not just that they prefer Obama, but that Clinton and her supporters have become so inconsequential that they're no longer relevant.

    Most Clinton supporters aren't like me, vocal on the blogs.  They're the Democratic base; not rabble rousers, just the people who quietly show up every year.  They're people like my wife who cancelled her MoveOn membership without a word to anyone.

    A lot of Obama supporters need to learn the meaning of that word, divisive.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't find any diary like that (none / 0) (#119)
    by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    so yeah, I'm assuming it's sarcasm.  But I've been on a dKos sabatical since I found new haunts (like here) and my goodness am I less riled up.  Anyway, I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had posted a diary there to recall Corzine.  I was more curious if it was at the top of the Rec list.

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#77)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:32 PM EST
    believe that it is possible to write someone in.  We are in Illinois and I think it's possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting numbers (none / 0) (#27)
    by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    on the Credentials Committee crunched here

    Well, any committee with almost 200 on it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    is the problem right there.

    Rules and Bylaws committee looking useful, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Very disappointed in Dodd (none / 0) (#29)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    I can't believe they'll actually continue on this path. They were all over the map the last few days, proposing lots of different things--or at least saying they'd be ok with a lot of different things. I think these are just trial balloons to see what they can get away with, before Obama himself comes out and takes a stand.

    Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    taken a stand. He's got his surrogates out there.  These are not impartial people.  They are out there speaking on his behalf making sure his message stays in the media.  His message is telling me he's stalling.

    [ Parent ]
    In that case, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    he's taken several stands. McCaskill saying that he'll just abide by what the DNC decides seems like it's just cover for him to be able to complain about lack of fairness later.

    [ Parent ]
    The whole thing is making my blood boil (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    and I don't even live in Florida or Michigan.

    I am livid at the lack of leadership on this from the DNC, and at the openly partisan comments of people like Donna Brazile.  It may be truly impolitic of me to mention that the people who seem to be most interested in doing anything to get Obama a victory are the same people who couldn't put together a winning campaign either as consultants or candidates, or former members of Congress who failed to provide leadership and then ended up losing to Republicans.  Maybe a little projection there?

    This is not that difficult a problem to solve but there needs to be an adult or two who could see past the ends of their own noses to what's really important: respecting the citizens' right to vote.  There just isn't anything more important than that.  Anyone who isn't able to focus on that needs to STFU.  I don't care if Claire McCaskill wants to be the next AG - she can curry favor on someone else's time.  I don't care that John Kerry couldn't close the deal in 2004 and wsan't willing to fight for it, and now wants some kind of weird redemption - I'm still waiting for him to tell us that he will follow the will of the people of Massachusetts and will be voting for Clinton at the convention.  Oh - my bad - there's some kind of special rule that doesn't make that apply to him - just to everybody else.  Tom Daschle?  Harry Reid's doppelganger?  Chris Dodd?  To take a line from Jack Nicholson's movie - no one cares what you think.

    And just so no one thinks I'm being unfair, Hillary's people can sit down and shut up, too.

    There was a time when I thought winning the WH might not be a breeze, exactly, but I certainly expected more of the party and the candidates than to get bogged down in this endless in-the-sandbox squabbling and bickering that is doing nothing but keeping people's eyes off the prize.

    Oh - and memo to Obama - winning the nomination is not the end of the contest, it's the beginning, and the more smug you appear and the more gloating you do, the more you underscore the arguments against your candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    The 50/50 allocation,,, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:29:29 PM EST
    ... and calling it democracy, is downright Orwellian. All Democrats are equal, but some Democrats are more equal than others. I like Chris Dodd, but I'm beduddled by how he can't (or, more likely, won't) see this.

    The goal of the 50-50 split (none / 0) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    is to get  Obama closer to the magic number so he will need less Superdelgates to clinch it

    [ Parent ]
    Offer a revote or a penalty, and move on. (none / 0) (#34)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    I don't see why this has to be complicated or a source of ongoing controversy. A revote would be fine, as would be letting the existing results stand but penalizing the delegates by 50% (and giving MI's "uncommitted" to Obama). The compromise should be fair to both candidates, while recognizing the fact that the states broke the rules.

    Offering a choice between losing half your delegates or having a revote under "normal" election conditions (both candidates on the ballot, full campaigning and ground operations) would meet both criteria, and would produce a democratic result.

    I'm an Obama supporter and I approve this message.

    He doesn't get the uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    Uncommitted does not mean Obama. Wasn't Edwards still in the race at the time the MI primry was held? If they are to be allocated, it has to take that into account.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. And both BO and JE voluntarily removed (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
    their names from the ballot in an attempt to pander to Iowa.

    [ Parent ]
    If that's the position on uncommitted (none / 0) (#82)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    then it forces a revote. Which is fine. But you can't say "Obama gets zero delegates from that uncommitted pool" and pretend it's a democratic result.

    [ Parent ]
    BO AND JE BOTH VOLUNTARILY (none / 0) (#92)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    REMOVED    THEIR   NAMES   FROM   THE   BALLOT.

    Is that clear enough for you?  They both removed their names from the ballot voluntarily, so neither received any votes.  How is this the fault of anyone else?

    A re-vote is being suggested but apparently BO (through his surrogates) doesn't want one.  They just want to take half the state's delegates.  

    Now please tell me how this is fair.  And how it follows the "rules."

    [ Parent ]

    Argumentum ad capslock never works (none / 0) (#139)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    The central purpose of the election should be to discover the will of the voters. So, we need to determine who those "uncommitted" voters wanted to choose. At this point, the party should either agree that uncommitted goes to Obama (with a 50% penalty for both sides), or there can be a revote, and the voters can be asked again. I think a revote is the best solution, regardless of what Chris Dodd says.

    I'm basically with BTD 100% on this. We need a solution that reflects the will of the voters, not one that favors one candidate or the other. A revote meets that criteria. A 50% penalty is the inferior option, but is a reasonable option if money is the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL :-D (none / 0) (#194)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    Sorry, but I love that. Argumentum ad capslock. Gotta remember that one. Thanks for teh funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it is (none / 0) (#94)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    The voters of MI voted "uncommitted" because that was the choice on the ballot (thanks to Obama himself) and that is precisely what those delegates would be: uncommitted.  There is no practical or legitimate way to determine whether those votes were for Obama or Edwards or really just plain uncommitted.  Obama would certainly be free to argue for those delegates at the convention, and he would doubtlessly get a large share of those delegates, but he currently has no viable claim that those are his votes or his delegates (his surrogate campaign to throw his votes in that direction notwithstanding).

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#114)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    There is no practical or legitimate way to determine whether those votes were for Obama or Edwards or really just plain uncommitted, so the solution is to have another vote and find out for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    This makes MI a more difficult problem (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    I agree he doesn't get zero, but I don't know how to split them up without a re-vote.

    But if I were feeling immoderate, I would say that he took his name off the ballot voluntarily and there should be consequences for that. :-)

    In such a close race where we need to come together afterwards, the most important thing is for whoever wins it to win it fair and square. A re-vote in MI seems warranted.

    [ Parent ]

    Those consequences (none / 0) (#145)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28:43 PM EST
    would unfairly punish the voters too. Remember, it wouldn't just be Obama getting punished; it would be his supporters and voters who wanted to choose him, but couldn't.

    Allowing the people to speak and having their vote count should always be the highest principle. If it takes a revote or some other process to get there, then fine, but wiping those votes away would be neither democratic nor Democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was not "punished" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:21 PM EST
    by the MI vote. At the risk of beating an already well-tenderized horse, Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. Self-inflicted wounds do not constitute punishment.

    Obama's supporters were likewise not punished or deprived of their vote. Their candidate chose not to run in MI.  Obama deprived them of that chance.  By your logic, Al Gore supporters were also disenfranchised in MI because he chose not to run and did not appear on the ballot.  The people did speak in MI and their votes were counted.  They chose "uncommitted" because that was the choice left to them by Obama himself.  And, as mentioned above, Obama can still contend for these delegates at the convention.  The only thing that has been "wiped away" are the votes of 2 million voters in two key swing states by the DNC over a scheduling dispute. Now that is undemocratic.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#153)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    The process should protect and give voice to voters.

    [ Parent ]
    the only ones .... (none / 0) (#35)
    by txprog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    playing with fire are the clinton machine and her supporters.  terry mcauliffe did not have ANY problme removing delegates from michigan in 2004 when he was chairman.  now that it beneifits clinton...hes all for cahnging the rules midstream.  where was clinton back when they announced the rules a long time ago.  she did not care...she did not need florida or michigan back then because she was going to blow everybody away.  now that it suits her interests she is leading the way with her blind supporters to change the rules.  i will concede that obama, edwards, and others did not contest the rules either because at the time it was an enormous disadvantage for them.  rules are rules. i seriously doubt clintons would contest any of the states that obama won if they were in the same situation.  as far as dodd not wanting 'fat cats' paying for the revote....i dont want that either.  the people who have all suggested they could raise money are all clinton supporters.  how would you guys like it if obamas friends payed for he revote and all of a sudden obama wins by huge margins. maybe if he wins those states you guys will just forget about them and flush them down the toilet like all the other states obama won.  forget the delegates.  most people dont know what the hell a delegate is anyway.  forgive the typos...been a hard day..im in a hurry.

    Repeat after me: This is NOT changing the rules (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    The rules allow for a do over. So you'll have to come up with a better argument than that.

    Both campaigns should pay for the revote.  There is such a proposal on the table.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually no (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    the laws of Michigan do NOT allow for a re-do.  Michigan would need to pass a law to allow for a re-vote primary.  Carl Levin mentioned this over the weekend.  

    I don't know what the laws are in Florida but I suspect that their legislature needs to get involved if we are going to allow state facilities to be used for voting purposes.  

    It's not just about money.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    You are making it up now. The Michigan Dem Party decides this.

    Not Michigan law.

    [ Parent ]

    No, he's not making it up (none / 0) (#214)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    Carl Levine did say that on one of the Sunday talking shows.

    Also, this article says the same thing

    Political experts: Second primary unlikely for Mich.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    I'm not sure how much we should rely on the newspaper that called Nelson Mandela an "African-American."

    As long as the taxpayers don't have to pay for the re-vote, it will happen.  That's the purpose of all this posturing.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not afraid of letting MI and FL vote (again). (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    Why should BO and his supporters be?

    [ Parent ]
    Rules, rules, rules (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    When a state is stripped of it's delegates it has two options.... appeal to the credentials committee or find a way to seat their delegates (in other words... have a re-vote).  The rules have always allowed a re-vote.  It would be changing the rules to not allow them the opportunity to seat their delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    The truth is (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    the reason that Hillary didn't challenge Florida and Michigan's delegates being stripped wasn't because she didn't think she would need them.  She didn't want to piss off Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  

    It is as simple as that.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is the onus on her to manage states' affairs? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    Your telepathy notwithstanding.

    [ Parent ]
    So freaking what? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:09 PM EST
    This is about the Dem Party, not Clinton or Obama.

    Heck, put decent Dem you want on the ticket, at this point I do not care.

    I want to win in November. And this is a recipe for losing.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only would this be a vote losing (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    endeavor, there are potential ramifications in terms of Dems' ability to claim the moral highground should there be problems with vote suppression or other shenanigans by the GOP in the future. We will have no credibility if we completely disregard the will of two states in our own primary.

    [ Parent ]
    umm (none / 0) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    me too.

    [ Parent ]