Barack Obama Was For Mail In Voting Before He Was Against It

By Big Tent Democrat

Marc Ambinder has more detail on Barack Obama's decision to lawyer up against counting Florida and Michigan votes.

I'll discuss the merits of this in a later post, but I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is out there having his campaign argue that mail in voting has some type of impact that requires a Voting Rights Act review that could be troubling. That it will take more than a rubber stamp. Let's be clear, if the implication is this is just filling out a form, then no one would be bringing this up. Even the time frame is not a particular problem. No, Barack Obama is intimating that HE will raise a Voting Rights Act issue about mail in voting.

The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.

< Electability? Momentum? | Another Report of Improper Obama Caucus Tactics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    WOW (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    I have no words.

    no words (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    me, either--I am laughing too hard.  Unreal.

    Laughing? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    This is no f^@&ing laughing matter.

    Sorry Kathy, not directed at you, but at this whole thing.  


    BTD, you got the act wrong. (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act

    The actual name of the act is "The Universal Right To Vote For Barack Obama By Mail Act",

    He was ahead of his time (none / 0) (#63)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    We are the ones we've been waiting for, he said.

    Well dang! (none / 0) (#142)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    I  wondered  what  that  phrase  meant!   :)

    Not all mail in voting is the same (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    A hastily organized mail in vote is a lot different from an Oregon-style system with pre-established signature verification.

    system for over one million absentee ballots filed by mail in Florida elections.

    There is no problem whatsoever with this.

    This is BS and you knows it.


    What is the difference. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    between expected mail-ins in this election and the largest number previously handled?  Double?

    Yes double (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    Doesn't sound like. . . (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    a big deal from the processing point of view.

    I mean, it does sound like a big deal -- any election is.  But it doesn't sound like a big difference from what they've done before.


    BTW, I would support (none / 0) (#14)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    a mail-in revote, if it is fair.  Forgive me if I'm scepticle that Florida could pull that off, but we'll see...

    Your skepticism is pretty transparent (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Florida ran a mail in primary on January 29. It was called absentee ballots. There was early voting too.

    Clinton won that one. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    Ipso facto, it wasn't fair.

    Seems like apples and oranges (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    According to the Ambinder article, the potential problem is that the DOJ has to pre-approve mid-stream changes in primary process.  I don't see what bearing that on the bill he sponsored.

    So it is filling out a form is it? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    Not a problem right?

    So why bring it up?

    Seems like BS on rye from you.


    You think Mukasey will just (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    "fill out that form"?  No questions asked?  Sounds like endearing naivete from you.

    You think Mukasey will even look at it? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    You think Bush and Mukasey would not want to see a Florida primary? You think Charlie Crist will not want it?

    The naivete is all yours.

    The purpose of this was to try and stick the word "Bush" on this process.

    I am no fool and I know exactly what Obama is trying to do here.


    Um, yes? (none / 0) (#22)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    I do think Bush and Mukasey would like to see the Democrats lose in November by mucking about with the Florida revote.  Didn't Crist already do what he could to block a revote?  Perhaps you should be as cynical about Republicans as you are about Obama.

    Obama is the one mucking about here (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    He may well be (none / 0) (#24)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    but I do think the concern that the GOP will do all it can to keep Floridians angry at the Dems is a valid one.

    So, is Obama trying to set himself up as (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    the Al Gore candidate, who just wants every vote counted, thereby making Hillary the George Bush candidate, who just wants to win any way she can?  Forgive me if that sounds as ludicrous as it did when I typed it, but things are getting seriously more and more weird.

    Honestly, I think now would be a good time for some enterprising blogger/journalist-type to remind the voters about Obama's pattern of finding legal ways to eliminate candidates and clear the field.

    His campaign must see some very disturbing internals and is hoping to ride this out.  I see they are already mass mailing in PA to remind voters of the deadline to register as a Democrat - you know, so they can be Dems for a day, I guess.


    Just remember: He won his first ever election (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    on ballot/petition technicalities.  

    Just to be clear (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    I think the appropriate thing here to do is for them to get lawyered up to get the pre-clearance needed.  ASAP.

    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    Honestly, BTD.  

    I think the time is NOW to raise hell on this issue.  On the whole Florida thing.  b/c apparently Florida just has 3 days to get the plan in.  b/c by state law, they need to have 90 days.  (I believe posted at The Confluence)

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    Why do you think I write about this 10 times a day?

    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    But I honestly think TALKELFT needs a permanent banner on this.  I am serious.  This is urgent.

    Thanks for all you do.


    What can Concerned Dems (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Boo Radly on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    not living in FL or MI do? I wrote to the DNC earlier this AM - I am serious, what can we do to stop this?

    Write your state's Obama super-delegates (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    -- the ones who are your elected officials, and let them know that anyone who supports a candidate who is for disenfranchising Dem voters, by any of these hooks and crooks the Obama campaign is using, will not get your vote again when the super-d's run for their state offices.

    That is what I am doing.  I hope others come up with other ways.  Online mass petition to Obama super-d's who are elected officials -- govs, lt govs, members of Congress, etc.?

    These are the delegates who are accountable to us.


    Awkward for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    His sponsorship of that act is going to make his already transparent obstructing and equivocating seem only worse.

    He really can't be seen to be on the side of disenfranchisement, no matter what.

    It's going to be fun to see him squirm.

    Is anyone in the MSM (none / 0) (#17)
    by nashville on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    going to call him on this?  Or his he going to get another free pass pretending he is a different kind of politician.  

    You would think we would be wary by now of politicians campaigning on the theme of being a "uniter."  After 8 years I don't want a uniter, I want a fighter!


    Time for another edition of: WORM (none / 0) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    MSM on this topic: What Obama Really Meant...

    and now back to our regular schedule programming: Hillary Clinton is divisise, some say.


    Everybody (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    This is NOT the time for being amused.

    This is NOT the time to consider the hypocrisy.

    This is NOT the time to call it chutzpa.  

    All of these won't do a thing.

    THIS IS TIME FOR ACTION, AND RAISING HELL.  FLORIDA HAS 3 DAYS TO FINALIZE ITS PLANS.  I even suggest TALKLEFT and other blogs put a countdown CLOCK on their front page, as boldly as they can.

    why only 3 days? (none / 0) (#25)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    As I have read. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    Florida needs 90 days (3 months) notice to put the voting in action.  DNC rules stipulate that primaries should happen on June 10th at the latest.   There is 93 days till June 10th.

    Read it here (top of the post) The Confluence and see the link to CNN.

    Another problem is that the state needs 90 days to prepare for a primary once the governor and legislature have signed off on a new election. That approval has not come, and any new primary would have to be held before June 10 to comply with DNC rules.

    June 10, however, is 93 days away, and there is no immediate compromise on a statewide election in sight.


    Time is running out fast.  

    Perhaps, there is only one or two days left!


    I have the impression that (none / 0) (#61)
    by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    this deadline applies only to primaries held under the auspices of the state itself. I rather doubt tht that is a serious prospect in any case, given the extra expense involved, and given that, in FL, it would require the consent of a Republican dominated legislature.

    I've got to guess that the Clinton campaign is, though, aware of the relevant deadlines -- it would seem pretty remarkable that we haven't heard about it if it were so hard upon us.


    Also federal law re military overseas ballots (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    that have to be received around the world a month and a half before an election -- after setting up a ballot, getting it approved (at several levels), printed, addressed, distributed, etc., times how many hundreds of thousands of military from these states?

    Let's talk about how OBAMA is playing around with the right of our military to participate in democracy.


    asdf (none / 0) (#98)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    And you think that the crowd that is challenging the legitimacy of the vote-by-mail (done by so many states, as well absentee), would not have the chutzpah to use this to call the result illigitimate?

    Al Sharpton has said that COUNTING Florida would be disenfranchising voters!  What other proof you need to the level that Obama's campaign will stoop?


    Believe it or not (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    Al Sharpton is NOT part of the obama campaign

    Give me a break! n/t (none / 0) (#157)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:56:53 PM EST
    Among other things (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    Obama is, in effect, telling the party to go f*uck itself.

    And he's personally f*cking every Democratic voter in Michigan and Florida.

    This is breathtaking. Absolutely mind boggling.

    Any superdelegate that casts a vote for Obama should be cast out of the party.

    The Obama team has turned into a wrecking crew.  And they talk about scorched earth.

    So that's the new politics that Obama's been going on about.  His campaign was cynical from the start but now he's raised the level of cynicism to new heights.


    I wonder if his supporters will finally figure it out?

    I wish people would read Ambinder (none / 0) (#30)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    before launching into breathless denunciations of the evil fiend Barack Obama.  You might see that there is a non-trivial concern about GOP interference with a revote.

    It ia not even (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    a red faced excuse.

    What is your claim? (none / 0) (#54)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    That they are not required to get pre-clearance?  That there's no chance the DOJ would refuse to pre-clear?  That, if the DOJ does not pre-clear, any subsequent lawsuits would be no problem?

    Obama is INVITING republican (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:50 PM EST

    So does pushing ahead without pre-clearance (none / 0) (#60)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    You think that if they just go ahead without DOJ input the GOP won't find some plaintiff to sue?  This sudden confidence in Republican good faith is touching but surprising.

    There is zero evidence that (none / 0) (#65)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    the Republicans want to use the DOJ to interfere.
    In fact, as BTD pointed out to you earlier, there have already been numerous instances in which the DOJ could have interfered, but did not.
    This is Obama playing the dirtiest politics, nothing else.

    Your faith is so touching (none / 0) (#72)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
    Don't you remember how it was all the GOP legislature's fault to move the primary date?  But now we can push bravely forward, confident in the good faith and fair dealing of our Republican friends!

    Your faith in my naivete is insulting, not (none / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    As I said, the DOJ could have interfered any number of times, but chose not to---in fact, the idea was never even raised by ANYBODY.
    Now Obama wants them to wreck the Democratic primaries, so he can win.

    When could they have interfered? (none / 0) (#78)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    And you're 100% willing to assume they won't this time, is that right?

    Not in their interest to interfere (none / 0) (#112)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    At least not in any public way.  If the GOP is seen as blocking this, then FL Dem voters hate them and will come out in November to vote against the GOP.  That's why Sen. Obama is trying to draw them in, so that a vote won't take place AND he won't get blamed for it.

    Win-win for Obama.  Of course, the voters and Clinton get f&*(ed, but who cares.


    This entire primary nightmare (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    has just gotten weirder.

    I'm not quite sure what to say...

    Today (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio and they were discussing this issue.  Interestingly, our Secretary of State, a really good guy, called into the show to comment.  According to him, there are some serious concerns about putting together a mail-in campaign in the time they have to do it in Florida.  He indicated that there would be problems with changes of address and verification of signatures.


    There will be problems, yes. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:25:20 PM EST
    So I still hold with the better solution of seating the delegates already elected in those states.

    But if not, then a mail-in election.

    NOT a Minnesota-style caucus.  There were problems with that, too.  Don't suppose he mentioned that.


    Heck I guess the Democratic party has (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    gone from denouncing the Republicans for bringing up the ghost of voter fraud to disenfranchise voters to requiring fraud protection.  I guess this is what we mean by the new politics in the Democratic party.

    They kept their promise! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    The Obama Fan Base kept saying they wanted to bring Republicans into the party.

    And they kept their promise, although the Republicans did turn out to be Justice Department officials.

    So, what's the big deal?

    You want to bring Republicans into the process (none / 0) (#64)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    as well.  As plaintiffs after the vote is counted.

    I think Obama has already brought (none / 0) (#70)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    enough Republicans into the fold by the way some of his campaign people act.

    This last-minute push (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    for a mail-in vote reminds me of Hurry, you have 24 hours to pass this bill or else the terrorists are going to blow us all up!!! except here the alternative is Or else Florida voters will be disenfranchised!!!

    The panic and pressure are all premised on the idea that those are the only two possibilities. There are other possibilities, like a deal worked out to be ratified by the credentials committee re seating some percentage of the FL and MI delegations, or even like what Mark Schmitt wrote about last week.

    I fully expect both will be seated in some form or other. Obama said as much last night to Wolfie.

    so happy that you are not alarmed (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:34:43 PM EST
    The mail-in approach won't be absolutely perfect. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    Better just to deny everyone the vote.

    The 30% cap on credit card interest (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    wasn't low enough, so I voted against the bill.

    the plan (4.25 / 4) (#4)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    of Obama and his campaign is to stall a Florida revote by all their might, and then blame the Clinton campaign for it.  When you have the press as your campaign unpaid prostitutes, you can get away with anything.

    Dodd, whom I always considered to be an idiot first and an empty politician second (sorry, BTD), has come up with 50-50 plan.  It sounds so great, and they bet (or know) that an average voter won't notice that dividing the delegates 50/50 would be EXACTLY the same as not seating them.  Again, the press lets anything pass, as long as it hurts Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton campaign should fight this AS HARD AS THEY CAN.  THE TIME IS NOW, AND IT IS URGENT.

    Obama campaign has been an EXACT copy of the Bush 2000 campaign.  Dirtiest politics to the extreme, but polished with a veneer of unity and change. Both Bush and Obama had the press with them.  

    Forget Bush, the real enemy is the AMERICAN CORPORATE MEDIA.  AND SOME BLOGGERS HAVE JOINED THEM TOO.  (Note for those who still want to get on the good side of American media.  That's worse than reasoning with Bush.)

    This seems to be the plan kos (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    is advocating...as noted over at CnL.

    the 50/50 plan? (none / 0) (#107)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    Kos is advocating it?  Well, I am about to leave that site, ASAP.  As soon as the handful of Hillary supporters there would not need the little support that I can offer them.

    Let's call a spade a spade.  Anyone who advocates for splitting the delegates half and half, is at the same level as Dick Cheney.  To put it obviously:

    Chris Dodd= Kos= Dick Cheney = anyone who advocates disregarding the votes of people.

    I am serious.  No one should be able hide beneath a democratic cloth to advocate crap like that.  NO ONE.


    Let me be clear. (none / 0) (#109)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:02:01 PM EST
    Even Hillary Clinton cannot advocate it. No one should have the audacity to take away the FUNDAMENTAL right of the voters to a vote that COUNTS.

    Chris Dodd = Dick Cheney? (none / 0) (#118)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    I'm sure this argument has some sort of merit. I just can't see it. When did Dick Cheney ever propose splitting something evenly with an opponent?

    Although I suppose if they do eventually seat the Michigan delegates, I for one will be happy to see Uncommitted go to the Denver with 50+ delegates in tow. Can't ignore the will of the Michigan voters, after all.


    This is late, but let me answer it. (none / 0) (#155)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    When did Dick Cheney ever propose splitting something evenly with an opponent?

    Is Chris Dodd advocating splitting something evenly with an opponent?  No.  He is advocating, "I stole your house, and now we can split it".  That's why I called it Dick Cheney. And I am not backing down.  Should republicans now propose to split California and New York evenly in terms of electoral votes? (Remember, they brought a similar ballot proposition in California, with was defeated in part with the effort of Hillary surrogates.  But don't expect Daily Kos to tell that story.)

    Yes, I stand by what I said.  People who don't see the dangers of such arguments from their own side, are merely sheep happily going to the slaughter house.

    There are certain things far more important than who is in your party, and we can all agree, the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE AND FOR THAT VOTE TO BE COUNTED is one of them.


    On his absolute worst day... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59:28 PM EST
    Chris Dodd |= Dick Cheney.

    Do You Mean (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:30:51 PM EST
    Chris Dodd (D-Insurance Industry)

    Yes... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:35:28 PM EST
    Chris Dodd (D--FISA Fight)

    There are lots of facets to a person. Discounting a person straight up for 1 thing or another tends to cut out a whole bunch of people who would otherwise be an asset.

    It strikes me as a form of absolutism that I can't get behind.


    Yes, he is. (none / 0) (#156)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    No one, no one, I repeat no one, should advocate the discounting of people's votes.  No one.  

    Can you imagine that republican find some excuse come November (under some excuse McCain removes his name from California and New York ballots), and then advocate that either California and New York shouldn't be counted.  Then in a magnanimous mood, they offer to split the electoral votes of those two states half and half with democrats.

    Can you imagine not screaming then? Can you?


    Only a moment? (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign.

     yer a real fast considerer.

    Say considerer like GWB and it's really funny.

    I am not surprised (none / 0) (#26)
    by pavaoh on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    I have read everything about how he got rid of other canidates in Illinois. Only difference is, this one will have his finger prints on it.  I have just been waiting for him to reveal himself.  Not the first time he has used lawyers and worse.

    This is dumbshow (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    He's stalling.

    I can't wait till we'll be forced to thank Obama for consenting to the wishes of Floridian voters.

    I don't see how anyone can be (none / 0) (#31)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    surprised.  I figured out what kind of person Obama is back around October.  And I used to like him. I wanted him to win.  Read one of his books got it signed.  Now I can stand to listen to this guy.  

    *ditto* (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:38:35 PM EST
    Easy to be sucked in by the Hollywood special-fx glitz, he does it so well. Then I liked Clinton's book too back-when.

    The first time I even started to ask questions about him, was in a January 3-way debate with Edwards and Clinton, over the 30% credit card capping. Obama became so flustered, rattled etc and Edwards smoked him. I thought then, if Edwards can corner him on that one so easily, in what is "friendly fire" from Democrat Party colleagues, how is this guy going to go through a whole campaign?  

    I'm also a health economist, and despite his spin about having only minor differences to the Clinton/Edwards & co preferred health plans, its not, its quite a major difference. But, complicated and not easy to explain to the masses in a 30-second soundbite.

    But it was early days, and maybe just a minor stumble and easily overlooked - give him the benefit of the doubt etc. But, since then he has just continued to add up to me as a "pattern" and turned me off him altogether. I think he's only electable if the MSM continue to support him and cover for him.


    I think any plan has to have (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    fraud protection, I don't see why he has to just jump on mail in voting, it has to, you know, be fair.  

    There has been months to deal with this, we are just at a point where HRC realizes, the only way she can even come close to having a chance, is for Florida and Michigan to revote, So now they are trying to shove a plan down everyones throat.  

    It's a cost thing, lets have caucuses, they are cheaper.  

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    You know what's cheapest.

    Certifying the vote we have.


    seat them (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST

    Fat chance. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    Bird. Cage. Liner. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    My previous post was for JGarza. Not Edgar. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    *yawn* (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    you can't even get your insults straight.

    Bird.Cage.Liner (none / 0) (#131)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    and 50:50 is really dumb

    What can Obama do? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Firefly4625 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    I mean, can he file a lawsuit that keeps Florida from being able to initiate a mail-in revote until it's too late?

    What are the chances he wins this 50/50 "solution"?

    Will Florida and/or the DNC see his contortion for the blatant manipulation it is? And, if they do, would the DNC be inclined to just plain-out decide to seat the delegates?

    I'm just so afraid Obama's gonna win this fight - subvert democracy - disenfranchise millions of voters - with these tactics.

    Whaddya all think?

    The more relevant questions (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    What are the chances FL is blue if Obama keeps this up?

    Most likely not going to be blue either way... (none / 0) (#49)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    oh so that's it you already gave up on (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    Florida.  So screw the Fl Voters.  

    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    voters rights is a valid arguement, "we need to revote so we can win Florida is iffy".

    But the more you make it sound like (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    the Voters of Florida don't count the iffier it becomes.  And unfortunately that is what Obama's people are doing.  As a resident I think the Democrats had a good chance this year but with the DNC excessive seal  and now all this kind of talk it makes it harder and harder.

    Why not? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    I don't see why not.

    I doubt it will go blue too... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:06:22 PM EST
    .. and FL was possibly written off by the DNC as a 'loss' from the beginning. FL is too much "hard work".

    Swing-states usually need the ground-troops motivated in the fall, being so critical to get every last Dem voting on the only day that matters. But, the uncertainty and confusion has gone on so long, that either Dem nominee would have to work FL really hard, with both money, and with people on the ground, to GOTV.

    I was against a primary re-vote in FL on the grounds of cost, not just in money, but the "cost" in Dem voters in FL. It will only have to be spent all again, maybe double in the fall, if the Dems want to win it. Screw around the Dem voters too much, and more will stay home and watch the game or rent a movie. Maybe not that many, but enough in a swing-state thats been gradually drifting red in recent years anyway.


    Obama won't file the suit (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    surrogates will.  He'll want to keep his hands clean.  Or as clean as he can.

    How strange (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    Why try to steal an election that you're already winning?  This is a dumb time for scorched-earth tactics.

    belies the "this is over!" sentiment, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    doesn't it?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#46)
    by Firefly4625 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    he sees the writing on the wall - Hillary still has a great chance to win.

    I think he's strong-arming everything and everyone to eliminate all chance that he could lose.

    Democracy in action...


    Everytime Obama does something wrong (none / 0) (#43)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:22 PM EST
    his supporters are going to point their fingers at others and say but they did this but they did that.  That somehow makes it ok?  Not in my book.

    Florida Revote Plans Finalized (none / 0) (#48)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    The plans are finalized for a "By Mail" closed primary and will be submitted to the DNC tomorrow for final approval.

    So Florida mail in (none / 0) (#58)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    and a Michigan caucus?  Likely to be a wash.

    Campaign money spent that would be better used in the GE... I just hope it works out OK.


    Again Re-Stating my Opposition (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    I think everyone knows the possibility of going to convention without Florida and Michigan isn't going to happen.

    So the issue here is which vote is counted.

    A vote that Obama would have had to campaign for along with a lot of other states, dividing up his resources among them, and before the media worm fully turned his way.

    Or a vote that he can focus and concentrate all his efforts and resources on, with the full backing of the media behind him.

    I reserve the right to be wrong.  If this mail in vote comes in and the results are the same, then fine.    I'll be wrong.

    If this mail in vote comes in and there's a significant swing towards Obama, then just speaking for myself, one Clinton supporter, I will feel that the election in FL was rigged in some manner of fashion.

    It will, in my mind, be no better than just refusing to sit the delegates, period.

    BTD thinks it can happen, by inference. (none / 0) (#76)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    He believes there is no way the FL and MI delegations will be seated according to the existing vote. Since it appears Obama will be able to block a re-vote, what does that leave?

    BTD is wrong on that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    The choice here isn't between whether or not they will be seated, they will be.

    The choice is under what terms.

    Obama is making sure it's on his terms.


    you mean after he is chosen? (none / 0) (#79)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    If Obama is going to block a re-vote (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    Why does he have 50 events scheduled in FL over the next month?

    Just in case and besides money (none / 0) (#81)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    I doubt it (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    The events he has scheduled in FL over the next month directly contradict most of the assumptions here.

    What it points to to me is him capitalizing on an election that happens WHEN he wants.


    Obama has a lot of Rich donors in Fl or at (none / 0) (#87)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    least had in 2007.  He also needs to have a base ready if there is a re-vote.  where are these events scheduled?  

    All over (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    He's deploying his ground game.

    It's not contingency either.


    I find if funny because one is to discuss (none / 0) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    the plight of the Florida Delegates

    If one is most concerned about those (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    Delegates then one would be respecting their wishes.

    The revote does not.


    For plausible cover, too. (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    Because he's evil and nefarious in every way (none / 0) (#83)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    If commenters here are to be believed.  He wants to create the impression that he favors it, only to block it at the last minute with a lawsuit or maybe a space asteroid.  It's the okie-doke!  Don't be hoodwinked!

    Won't take that bait (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    I've stated my objection to this.

    Your objection makes sense (none / 0) (#89)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    Obama wants to have time to campaign.  I think you are right.  I don't agree with you that there's something wrong with it.

    What I don't understand is why so many people think the concern about DOJ interference beforehand, or lawsuits afterward, is invalid.


    There's something wrong with it (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    The circumstances of a Florida Primary are being altered in a way that benefits one candidate more than the other.

    That assumes (none / 0) (#99)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    That the first primary is the standard by which the second should be measured.  I don't think that's the case.  The first one was, at the time of the voting, understood by all who paid attention to be meaningless with regard to delegate selection.  Of course a subsequent election with much higher stakes  is going to be different.  But the subsequent election will be fairer than seating delegates based on the first election because the latter is essentially a bait-and-switch.

    And it may benefit one candidate more than the other, but the candidate it harms originally agreed that the first primary wouldn't count, and then, after winning, started pushing for it to count.  So that candidate is in part responsible for the predicament.


    Obviously it was NOT considered (none / 0) (#101)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    meaningless by the 1.7 million people who voted in it. Please, if you're going to assert some fantasy interpretation, find EVIDENCE.
    I would say the evidence is overwhelming that Floridians wanted their Jan. votes counted.

    I said anyone who was paying attention (none / 0) (#111)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    You're aware that it was widely reported that it wouldn't count right?  There's my EVIDENCE.  If people couldn't bother to pick up a newspaper and didn't realize their votes were meaningless, then I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that.

    And the 1.7 million mantra is meaningless in context.  Of all the primaries to that point, Florida was the only one where GOP turnout was higher than Dem turnout.  That should tell you something about whether turnout was depressed.

    I'm sure they did want their votes counted.  I want the poll I just took in my office to count too.  Unfortunately for them and me that's not how democracy works.


    Obama ran ads in Florida (none / 0) (#132)
    by miriam on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:21 PM EST
    And quite a lot of them.  Why should this lead anyone to believe the votes wouldn't count? Quite the opposite.

    this point has been addressed a million times (none / 0) (#134)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    the ads were part of a national buy.  but again, if a candidate ad convinces you that your vote will count, even though all the news outlets are saying it won't, there's not much that can be done.

    The votes are the evidence. You aren't (none / 0) (#159)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:33 PM EST
    even making a reasonable attempt at an argument.
    The Floridians voted, in spite of being cheated by the DNC, because they wanted to be counted.

    A lot of you here (none / 0) (#93)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    were pushing the fantasy (along with the Clinton campaign) that she could seat the MI and FL delegates as is. This was never going to happen and this was clear to any reasonable observer. So Hillary and her supporters have to take blame for this mess. A fair solution could have been worked out months ago, but you all and Hillary were determined to convince yourselves that those questionable delegates would be hers. Now I'm afraid it's too late. The ship has sailed. I suspect they will be seated but only after Obama is declared the nominee. So, yes, they will participate. But they won't participate in influencing the selection of the nominee.

    You are not the arbiter of what is reasonable. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    If obama blocks a revote, then the ONLY fair choice is to respect the Jan. elections.

    I agree that Florida should be seated as is (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    Michigan needs to revote though.

    Why don't we just do an internet poll (none / 0) (#102)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:57:02 PM EST
    And seat the delegates based on that?  It would be roughly as fair as turning a beauty contest into an election after the outcome is known.

    The outcome in Florida? (none / 0) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:58:49 PM EST
    Keep telling the people of Florida that they were part of a beauty contest AND don't count their votes and you will see what happens in November.  It's tough for me because I have a long time to wait to say I told you so.

    Floridian hurt feelings are irrelevant (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM EST
    from any but a power politics perspective.  Unfortunately they will have to be indulged because they are lucky enough to live in a swing state.  That's why I support a re-vote.

    I'm in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST
    I'll try not to over indulge, I promise.

    Ya know, maybe (none / 0) (#106)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:00:04 PM EST
    Internet poll just might be better than the 50/50 delegate split idea being floated by the likes of Dodd and Markos.

    It really would make more sense and that's not saying much!


    I agree with you there (none / 0) (#116)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    The 50/50 split idea is just as dumb and undemocratic as seating the results of the Jan. primary.

    but I don't mind if both get re-votes (none / 0) (#103)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    It's going to happen.  Too much time for this issue to fester unresolved between now and Pennsylvania.

    Has anyone seen this yet? (none / 0) (#114)
    by mm on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path.
    "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

    Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.


    Better yet (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    Just flip a coin.  The Obama campaign is not covering itself in glory here.  This would be a great time for Al Gore to intervene.

    He doesn't dare in this climate (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:33:57 PM EST
    with how we're taking down our past Dem leaders.

    If he speaks up for letting Florida count in any way that differs from what Obama wants, I think we have seen how that could be turned.  We already have lost the ability to have one of our greatest vote-getters speak publicly, Bill Clinton.  Now we have taken down the first woman ever to be on a major-party ballot.

    By the time this is done, Jimmy Carter will be painted as an enemy of freedom in the Third World, and Habitat for Humanity will be an evil conspiracy to provide housing for people who are undermining our economy by helping to build their own homes.


    So they won't accept the DNC decision? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    A Michigan legislator (none / 0) (#126)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    arguing that Michigan should not count.  Surreal.

    Those who believe Obama has a shot at winning Michigan should consider why his surrogates would be arguing for a completely ridiculous 50/50 split if that were the case.


    Twilight Zone quote: (none / 0) (#122)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    "It disenfranchises people who need to participate"

    How are they going to participate with a 50/50 split? (crickets from the Obama camp here)


    Even a child should have known (none / 0) (#97)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    you have 2 parties to conflict, each of whom has a say and rights. You have disputed elections. One party deludes themselves into believing they would benefit from the disputed elections, so much so that they refuse to look for a reasonable alternative early on. This delusional candidate's supporters also egg her on. Well, now we have a reckoning and she's not gonna get those delegates as is is she? That should have been obvious to you months ago. But it wasn't

    You are making the same fundamental (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    error that all obama supporters make: you think that Obama and Clinton are the only parties. Wrong! The voters are the aggrieved parties.

    But Hillary (none / 0) (#110)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    Has talked about:

    . going after Obama's pledged delegates
    . using the supers to overide Obama's pledged delegate lead.
    . fraudulently trying to seat delegates which all candidates agreed would not be seated.

    So she has no basis to talk about voter disenfranchiment because she has tried to practice it. And this is why Obama supporters feel very little sympathy for her because she absolutely lacks moral authority on this issue. And her supporters who were clamoring to seat these delegates as is also have no moral standing.


    First, learn how caucuses work (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM EST
    as there are no pledged delegates yet from any of them, as the process will repeat and repeat, so both candidates are "going after" more delegates there. Second, learn what the responsibility of the super-delegates is. Third, learn what vote fraud really is. Then come on back and be ready to discuss this as an informed citizen.

    Stop fibbing. (none / 0) (#158)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:05 PM EST
    The candidates did NOT agree the delegates would not be seated.
    If you were a regular reader of TL, you would know this.

    My God, this is nuts (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    Obama supporters like you supporting disenfranchisement, it's disgusting. If two states, whose population is about 10% of the United State, and that are critical states for the general election, get their voters disenfranchised, than this primary will be forever as tainted as the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election for Bush. The chances for Democrats to win Michigan would be incredibly small, and Florida they would have no chance at all. Mr. Disenfranchisement would lose to McCain, I have no doubt about that.

    But you were (1.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:27:11 PM EST
    okay with sitting those delegates as is correct? Not only breaking a solemn agreement, but also disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of votors in the porcess. This is why Clinton and her supporters do not have grounds to accuse Obama of attempted disenfranchisement.

    Listen, I don't know what the Obama campaign will do. Probably it's too late to re-do these, hence it's out of their hands. But if it were me i'd play hardball. It's funny to listen to Clinton supporters suggest that Obama should bend over and be screwed in order to prove what a wonderful, hopeful and non-traditional candidate he is. Yeah, right. Goodluck with that. When Nov comes around people in MI and FL aren't going to not vote for Obama because of this stuff.


    Huh... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    So Hillary and her supporters have to take blame for this mess.

    Excuse me?  Hillary gets the blame for this, but not the DNC, right?  The people who came up with the punishment to begin with, some of whom have pretended to be objective about the issue, but fooling no one - they are all just what? - captive to Clinton's spell?

    And what about Obama?  He gets no blame because  he plays by the rules and accepts whatever the DNC decides, I guess.  Wow, there's some kinda leadership there - I'm so impressed.

    How does she get the blame for the DNC's mess, when she never had any ability to change it?  And how are her supporters pulled into it?


    Whoever deluded themselves (1.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    into believing Hillary would get the FL and MI delegates is to blame (this includes Hillary and her supporters). This desire to cheat and game the system and violate a solemn agreement is what has caused this mess. There were posters here warning you months ago that it would never happen. Did you listen? No you didn't.

    You need to familiarize yourself (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    with the rules of the DNC regarding the primary process. Then you wouldn't make baseless accusations about cheating. Go ahead and spend some time reading up on it. We'll wait.

    Hillary (1.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    agreed that those delegates wouldn't count. She said "those delegates count for nothing." She also agreed in writing. Not only does she try to break party rules which she and the other candidates agreed to, she also goes back on her own written and verbal promise. Do you want a president who behaves this way?

    I repeat (none / 0) (#133)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    Read the rules. You are obviously not informed on this issue.

    I repeat (1.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:42:33 PM EST
    Did or did not Hillary agree these delegates would not count? Yes or no.

    This is the mentality that avoided a reasonable solution for months. And now you have the nerve to blame the one candidate who has abided by the rules and by his pledge. Some of you even said it was tough luck that Obama took his name off the MI ballot. This is a problem you have wrought. Blame yourselves.


    OMG, please learn how to use teh google (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    (1) There was no DNC rule requiring anyone to take their name off of any ballot. That Obama voluntarily did so, as Kos said, wasn't a good move.

    (2) The DNC rules allow delegates from the election that was already held to be seated, if the credentials committee decides it wants to do that.

    (3) Alternatively, the DNC rules allow for a do-over.

    Play by the rules? Absolutely, let's play by the rules. Let's read them first, and then play by them.


    If all agree that it wouldn't count (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    Why should it matter whose name is on the ballot? Hillary had universal name recognition. Since Obama could not campaign it was better for him to remove his name to deny Hillary the public relations victory. Also, there has been even a bigger clamor among Hillary supports to sit FL simply because Obama was on the ballot there. So I think he was wise to remove his name from MI.

    It's my impression that most people here (none / 0) (#146)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    support re-votes. Some, I think including our host Jeralyn, support seating FL as is. I think an argument could be made for that, but I worry about the nominee being seen as legitimate. So I support a revote in both states, where the re-vote maximizes participation.

    It was risky for Obama to remove his name from the MI ballot. Kos thought he did it to pander to IA and NH. Your conjecture that he knew he couldn't win and so took it off to avoid "losing" also makes sense. But because the credentials committee could seat those delegates as voted, it was certainly risky.


    Two Cents (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    I agree, in general, that Obama needs to stop being wishy washy and call for a full re-vote.  I do think there is a difference between making sure people are ALLOWED to mail-in-vote and REQUIRED to mail-in-vote.  That being said, I don't have a problem with a mail-in-vote, given the constraints (time, money, etc...) and I really hope Obama comes around on this one or it will be a big problem in the GE.  I wouldn't necessarily say he's being that hypocritical though, just wrong.  I also happen to think he could win Michigan in a fair contest.

    It isn't just voters (none / 0) (#153)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    in  Florida  and  Michigan.  

    Other  Democratic  voters  in   other  states,  watching  Obama  lawyer  up    to  disenfranchise   voters  in  FL  and  MI,  will  definitely  be  offended by his  arrogance.  

    Playing  these  games   with   FL  &  MI  will  reduce   his   support  in other  states,  too.  

    He's  no   "uniter."   Not  anymore.


    So Far The Dems Have Capitulated On Iraq, (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    aided and abetted Bush in dismantling the Constitution, a presidential candidate has put Social Security on the table, jeopardized UHC and now if the Dems decide to disenfranchise voters in MI and FL, I will be more than offended. This will be the final straw. I will stay home in November.

    Great Post (none / 0) (#160)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    I am glad that there are acute observers in the blogosphere who are not blind to Obamanan chutzpah.