Clinton Campaign Not Fighting For Revotes

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Based on the lack of support the Clinton campaign has voiced for the Florida revote plan and its failure to propose, argue for or even discuss what to do about Florida and Michigan in concrete terms, it is my considered view that the Clinton campaign is not really interested in revotes in Florida and Michigan. Instead it appears that the Clinton camp merely wants to create some type of appearance issue against the Obama campaign.

It is foolish and it is wrong of the Clinton campaign to do this. Foolish because without revotes in Florida and Michigan, neither state will be perceived as a true win for Clinton and the popular votes cast will not be considered seriously in the popular vote calculation. These are two essential ingredients, imo, for a Clinton victory narrative.

More . . .

More importantly, it is wrong for the Democratic Party and for the people of Florida to have Florida and Michigan not fairly represented at the Democratic National Convention. It dooms the Democratic candidate for President in Florida and it makes Michigan difficult for such candidate as well.

The Clinton campaign has failed to lead on this issue, an issue that it needs for its own chances of winning the nomination.

Without a revote in Florida and Michigan, imo, Hillary Clinton has no chance to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. If she does not successfully fight for revotes for the people of Florida and Michigan, then I do not see a path for her to capture the nomination. I am at a loss to understand the Clinton campaign's actions on this issue.

< Decision Monday On Florida Re-Vote: Official Says Doesn't Look Good | Mark Penn on the General Election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, As Long As Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bob h on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    is actively pushing for re-votes, which she would probably win, Obama's position is untenable.  And re-votes are the only honest solution to this problem.

    Well, no, seating the delegates is (none / 0) (#28)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:40:26 PM EST
    perfectly legitimate.
    I think Clinton may have determined that re-votes are politically impossible, which is my view as well.
    In that case all that's left is to push for seating the delegations as is.

    Off With Their Heads (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    Was also perfectly legitimate at one point in time. Did not work out well in the end though.

    There is no logical reason at all to exclude the (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    FL vote. The turnout was high, both candidates were on the ballot.
    In MI, the uncommitteds can be given to Obama, which is more than generous.

    not in my book (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    They are currently tied (or close to it) in most Michigan polls.

    I sorta agree about Florida, although I think something like the GOP plan (50% of deleagates) may be better, but I don't think either of these will happen.


    I Thought (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    That possibility was long since off the table.

    Yeah, it's way more than generous (none / 0) (#72)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    Edwards did well with blue collar voters, of whom Michigan has plenty. Why should his votes go to Obama, just because he was dumb ebnough to take his name off the ballot?

    Edwards (none / 0) (#77)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    was still in the race in MI--has he been asked about a 50/50 split of delegates there? Seems like he would want to be dealt in somehow.

    There is if you care about democracy and fair play (none / 0) (#86)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    Dem turnout (none / 0) (#132)
    by fladem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    in Florida was lower than GOP turnout - one of only two states where this occured.  This is for a simple reason: there was not a real campaign in Florida.  

    Which is why only 24% of Floridians wanted the delegates elected seated.

    I honestly think if Hillary does not get new votes in Florida and Michigan the she must run the table.  This in turn means if Obama wins North Carolina and Oregon he will win the nomination.

    Hillary has to get a revote to change the narrative.  Absent that I do not believe she can win the nomination.


    I am wavering (none / 0) (#84)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    on this one. I figured maybe the campaign is concerned about the expense of running a campaign in FL an are therefore dragging thier feet on setting the battle lines.

    I don't see anyway to seat MI as is, but seating FL seems plausible since Dean seeming hinted at the ability to have them seated by filing a petition to the DNC to enable them to be counted. That is a huge gamble for Clinton though.

    I was wondering why BTD discounted that as a possibility earlier. He must have read something that noted the unlikelyhood of the DNC counting the FL primary as it stands.


    Isn't Obama saying he'll go along (none / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    with "whatever" is decided? Read: he's "following the rules" without having to stake out a position.
    At least Hillary has provided 2 scenarios.
    But the media has framed it as Hillary "making the final decision" and poor little victim Obama just has to go along.

    So typical of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by g8grl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    to not take a position that might be deemed controversial.

    I dont buy that (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST

    she jsut said this today tow parts from NPR:

    But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.

    "If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair," she says.

    and this is intresting

    University of Central Arkansas poll:

    Clinton 51%, McCain 36%

    Obama 27%, McCain 43%

    Conducted March 6-11, error margin

    OMG is that a national poll?? (none / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    Doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    University of Central Arkansas are hardly a national polling outfit,  and I notice the margin of error is neatly cut off!  :-)

    Regardless,  "Hillary Clinton runs better in Arkansas" is hardly earth shattering news.


    well it actually matters a great deal another (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    State she can turn blue in Nov. and collect the electoral votes. The margin of error is irrelevant but ....Conducted March 6-11, error margin +/- 4.5 which has no impact on a 24 percent gap between she and Obama.

    No its for the State (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    too funny, but coming soon at the national level maybe, I wish I could type ..

    National polling also ticking up for her (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    Check out Gallup Tracking Poll -- statistically, about a tie, with an upward trendline only for Clinton now.  There's other good news, too -- either Dem candidate does the same against McCain.  

    And RealClearPolitics.com's averaging of polls shows a widening margin for Clinton in Pennsylvania, etc.


    What does she mean by (none / 0) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    "a complete re-do"?  Is she now taking the position that a mail-in vote is not acceptable?  Or is she just stiffening her "negotiating" position in response to Obama's reluctance to agree to a mail-in?

    If she's not fighting for a re-vote, I may finally have to reconsider my support for her -- although I'm not liking Obama as much as I used to either.


    I wonder how much influence (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    the super d's have right now.  Surely, they are not speaking with one voice.  I could very well see them inserting their own special interests, trying to hogtie one candidate over another.  Obama and Clinton know that the nomination is at stake here.  I imagine they are being very careful about what they say in public.

    Pelosi (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    My bet is that Pelosi is twisting arms behind the scenes.....She quashed for the second time the idea of a dream team ticket....Clearly an Obama supporter....

    I think Hillary wants an argument that Obama or Dean or whoever refused a re-vote; thus, the delegation must be seated as is....I agree that Hillary does not appear to really want a re-vote....It would be very expensive....


    She wants them seated (none / 0) (#81)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:07:04 PM EST
    as is or a revote, AFAIK. The only thing her campaign said they wouldn't support in re-voting would be either state changing from primary to caucus.

    Agreeing only to a redo now means (none / 0) (#117)
    by andrys on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    Agreeing only to a redo now means that Obama campaign will try to steamroller a caucus instead "to save money" (altruistic) and because it's more 'doable' (meeting regulations for actually getting a complete new primary in time are very daunting from what I read last week).

    So, she's going for seating as first option (which REALLY saves money) is their goal.  

      WHY can't DEAN just FINE Florida Dem $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 for the party coffers, since this would show they DID pay a penalty, but since more votes ARE needed in this contest they will use the votes from those who felt impelled to vote that day.  I've sent that idea to them 3 times but received not even an acknowledgement of the note (so why should I pay them for the fight against McCain with all that is happening).

      The Republican legislature did vote down the Dem amendment to move the primary back to Feb 5, so it's not exactly their own fault.  The original vote was on a bill that had a rider on it that this was also finally agreement to have a Paper Trail for the electronic voting.  Dems could not be viewed as voting that down, once given the opportunity to get it passed.

      As for Michigan, I don't see why they can't just Compromise and give Obama all the Uncommitted, to save money, since Michigan's Dem party really did decide to run the primary on their own.  (Why?  Obama wants a caucus there, so he could win of course, when Clinton's seniors, blue-collar workers, parents with very young children, people who just can't get out of work, etc. just could not vote in the many-hours daytime caucus that has so few voting booths that it would take people (who HAD transportation) hours to reach a polling place.  The number of people who show up at caucuses are generally 150,000 vs 1,000,000 -- and Obama camp prefers a non-representative voting method like this, because they have so many college youth who are free to join these caucuses and high-income people who can get out of work.
      Clinton should explain why a caucus won't be acceptable when a primary is the way a state normally votes.


    Re-do=re-vote. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    She was not addressing how to accomplish, just accept as-is or re-do.

    Why do you think that? Carville and (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:28:04 PM EST
    the PA governor are trying at least. Have you read or heard something I haven't? Are they waiting on Obama to back himself into a corner before going full throttle?

    I think thats happened already lets (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    wait for about 3 weeks in the polls.

    Clintron (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    I know some people consider her robotic, but come on....

    IMO (none / 0) (#14)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    Slurs are innapropriate on either side.  Let's put "Obamabot," "Obamacon," "Clintonista," and "Cintron," to bed.  Who's with me?

    He's just joking about ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    BTD's typo in the diary title.

    Ohhhh (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Well my point still stands.  I don't like the slurs and I don't think they have any place on this site.

    I believe ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    that is already the policy of this site.

    Never have never will (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    I'm trying to remember... I don't think I have used any slurs... sometimes moron, idiot, beer-drinker, low-knowledge, but I'm referring to myself.  For some reason no one complains when I call myself names.

    Heh (none / 0) (#73)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    Touche sir, touche.  I usually use those slurs as well...on the way to work...and always directed at myself.  If you're in the NY or GA area give me a heads up.  We should definitely engage in a moron beer drinking session.  I'll be at the DNC in Denver, too, but I have to work...so probably no beer drinking there.

    Ok, so you don't like slurs (none / 0) (#61)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:54:43 PM EST
    but as Robot Porter pointed out this was just making fun of BTD's typo.  

    The "slurs" haven't exactly been flying thick and fast on here.


    For some reason (none / 0) (#78)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    every time I type her name it comes out "Clintron." I always have to go back and correct it. I always type "OBama" too, I have no idea why.

    Qwerty keyboards eh. R is beside T. (none / 0) (#190)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:18:21 AM EST
    haha (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    I saw the "Clintron" too and thought, "hehn?"

    I think this is a very tenuous position for Clinton to be in.  Every time she says something negative about Obama, she gets slammed.  I would love to see her demand he explain why he does not advocate a revote so that everyone has a say, but considering how the media is on his side, I could see them painting her as shrill and bossy again.

    Also, the DNC may be holding her by the short ones and threatening that she can't unleash anything against Obama that might make him look bad.  Remember, this is all about how she appears to the Super D's because more than likely, they decide who wins.

    If she was stalling, I'd be annoyed, but lookit: the polls are showing she has a great shot to sweep FL in a big way.  What would be her reason for not supporting a revote?  Obama's reason for fighting it is clear.  Clinton's is not.  


    She doesn't have to go after Obama (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    on this - he isn't the reason the situation exists (unless you think Donna Brazile created the situation intentionally, which is not an impossibility). The DNC is at fault here.

    All she has to do (and Obama should too) is to point out that regardless of what sanctions the DNC thinks should be applied to MI and FL, they can't include denying people the right of their vote to count. It's a simple matter of equal treatment under the law, just like any other voting rights issue.

    I've felt that way since the DNC made their ruling and would feel that way regardless of which candidate it benefits. The DNC has been completely in the wrong on this all along, and every candidate has had the responsibility to point that out - not to acquiesce in denying people the right to vote.


    Donna Brazile is the one who pushed (none / 0) (#129)
    by andrys on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    ...who pushed for DAYS that Bill Clinton's comment about Obama's IRAQ VOTE record being a "fairy tale" was instead, in her conveniently distorted mind, a statement by BillC that Obama's entire Campaign was a fairy tale.  She knew that wasn't true but of course this would inflame everyone.  Either that or she was unable to comprehend a flow of thought that so many others now have seen was NOT about the campaign.

      It was to her advantage and Obama's to make this a racial thing about Obama's entire campaign and it was the first furor over this.  It galvanized the black-vote (as Michelle had said, "Wake up!") to have Bill seen as no longer a friend, as the longtime support of the Clintons still had a hold on many of them.  It was intentional, in my mind.  And they have the nerve to blame the Clintons for that.

      As for the tempest in South Carolina re what I felt was normal campaign spin on Obama's win there when Bill mentioned that Jesse had won there also, here is what Jesse himself felt.

      JesseJ and BillC had been close for a long time, and Jesse had won 11 states in 1988 and was rightfully proud of that and it was a reminder that he had and was a forerunner.  He got 7 million votes in that campaign.  Jesse made it clear that he did not take the remark as an insult, but it was useful for the Obama camp to.  What a truly cynical campaign this has been.  No 'new' politics here.


    To me, Obama's camp insults Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#165)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    by saying that a mention of his SC achievements were somehow "racist" or brought a "racial" tone to the campaign.

    Oh, my.


    Let's not rake this all over again. (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:21:24 AM EST
    but to try and put Obama into a box with Jesse Jackson and define him as the black candidate is wrong.  If the point was purely that candidates had won South Carolina before and gone on to lose the nomination battle then there were other more recent examples where the person in question didn't happen to be called Jesse Jackson.

    As I understand it Bill was repeating a talking point that Mark Penn had been discussing internally earlier that day.  Why does that not surprise me.


    They're negotiating (none / 0) (#94)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    It's still my guess/prediction that they're negotiating to seat the existing delegates.  On the surface we have Clinton saying seat them or re-vote (which she doesn't want, but knows he really doesn't want).  Obama's counter is, follow the rules, or seat them 50-50 (his low ball).  They're no doubt working to a number between this.  My guess is that Florida goes close to as is and Michigan goes, as other have suggested, uncommitted to Obama.  Other detail hashing might include the seating of super delegates, timing of announcement, some DNC face saving token penalty, etc.

    Sen. Obama Co-Sponsored Bill Creating Vote By Mail (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by toddy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    Title: A bill to establish a Vote by Mail grant program.
    Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 3/23/2007)      Cosponsors (3)
    Related Bills: H.R.1667
    Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

    COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

          Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 9/27/2007
          Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 3/23/2007
          Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 6/27/2007


    Yesterday (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    This was referenced yesterday.  I was confused that someone was co-sponsoring a bill for mail-in but appearing to be against it in public.

    Well, that was cosponsored a year ago... (none / 0) (#187)
    by jr on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:06 PM EST
    ...when there was probably time to set the system up.  I'm not sure we can do a straight comparison between a legislated and ordered system and what we can cobble together in two states in a matter of weeks.

    I'd give this a little more time (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM EST
    before I'd conclude what the Clinton campaign really has in mind.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    I think this post is fair.  But what's funny is how the Clinton supporters react in exactly the same way as the Obama supporters did to your earlier criticism.

    If a candidate is fighting for something, you know it.  You know it because they have surrogates on every talk show, you know it because they're making that issue the headline every day.

    If you have to dig down to find some statement or another issued by Hillary that represents her "official position" on the issue, that just proves BTD's point.  It's like when you tell someone Obama doesn't have clear positions on the issues and they tell you to look at his website.

    Steve M (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    I don't agree that she hasn't been fighting.  Carville et al have been pounding out the offer to raise the money.  Clinton sent the letter to Obama.  Clinton herself has said that she wants to either seat the delegates or revote, and that those are the only two options.

    Seriously, what else can she say? What else can she do?  If your argument is that she has been too timid on this, then I totally agree--but there is another side to that coin: whenever she comes out strongly against Obama, the DNC and the press beat her up, which is, frankly, insulting to Obama because the man is not a child.

    (and I also don't agree that we react in the same way.  No one yet has insulted BTD, railed against Jeralyn, or said that TL is obviously biased and whatever happened to way back when they were fair and reasonable?)


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    the problem is that a re-vote is still her fallback position.  Keeping the existing votes is her primary position.  It results in an unclear message.

    At this point I think she needs to just drop the idea of keeping the existing votes and get 100% behind the re-vote plan.  Persuade Debbie W-S to have a change of heart.


    Great minds thinking alike...... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    I get the sense that you only work a block or two away from me.  Maybe it's the brain waves.

    You are downtown? n/t (none / 0) (#154)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#159)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    My office is on B'way.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM EST
    Surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    Didn't she have people on the Sunday shows pushing for it?  Or am I too caught up in blog-world to realize that people outside in the fresh air  and away from their computers aren't paying that close attention?

    This would definitely be a winning issue (none / 0) (#21)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    for Clinton if she pushed it.

    Yes. Ed Rendell ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    acting as a surrogate for the Clinton campaign argued for revotes on MEET THE PRESS last sunday.

    and Nita Lowey (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    will this coming sunday

    That's not enough. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    She should really go nuclear.  Unleash about 100 people on it.

    Also Carville and Corzine (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    and Corzine has been working especially hard for her, btw.

    Do we really need 100?  Some big names here carry more weight than others. . . .


    Corzine appeared on Softballs (none / 0) (#156)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    on Monday to talk about the re-vote, and instead had to answer questions about Elliot "Luv Guv" Spitzer.

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:51 PM EST
    so far on the issue, I give her a C+/B-.

    And on this issue, Obama gets D's from me, I'm afraid.

    I'd like to see them both step up and actively work harder for a solution.

    BTD, is it possible... (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Arachnae on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    that the Clinton campaign is not going pedal-to-the-metal on this simply to prevent the appearance that it is nothing but a political manuveur that helps Clinton and hurts Obama? I can imagine nothing that would turn the Obama camp (by which I mean their vociferous and vitriolic online supporters) against revotes so much as Clinton coming out for revotes.

    Let the argument speak for itself.

    It's all in the timing... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    BTD: Remember that FL & MI were completely out of play before Clinton's wins on the 4th.  Her wins brought them back into play.  Resolution and a real big push on them will only come after she wins again, in PA.  In the meantime, she builds a tepid case that "Hey, i've been asking for this all along."

    Of course, on April 23rd, it'll be too late for the "do-over" that Clinton has been requesting the whole time. So at that point, the only fair option?  Seat them as they voted in the first place, giving Clinton a huge delegate boost.

    No way MI gets seated as voted (none / 0) (#59)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    If Clinton wins through the election where she was the only major candidate on the ballot, that would be far more divisive than any other solution.  If you say that elections don't matter before the vote and then later try to argue that they should matter, it doesn't come across as legitimate to those who support the other candidate.

    The only way MI and FL get seated as is if she gets the majority of pledged delegates without them and can control the credentials committee, and if that happens, she wouldn't need them anyway.


    Depends... (none / 0) (#65)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    ...on how much of a boost PA wins give her, and what happens between now and then.

    MI is definitely questionable. But FL? I think that's a slam dunk with this approach.  

    And if FL gets to be seated, but MI doesn't?  What do you think the reaction would be there?


    She'd have to win BIG in PA IMO (none / 0) (#75)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    Everyone is expecting a PA win.  Unless Obama suddenly takes a huge lead in the polls and then loses it, or she seriously outperforms the current expectations (which are already high), how much more of a bump will it give her than she has now with people assuming she's going to win it.

    To change expectations either Clinton has to win NC or Obama has to win PA.  Otherwise we just have the status quo.


    Actually the Rules say that the (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    state's Democratic Committee is the one that submits alternative plans to the DNC for approval and/or the state's Democratic Committee appeals to the appropriate committee at the convention.  Why then did these then become a what Obama should or Clinton should discussion.  Oh wait Dr Dean decided that the candidates should decide I guess.  But wasn't it the RULES that got us here to start with.  Let's go by the rules and get the candidates out of the picture.

    No Michagan No Florida equals Republican Win GE (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    End of Story

    The DNC had since May '07 to address FL's date (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:49:39 PM EST
    Altho' it was in September that the FL state Dem Party agreed to go along with the Repubs' date of 1/29/08. They felt they had no choice.

    Ah, it seems like only yesterday that the Dems wore the white hats regarding vote counts in FL!


    ...to nobody's surprise, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law in May scheduling the state's primary for January 29. (In most states, primary dates are set by the parties.) The primary date was wrapped up in a bill mandating a paper trail for the 2008 election--a popular measure the minority Democrats could not afford to oppose. Besides, the loss of delegates was largely a toothless penalty, since according to precedent the Democrats' eventual presidential nominee controls the seating of delegates--and surely wouldn't alienate folks from the nation's largest swing state by turning them away.

    But the DNC did not leave it there. In August the rules committee voted to strip all the state's delegates unless Florida came up with an alternative to the January 29 voting. "I understand Florida's dilemma," DNC rules committee member Donna Brazile told me later. "But this is not about states' rights; this is about a process we're trying to keep some control over." Two weeks after the DNC vote, Democratic chairs in the "First Four" primary states jacked up the ante with their notorious "four-state pledge" demanding the candidates focus exclusively on them. The signees--including John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--agreed to do no campaigning in Florida or any other state that might try to jump the gun. And under party rules, "campaigning" means just about everything: e-mail messages; calls to voters; TV, radio or newspaper ads; rallies; hiring campaign workers; holding press conferences. The only thing Democrats are allowed to do in Florida--where folks have been complaining for years, with some justification, about being used as an ATM for the party--is fundraise.

    As Florida Democrats bayed in protest, DNC chair Howard Dean salted their wounds by opining that their votes "essentially won't count." Almost overnight, the unsavory reputation Florida Republicans had earned during the riotous Gore v. Bush 2000 recount battle was relegated to ancient history, and the Republicans' sagging hopes of carrying Florida--where Democrats scored big in the 2006 midterms--were suddenly sky-high. "The Democrats like to talk about Republicans disenfranchising black voters in Florida," state GOP chair Jim Greer shouted happily at a Black Republicans soiree. "How many delegates will the Democrats be sending from Florida to their national convention? Zero!"

    A good analysis; thanks (nt) (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:53:35 PM EST
    She released a letter yesterday saying she (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    supported first recognizing the first votes and failing that she was for revotes...didnt she?

    That is not enough (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:00 PM EST

    As I explain in my post.

    Well, what is she supposed to do? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    If she comes out too strongly on it, she will play into her critics' meme that she is pushing this for herself.  I'm curious as to precisely what you think her plan should be?

    I think Obama is dooming himself and the party.  He will undoubtedly win the nomination with this strategy, but lose the general, as the Floridians, at least, will go for McCain.


    I agree with the question (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    I am not sure what more they can really do

    Lead (none / 0) (#30)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    could you be less specific? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    According to SUSA, Obama already loses (none / 0) (#39)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    FL, though by 2 points, and still handily defeats McCain.

    Yeah, and if Gore had won his home state (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    then he wouldn't have needed FLA.  So the recount and the Supreme Court atrocity weren't important.

    Dean is supposed to advocate a "50 state strategy."  Is it now a 48 state strategy, with the two states excluded having a large number of  electoral votes?

    If Dean is willing to cede FLA and MI because a poll in March says Obama can win without them, then he is a complete knucklehead. Or worse.


    I think the only way for her to come out (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    "strongly" for a re-vote is to give up the position that the delegates ought to be seated on the basis of the prior vote.  At that point, I think it would be hard (though not impossible with so many members of the MSM suffering from CDS) for anyone to claim that she is "trying to change the rules."  The rules permit a re-vote. And it would make clear that Obama's only basis for opposing a re-vote is to maintain his delegate lead.

    The DNC rules were not imposed to make any candidate's delegate lead insurmountable. They were imposed to dissuade FLA and MI from having primaries before NH and IA.  The early FLA and MI are not going to count, regardless of whether or not they "should." So anyone who opposes a re-vote (unless she also favors seating on an as is basis) is for disenfranchisement of FLA and MI for his or her sole benefit.


    I think BTD is making the point that (none / 0) (#4)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    she isn't exactly pushing it, and she doesn't have her surrogates pushing it.

    I have not (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    seen a Clinton surrogate on tv in weeks who did not push this.
    I dont know what you mean when you say they are not pushing it.
    what EXACTLY should they do? wear sandwich boards?

    But her surrogates (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    Have put up the funding for it.

    btd, you're off J's X-mas card list for sure...

    fwiw, I agree with you. I think she isn't "really" pushing for a revote, and if there is no revote I think she's toast.

    She might also be toast with a revote, but I think that is less certain.

    The only logical conclusion is that she disagrees w/both of us - she thinks she has a better chance of getting the nom w/o the revote.

    Considering she has better intel on the SD's than us, she may well be right...

    I dont quite get this logic (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
     I think she isn't "really" pushing for a revote, and if there is no revote I think she's toast.

    Seriously? Ok. (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    1) I think she isn't "really" pushing for a revote

    I'm not sure how to say this any clearer.

    and 2) if there is no revote I think she's toast.

    W/o a revote (that goes enough in her favor) I think she doesn't get the nom.


    so (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    why exactly would she not be pushing it.
    do you honestly think she does not want to win?

    My first interaction w/you, (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    and it's a bizarre waste of time.

    Reread my original post. All of your questions are answered there.


    no they are not (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:31 PM EST
    it makes no sense at all unless you explain why/how she could possibly think she has a "better chance of winning without a revote"
    most people think she has no chance of winning without a revote.

    Good God. (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    Read the last sentence of my original post.

    for example (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    your aside about the supers makes no sense.
    if she trys to take the nomination without a majority of something the convention and the party will explode.
    how about this explanation:
    she is doing things behind the scenes we do not know about and she DOES IN FACT want a revote?
    I know it crazy but it is possible.

    What a waste of time. (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    So, you have a different opinion. Cool. Next time be upfront and just say that in your first comment, it'll save a lot of aggravation.

    whatever (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#125)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    she thinks that with revote, Obama may win MI, and then he says "see, I win big states. How's that?"  MI is winnable for Obama.

    It bugs me that it seems like Obama's campaign stopped when he got the math on his side.


    Maybe Part II (none / 0) (#128)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    Maybe her fundraising sucks, and revotes would kill her in states she might otherwise win or be respectable in after PA.  If Obama is still crushing in funraising after this last week, he should use the revotes as an opportunity.

    BTW: Isn't it curious how neither campaign is boasting about fundraising like they did last month?


    This is the downside of being a fighter (none / 0) (#38)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    Clinton is a fighter.  That's one of her strengths.  However, that can backfire and I think this is one of those cases.  The revote is a compromise solution but she's still fighting for the complete victory of the delegates being seated as is.

    Sometimes you have to know when to let go of the battle in order to win the war.  

    It's not their job to advocate (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    It's Dean's job to resolve this.

    I think we're about two posts away from.


    The thesis of the post above is that the voters who voted on Jan. 29 wasted their time.

    Nice message to send to FL, BTD.

    No -- she's already had Carville (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    raising money for a re-vote -- that HAD to come with her approval.

    But, she HAS to keep what she's already won on the table.  That's her hard-line.

    Her compromise is the Re-vote.  Which she has said she supports and has found a way to pay for.


    I see that now (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    I forgot about that.

    As Opposed To (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    Telling the a majority of Florida voters who, according to recent polls, now favor a revote, 'we don't care what you think'. That would be better?

    Seems to me, that argument is a losing one.


    That wasn't the poll question (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    Nice try.

    Poll question:  Would you rather count the Jan. 29 vote or have another vote?

    Go ask that question.


    I Am Not (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    Trying to do anything. The issue of the Florida vote counting is off the table. Given that, the question is what are the options now. Or how do we move forward.

    So asking your question is counterproductive for the Democratic party, and particularly bad for Clinton because it will create sparks and no fire.


    Oh wait (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    The Clinton camp did put up the funding.

    Bad Post, BTD.

    Obama's not coming through for you, so you're blaming Clinton!

    BTD, what should Clinton be doing to lead? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    I thought she was--offering to split cost of primary, to go along with mail-in (Obama says he'll bring in the Bush DOJ on that plan)...what ought she do?

    The FL Repubs got a twofer on their decision to move the FL date earlier--they got to create a problem within the DNC, and, now, they'll get to say they're the good guys on letting votes count.

    DNC should do say seat the delegates with, as menitoned earlier, one half vote for each delegate. Not good enough for FL, but covers both FL and MI.

    I imagine Obama will contest that--since it gives Hillary votes.

    While I agree that Clinton isn't fighting... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    I'm not at a loss to understand why.

    First, a getting a revote to work looks almost impossible right now. And not because of the DNC or Obama but because of local Florida politicians, almost all of whom are Hillary Superdelegates. Hillary can't exactly put them on the hot spot, because she'll need them come November. So pretty much all she can do is stay out of it.

    Second, it lets her focus on the argument that the delegations should be seated as is. Personally, I don't think that's likely to happen, but even if it doesn't, the whole mess creates legitimacy problems for Obama. She needs that kind of uncertainty if she's going to win over Supers at the convention.

    Finally, if she can push the perception that this mess is all Obama's fault, it gives her an additional attack angle.

    Hillary's playing the hand she has, as is Obama. Hard to blame either of them for that.

    Here's what I don't understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    First, a getting a revote to work looks almost impossible right now. And not because of the DNC or Obama but because of local Florida politicians, almost all of whom are Hillary Superdelegates. Hillary can't exactly put them on the hot spot, because she'll need them come November. So pretty much all she can do is stay out of it.

    I don't understand why the FL SDs came out against a revote.  There's no question that Clinton's longshot hopes at this point pretty much require this.  Why are they opposed.  It makes no sense and it definitely gives cover to any Obama supporters who want to say no for strategic purposes.

    Personally, I don't think that's likely to happen, but even if it doesn't, the whole mess creates legitimacy problems for Obama.

    The fact that Obama would be following the rules and Clinton would be trying to change them would make that a hard argument.  "We all agreed these delegates wouldn't be seated before the election started," is a pretty potent counterargument.  


    "We all agreed... (none / 0) (#131)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    these delegates wouldn't be seated before the election started ..."

    I'm sorry .... but no one agreed to this as much as you and the Obama campaign want us to think they did.

    This is what the candidates agreed, no more no less:

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

    The only agreement was not to campaign in FL and MI.  Nothing more.

    Hell, the candidates don't have ther power to dictate who's seated and who isn't.  That's the DNC's responsibility alone.

    Get your facts straight or refrain from posting here.


    I don't agree. (none / 0) (#74)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    The time is past for little considerations.  They have to think big and go nuclear.

    big and go nuclear (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    you know what will happen when she does this right?
    every new outlet in the country will lead with "Hillary the Hypocrite" stories and how she agreed to this and now she wants that because her winning depends on it.
    we know this right.

    And it will be seen as racist, wait and see (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    trying to counter his win in Mississippi by appealing to states with fewer African Americans -- which is true, of course, of every other state.

    Context is all, and this is being battled out within the context of the most recent primary as well as the recent but repeated charges of racism against Clinton backers.


    I really think we have had enough of this (none / 0) (#135)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    like the 3AM ad, she should take the bull by the horn.  

    to late for horns (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    time to grab for other parts of the bulls anatomy.

    Just came back to say "It's the Republicans, (none / 0) (#88)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:11:40 PM EST

    No mail-in re-do, paid for by the Dems or not, gets done without the Repub legislature and Repub governor making it happen. I believe they've also said they're against any revote as an actual primary. A commenter above said there are some problems with voting machines as well, due to something about the general election (link, anyone?).

    Now, how likely is it Repubs are going to cooperate? Seriously?

    Then add on Obama's talk of going to the Bush DOJ, his contention that there's been no test of any signature comparison (except for, of course, mailed in absentee ballots), the time factor to permit those now out of state and overseas to get materials to vote, there's precious little time left for achiving this kind of revote. Even a regular primary with voting machines raieses the time problems of absentee ballots.

    What a mess!

    And the FL state Dems did not bring this on themselves! Neither the party nor regular just plain voters. Sheesh.


    maybe we should reserve judgement (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    about who wants what and for what reasons for a bit and see how it plays out?
    just sayin.
    I mean I know the clock is ticking but there still a little time.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    While the rest of you are "reserving judgment" and blathering about how the original vote should stand, nothing gets done and then it is too late.

    If being able to whine is Clinton's goal, she is doing great. If WINNING is her goal, she is doing lousy.


    I think your post title (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    would be more accurate if it was "Not fighting hard enough...  in my opinion."

    I agree (none / 0) (#133)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    She is not fighting HARD ENOUGH for the revote.

    Yep, she is up against the Kos bloggers, Media and the Obama camp..... But we all know what a fighter she can be when she believes in something.... at this time she JUST believes the votes should count.

    Well, in my view, there are two options, honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states.

    I say that as a Clinton supporter. I wish she would get that Hillary determination for the revote.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#80)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, but on this we completely agree.  If she wants to have any chance of winning the nomination (dead girl/live boy scandal notwithstanding), she needs these revotes and she needs to win them big.  The original votes are tainted enough that they're not going to be nearly as persuasive as winning a new contest.

    Personally I thought she should have tried to get them scheduled on 3/5 to create a mini-Super Tuesday and play to her strengths.  Seriously, when the books about this campaign are written, the inability to let go of having FL/MI seated and the dismissal of the February elections as not worth fighting for will get long chapters.


    I just sent an email (none / 0) (#85)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    BEGGING her to push for the Re-vote (although I think the whole Carville thing was a pretty big push & I said that too)

    I see why she has to keep saying that she'd like to seat the delegations.  She needs negotiating power.  But, I think wins in FL & MI will seriously weaken Obama and she should push as hard as possible.

    Maybe a general email campaign from this site would help?


    I want her to win as much as (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    as the next person but I am just wondering out loud what specifically she/they are to do besides what they are doing and I would prefer to not assign motives to why they are or are not doing some unnamed thing to make this happen.
    I cant help but think she want this to happen.  badly.
    and not for reasons of furthering the cause of democracy.  
    if she knows of a way to win without it she is keeping that a secret too.  and I do believe she want to win.
    its IS frustrating as hell though.

    I can't look (none / 0) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    I am picturing her standing at a podium grasping the legislation that was passed (moving the primary) in an upraised fist shouting "shame on you" and having the media say she's gone Dean again.

    Tweety and Olberbamaman (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    will be in heaven

    Exactly -- the woman walks a tightrope (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    every day to avoid being called . . . well, whining, for one.  As she is called here.  I'm not sure why; I don't see evidence of that.  Not pushing hard enough, in one opinion, hardly equals "whining."

    I want more from both candidates.  But both are fighting stereotyping from the media and the public that must make every move as risky as h@ll.


    My opinion is that the Reason that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    Florida Democratic Representatives are against a re-vote is because most Florida Democrats are against a re-vote.  Those representatives have to get re-elected in November wether Obama or Clinton is the candidate, wether the Democratic Presidential Nominee wins in Fl or not.

    Clinton has been inconsistent regarding Michigan (none / 0) (#83)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    See this diary at DailyKos.

    This morning, on NPR, Senator Clinton admitted to breaking her pledge to the DNC.  She stated:

        "... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall.["]

    This is a direct and unequivocable violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters.  She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE.  Here's the relevant section of the (pledge pdf):

        THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

    By her own admission, she has broken her pledge.

    As she stated, she had a choice to make - and she chose to break her word.

    Senator Clinton caught lying - admits to breaking her pledge on Michigan

    I've noticed that DailyKos is extremely pro-Obama, while TalkLeft appears to be extremely pro-Clinton. If you read both sites side-by-side you will notice that these positions are affecting even the attempt to be objective on both sides.

    But every once in a while there is a story or diary that is objectively verifiable.

    Clinton's backpedaling on her Michigan pledge is one such example.

    I originally thought MI and FL should not be seated because they broke the rules. I still lean in that direction, but unfortunately now it seems that there is just too much agitation to seat the delegates for it not to happen.

    So, for what it's worth, now I think the following: The original FL results should be seated according to the original vote - both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot, after all.

    I believe Michigan is a tougher case because Obama was not on the ballot and because of Clinton's inconsistency regarding her pledge. I think MI should have a new primary because Obama was not on the original ballot, and I strongly disagree with Clinton's claim that such an election can fairly be called a real primary.

    That is what seems most fair to me if the original penalty is not going to be enforced, and as someone who voted for Clinton in the primaries but who has since switched to supporting Obama. I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but at this point I think Obama is the best matchup against McCain and he is winning by popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won.

    But if MI and FL are seated, then that begs the question of what the point is of the DNC primary rule in the first place, and why Clinton was so apparently eager to honor it before she realized she needed it to help her campaign.

    This is a word game (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    No one from any campaign suggested that the 4-state pledge required candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  That's why the Obama campaign billed it as an "additional commitment" to the early states at the time.

    You are simply playing "gotcha" with the fact that Hillary used the same word in an extemporaneous statement that appeared in the pledge.  Yawn.


    Words matter (none / 0) (#105)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    I'm not playing "gotcha."

    Clinton said, "we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall."

    That implies two things:

    1. That she considers leaving her name on the ballot was a form of participation.

    2. That she planned on having the option to use Michigan's results later on.

    In either case, the implications are that Clinton was insincere in her pledge to honor the penalty.

    I think perhaps Clinton did not choose her extemporaneous words carefully, but honestly I think you are giving her an out she doesn't deserve. It is unreasonable to claim that Clinton does not tightly control her on-the-record comments.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    This is more of the hyper-parsing of every Clinton utterance that makes my head hurt.  Gosh, when she says the word "participate," that implies she broke a pledge from six months ago where she said she wouldn't "participate"!  Give me a break.  This is the sort of argument that should never leave the echo chamber where it started.

    So ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    ... what do you think she meant?

    No in-state campaigning (none / 0) (#160)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    No in-state advertising (a pledge that was arguably broken by Obama in FLA, by the way).

    OK, so Clinton signed the pledge and... (none / 0) (#172)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    .. planned not to participate in the primary, but left her name on the ballot ... why? Just in case?

    It sounds like you're saying she was hedging her bets, doing the minimum to comply with the pledge but no more.

    Why did she sign the pledge at all in that case? Why did she not simply reject the pledge and push actively for the inclusion of the delegates (i.e., against the penalty) from the beginning?

    At most this amounts to both Obama and Clinton playing a little politics with the primaries.


    Sucking Up to Iowa! (none / 0) (#166)
    by mikemi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:02:58 PM EST
    Removing their names, Obama and Edwards, was a calculated move to curry favor with Iowa and New Hampshire.The Dems in Michigan tied to place their names on the ballot anyway but were thwarted in the Republican controlled State Senate. At the time Clinton was considered the favorite and was polling ahead. They were daring her to pull her name. She didn't bite. I was an Edwards supporter and was disgusted by the move. Even though they pledged not to campaign many many Edwards supporters in my State. He may have done well enough to keep going... who knows. I can say this if the Dem votes in Michigan don't count at the convention this state will go to McCain. Plain and simple. So the DNC decided early on that keeping Iowa and New Hampshire safe and sound and first in the country is more important than winning the General Election. Rules are rules you know.

    Rules are rules?? (none / 0) (#173)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:29:07 PM EST
    Except when it is time to change the rules regarding the penalties for MI and FL?

    Sorry, missed your sarcasm (none / 0) (#177)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    Nevertheless, how do you figure that "keeping Iowa and New Hampshire safe and sound" jeopardized the general election? Do you think the rest of the fighting between Obama and Clinton hasn't done that already?

    In Trouble (none / 0) (#186)
    by mikemi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    I think we are in trouble. As horrid as this president and his party have been we may lose the White House. Mr. Penn made the statement today that Obama cannot win the GE. He may be right but what he didn't say is that Hillary can't win either. I am shocked at the dynamic this contest has created. There is no way... and I mean NONE that the AA supporters of Obama will ever believe that this nomination was not stolen. I listen to POTUS on XM Radio and a Rebecca (somebody)was interviewing a reporter that participated at the event that Hillary attended. I think it was an AA News Organization convention or something in DC. He stated that revotes of any kind would be considered cheating by the black community they will blame Clinton. On the other hand I hear the reaction to the Ferraro dust up from some white associates (Democrats all) they are of the mind that Obama's campaign is playing a race card and I doubt they will ever come around. Believe me... I wish it were not so but I think things may have gone to far in both directions. You punish Michigan & Florida they will punish in November.

    I'm not sure of your point (none / 0) (#180)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    Anyway, if Clinton wants the original MI result to be allowed, then who do you think should get the delegates proportional to the Uncommitted vote?

    Another thing (none / 0) (#185)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:14:51 PM EST
    If you listen to the whole NPR piece, Clinton equates being on the MI ballot with participation. So the argument is that Obama should be criticized for "participating" on the ballot under the name "Uncommitted" but somehow Clinton is not participating when she is in the ballot under her own name.

    So it was not just a one-time extemporaneous use of language but an intentional line of reasoning she followed that, if you compare it to the the spirit of the pledge, she violated. Total letter of the law defense, and not a good one at that.

    This is just unfair. MI should either (1) stay penalized or (2) have a re-vote. FL should be seated according to the original result.


    One more time (none / 0) (#95)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    for another bogus blast.  The pledge does not mention removing one's name from the ballot.  She was not the only name on the ballot.  Dodd and Kucinich were also there.

    This has been debunked enough already.


    Not bogus (none / 0) (#137)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    Dodd and Kucinich are not in the race anymore.

    And Clinton is the only remaining candidate who now wants to count the results, even MI where Obama was not even on the ballot. How is that a fair result in your estimation?


    What does now have to do with then? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    Others' names were on the ballot then.  They thought they had a shot then.  What the heck does that have to do with now?  There IS no Michigan ballot now.

    Now versus then matters because (none / 0) (#178)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    The defense of Clinton provided above is that other candidates were on the ballot too. Clinton's own defense was that she would not participate in the primary, and yet she left her name on the ballot. Letter of the law. That's what it has to do with now.

    My point is that it is moot that Dodd and Kucinich were on the ballot then because they are no longer in the race. Clinton is the only candidate remaining who is demanding that MI be seated. Obama has been offering to deal somehow. His deals no doubt serve his interests, as Clinton's serve her own. Let's not kid ourselves and make out Clinton to be so noble.

    There is no MI ballot now - as of yet. The whole argument is whether to have another ballot, correct? Or whether to let the original results stand, or let the penalty stand.

    The rationale for not letting the penalty stand is to avoid losing the state to McCain. Political calculation.

    The rationale for letting the original MI result stand is to favor Clinton despite the fact that Obama was not on the ballot. Political calculation.

    The rationale for have another primary is the only option that pretends to address the desire for a democratic result. I favor a new primary in MI with Obama and Clinton on the ballot. Now that the others are gone we will get a better result anyway.


    This repeats the same illogic (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    without change.  Illogic is a waste of my time.

    Please point out the logic problem (none / 0) (#184)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    if you would.

    So Obama broke his pledge about FL--or (none / 0) (#103)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:28:18 PM EST
    what? Of course there was that pesky thing about the general election....

    Several other Dems did not remove their names from MI and everybody signed the pledge.

    Why wasn't this "participate" argument raised much earler? About Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich?


    VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday [12/1/07] to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

    Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. SNIP
    Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

    Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

    Nevertheless, Saturday's vote further diminishes the significance of Michigan's Democratic primary. All the major Democratic candidates have already agreed not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida because the states violated party rules. And in Michigan, most of the major candidates won't even be on the ballot.

    Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.

    That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and "uncommitted," as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan.


    Well, yes, Obama broke his pledge in FL (none / 0) (#110)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    But then you agree that Clinton broke it in FL too, and that Obama did not in MI, right?

    Kucinich, Did, and Gravel, don't matter anymore because they are out of the race.

    All that matters now is why Clinton suddenly wants the MI and FL results to count when she did not before.

    I say let the original FL results stand and have a new primary in MI.


    No I don't agree about the participate part (none / 0) (#124)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    I was asking for more evidence that what the DKos diary says is accurate.

    Well, here is the link to the story (none / 0) (#147)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    Where did Obama say (none / 0) (#145)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    he doesn't want to seat the delegates? Do you have a reference?

    His campaign has consistently (none / 0) (#161)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    taken the position that the delegates can't be seated on the basis of the January votes because that would violate the DNC rules.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#168)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    ... the post right above yours says he has not consistently done this but has switched positions.

    Which is it?


    Don't you think that (none / 0) (#146)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    if the pledge included not having your name on the ballot, it would have said so straight out? Don't you think the DNC knows that some states don't allow you to take your name off? It says to not campaign and she didn't. Don't you think that if she had broken the pledge, you would have heard about it through Howard Dean and the DNC and there would have been some sort of punishment?
    She has not suddenly changed her position-she has always wanted those votes to count whether through the credentials committee or a re-vote both of which are within the DNC rules.

    But why should the votes count (none / 0) (#148)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    if the rules were broken? Why did Clinton sign the pledge at all if she wanted the votes to count?

    Red herring (none / 0) (#169)
    by lastamendment on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    I asked why Clinton signed the pledge at all if her concern all along was getting the votes to count.

    You have not answered that question, even if we assume that Obama's decision to remove his name from the MI ballot was to curry favor with Iowa.

    And why does the timing of the breaking of the pledge make any difference?

    Either they both broke the pledge or they both didn't, given your reasoning.


    This is a desperation play on your part (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    or is it on your candidate's part, pushing this silly word game?

    At least Clinton spoke in her own words, not Deval Patrick's.


    So.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    have all the legal issues been settled, questions answered re a revote, by mail or any other way?

    If not, I think this is a careful dash through a minefield by Clinton.  She has to 'do one thing' and 'make it look like another.'

    Until somebody leaks, we're just guessing about the strategy.

    With every day that goes by, pressure builds on Dean and the National Democratic Committee.  It's THEIR goddam job to protect the party and find a tenable solution.

    It's Hillary's job to stay viable and protect her flanks.  She's not gonna lie down and let them walk all over her...I think we can count on that.

    That's all it's ever been (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    it is my considered view that the Clinton campaign is not really interested in revotes in Florida and Michigan. Instead it appears that the Clinton camp merely wants to create some type of appearance issue against the Obama campaign.

    I didn't doubt your sincerity in calling for a FL revote for the sake of voters but the cynicism in the way the Clinton campaign has exploited this issue has been evident for quite a while, IMO.

    The point has been to keep those numbers in play to make it seem she's still in the race, while knowing an actual revote might well show no such thing.

    Her people found a way to pay for it (none / 0) (#101)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    She's found a way to pay for it.  How much more should she do? Also, we don't have any idea what's going on in the background.

    Why should be (none / 0) (#108)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    only the Clinton's campaign concern that Fl&MI are seated? It seems to me the Obama ampaign not only is doing absolutely nothing (ie. far eless than the Clinton camp) but worse they seem to boycott any attempt of a re-vote and double talk about any plan.

    As far as I see, is noone gets to the 2,000+ majority then all bets are off: it is not about
    plurality but majority. Neither one will have a legitimate claim to the nomination.

    It is the responsability of both camps to find a way out.

    I don't know why BTD singles out the Clinton campaign

    BTD does not single out Clinton (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    Look back at past posts.  You will see what I mean.

    Heads he wins (none / 0) (#112)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    Tails she loses.

    It could be that this is the biggest gamble of all by the Clinton camp.  She named the "either/or" which puts the ball back in the DNC/Fla/Mi court and keeps the pressure on everybody else to find a solution, dammit, and don't 'blame it on me!'

    IF there are no revotes in FLA and MI by the time the convention rolls around in August the pressure from everywhere but the Obama camp will be so great that they'll have to seat those delegates.  That's my guess.

    Meanwhile, Hillary goes after every vote/delegate she can get in the remaining contests.

    No way (none / 0) (#140)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    If delegates from states that broke rules changed the final results, the Democratic party will break in two.  The only way FL/MI go in as-is is if Obama wins anyway.

    (Not a bad Obama superdelegate argument: give me nomination, we recognize MI and FL, everybody counts)


    Shorter Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    "Superdelegates, ratify the disenfranchisement of MI and FLA, vote for me, and then I'll let the MI and FLA delegates travel to Denver for the great convention parties."

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#163)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    Ummm (none / 0) (#150)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    FLA and MI aren't the only states who 'broke the rules' but they were the only ones punished for it.

    You really want to go there?

    The party is already split in two...and I think I warned about this reminding me of '68, '72, '76 MONTHS ago...and on this site.  The party was stupid then and it's stupid now.  They can never see over the horizon...


    Moses did not bring down from the mountain (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:51:36 PM EST
    these roolz, fer pity's sake.  Let'sstop acting like this is some great test of morality and goodness.

    Dean and Brazile brought them out of committee.

    That's all.

    People made them, people can change them -- and far larger than the principle here of whether states ought to have had primaries when they did is the principle of whether votes count in our country.  Or at least in our party.

    What is the message we want to send about Dems:  We care more about calendars than whether votes count?


    Time will tell. (none / 0) (#141)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Meanwhile...calm down re calling people you disagree with delusional.  And skip telling the world "Of course many of you profess to believe..."

    Uh uh.  We're not the believer people in this election.  In fact, we don't believe a goddam thing.

    What we think, tho, is shared with others in dialogue (yours could use some editing) so I will take the time and trouble to point out to you a simple error in logic:

    To think that there is 'a serious chance for the Michigan delegates to be seated' means "as is" seated is a leap.  Seating any delegates from FLA and/or MI is obviously open to negotiation...how many, who gets which and when, etc.  Seating them won't be the problem...allocating their delegates will, while trying to keep some semblance of authority from the DLC by including a punishment factor.

    This isn't rocket science...but it might as well be.

    BTW...Obama blew the NASA vote in Florida, too, policywise.


    Delusions? (none / 0) (#167)
    by mikemi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:06:53 PM EST
    About as delusional as an Obama win in Michigan  in the GE if he wants to shut them out.

    This article on re-vote (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    suggests it is dead in Florida....No one likes the idea, not Obama people, not Hillary people, not any of the Florida Democratic members of House, not any of the major papers in Florida....

    Here is the article.

    Exerpt...last line.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    "This is going to require some delicacy, some diplomacy," he (Dean) said. "But if we want to be united at the convention, we ought to try to fix this problem now."

    One hopes that isn't the imperial 'we,' as in "we are not amused."


    Clinton can do the math and see (none / 0) (#126)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    that revoting Florida and Michigan don't get her the nomination.

    She also knows that seating the delegates as currently allocated is not going to happen.

    Her only way to win is to snare an outsized percentage of the S-Ds.

    If the MI and FL issue is settled, the nomination process is legitimized and Obama can slowly, but surely work his way to getting enough delegates (both pledged and S-Ds).

    Keeping the MI and FL from being settled allows Clinton to argue that the process itself is out of order and that it is up to the S-Ds to come in and save the Party because Obama is obviously not up to winning the GE.

    That's why Clinton hammered Obama on the C-in-C issue.  That's why Penn says Obama can't win the GE.  They need to de-legitimize Obama in the eyes of the S-Ds, not the voters.

    Look at the states remaining and make a reasonable allocation of the delegates.  Clinton will take some states; Obama others.  The remaining contests can't give Clinton enough to overtake Obama.

    Now allocate Florida and Michigan.  She has a sizeable lead in FL and they're tied in MI.

    Even adding in these totals don't get Clinton even in either delegates or popular votes (as difficult as that can be to determine in some cases).

    Once the nomination process is over, the remaining S-Ds can split between the two, but Obama will have the obvious pledged delegate advantage which would make it very difficult for S-Ds to go against.

    Her only hope is for the S-Ds to swing to her in large numbers by running down Obama and running down the process and she run down the process by keeping FL and MI unresolved.

    And if it doesn't blow up on her (none / 0) (#144)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:15:23 PM EST
    It blows up the party.

    Hillary needs the popular votes from FL and MI (none / 0) (#192)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    to make her case that even though she's slightly behind in delegate count, she wins the popular vote--which is one indicator she would win in November.

    It's aimed at impressing Super Delegates--and momentum.


    It's very simple ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    It's quite simple if the following is true: Hillary Clinton has no real hope that she will win the presidential slot. She wants to be the vice president, by making it difficult (despite the infamous political fraudster Nancy Pelosi's intestinal sensations) for Obama to choose anyone else.

    The vice presidency is on her mind. She even mock-offers it to Obama, in essence publicizing her desire to run alongside Barack Obama.

    Vice President is a prestigious title these days, and the presidency is always there if Barack Obama decides, say, that he'd rather run a hot dog stand than continue being president. :)

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a lot of self confidence. This she displays by constantly referring to her husband's experience as head of government as if it were her own.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#155)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    Thanks for the satire.

    Giggle (none / 0) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:13:05 PM EST
    That was a fun one.

    This pretty much (none / 0) (#171)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:20:24 PM EST
    sums it all up.....
    "From the viewpoint of legitimacy of elections, this is a mess," said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on election law and administration.

    "Yes, we had a contest, but it was a contest run under unusual rules," said Professor Hasen, who is politically neutral. "Candidates were not allowed to campaign, and voters were told by the D.N.C. their votes wouldn't count. That kind of election doesn't comport with our usual democratic norms."

    Yep. Dem does not equal democracy (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:55:06 PM EST
    so thankyouverymuch, Howard Dean and Donna "Watch Me Walk Out from the Mess I Helped to Make" Brazile.