home

An Absurd And Futile Plan For FL And MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mark Halperin reports this absurdity:

-Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Does anyone think this will salve the wounds? Would Clinton be stupid enough to accept this? This is Howard Dean's plan? How clueless is the Democratic Party?

NOTE - Comments are closed

< Dean: Candidates Can Veto Revote Plan | Gitmo Hearings Underway >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    An Absurd And Futile Plan For FL And MI | 203 comments (203 topical)
    someone (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    wants to eliminate the popular vote argument.

    Since we all know what they're up to... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    ...what makes them think we are just going to buy into this convenient fiction passively?  
    If I were Dean, I wouldn't want NY Bennies and NJ Shoobies showing up in Denver in August when they should be at the shore.  

    Parent
    I pout more than you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    The belief is they can piss off the Clinton supporters.  AAs will stay home.  The youth will stay home.  Embittered women wil get over it and vote.  Clinton's democratic base will always vote democratic.

    On the other hand, based on that theory, I pout less.  They underestimate my ability to pout.

    Parent

    I wouldn't bet on it (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    See, from my point of view as a creative class woman in her forties, the concerns of the young female twenty something are of no concern to me.  I've paid my dues and McCain is unlikely to affect my life one way or another unless the economy goes in the tank.  But that's just as likely to happen with Barack as well so I might as well just sit home and watch the leaves turn.  
    If young women are going to treat us as has beens and prematurely age us and make us unimportant, then let them win for Obama without my help.  

    Parent
    make that two of us (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama. Ever. So they can stop blackmailing me with abortion.

    Parent
    and another *ditto* (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    I wont vote for a right-wing neo-con, no matter what the Party logo on their banner.

    Parent
    Then Sen Clinton (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    will be very disappointed in you:

    "I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Sen. Obama if he were the nominee."


    Parent
    Here is a tip (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    Older women do not run around fainting at political rallies or looking for someone to save their souls. They look at their bank accounts, how they are going to take care of their parents, their taxes, how they are going to pay for their kid's cancer, etc. I am not voting for American Idol and I'm not voting for someone because someone else told me to.

    Parent
    Not all younger women do either (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    I have never even been to a rally and I'm certainly not looking for someone to save my soul.  Dismissing Obama voters won't win Hillary any fans.  We aren't all idiots.  We aren't even all young.  Trust me, we are looking at our bank accounts too, and worried about health insurance and taxes.  We are the "debt generation" after all.  Maybe we actually THINK Obama will do better on these issues.  I know I do.  I also know that if he loses I will suck it up and vote for Clinton because this election is bigger than either candidate individually, or my own personal pride.  

    Parent
    This really isn't about Clinton for me (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    It is a an intense dislike of Barack Obama. We have very differing view of him and that is fine. I have also voted every time in my life for Dem. I do not believe he reflects my values, concerns or frankly the historical planks of the democratic party. Thus, I won't vote for him.

    I think what the original poster was saying is that many older women feel completely put off by younger Obama fans. I can tell you that at my caucus they were shouting down older women and senior citizens. I knew right then that Obama was going to have a big problem.

    This perception was in fact created by his supporters and his positions, statements and campaign attacks on Clinton have increased the division.

    Does that make sense.

    Parent

    No, it really doesn't (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    make sense. Especially the part about Obama not reflecting your values or concerns..considering there is very little difference between his policies and Clinton's. Do not be fooled, there are huge differences between either Democrat and John McCain.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    You see small differences. I see gigantic ones. It is a matter of perception. I don't trust him on top of it. I frankly don't know who he is or what he stands for really. He tries to be all things to all people.

    I'm a democrat. I know what I believe and I know what my party has stood for since FDR, not just JFK. Obama is Republican lite. I might as well vote Green. At least it represents my interests.

    And while you may not like to hear this, I do think John McCain will be a better commander in chief than Obama and since I run around war zones, that matters to me. Those of us getting shot at don't need four more years of amateur hour.

    Parent

    But how (4.50 / 2) (#122)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    can you THINK that when his health care plan is a sellout to the insurance companies and he will put social security on the table. And have you looked at who is economic advisers are?

    Seriously, I've often wondered, how a thinking Obama voter could actually be one. I'd like to know.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    I think Hillary's plan is selling out to insurance companies.  Are you kidding, they would LOVE a mandate that would force everyone to buy insurance.

    Parent
    You don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    what a mandate would do. It would take control OUT of the hands of insurance companies. They could no longer discriminate against sick people. No more pre-existing conditions. No more dropping policies. No more refusing to cover expenses.

    You need to do your homework on this - you don't understand it.

    Parent

    Additinally (none / 0) (#143)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    Young people should have be covered by insurance otherwise the rest of us just end up paying for it in a lot of ways. It is about responsibility, fairness and economics.

    Obama's idea to punish them after the fact is absurd and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the crisis in this country.

    Parent

    like that will happen (none / 0) (#208)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    why study up when you can just buy the rhetoric?  Frankly I find it hilarious and sad that after 8 years of "the guy you'd like to have a beer with" someone is leading the Dem nom. process by being "the guy you'd like to have a beer with".  A half term+ US Senator---but hell ya, he's qualified, why?  Because he was a State Senator before that---sheesh.

    Hope and Change?  Yes we can?  Those aren't platforms those are catchphrases aimed at the naive.  Most of the most vitriolic Obama supporters can't tell what Obama believes in regarding tax cuts--he wants to keep most of them; regarding Iraq--he wants to withdraw so long as Al Queda isn't a viable entity in Iraq and violence is below a certain level OR you could just simplify by saying he doesn't really want to bring the troops out within 6 months; health care--Obama's universal system does not give Ins Co's incentive to lower rates, get rid of fine print policies and sets no bar for where the government steps in to cover the difference; Obama has no foreign policy experience period yet his supporters insist that he has a better panel of foreign policy experts, George Bush had Colin Powell--that worked out well; Environment?  Stock platform--inc mpg, lower emissions, punish polluters---but no assurance that he will at least enforce that meager platform.  I could go on but I'm sure this thread is probably used up by now.

    Parent

    Senator Clinton is a very gracious woman. (none / 0) (#130)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:20:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd like to hear Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    say the same thing about Clinton.

    Parent
    Past the point of no return (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    Many Obama supporters would sit it out......And the same for Hillary supporters....

    This process is going to go on too long.....McCain will likely win....

    Parent

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Alvord on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter and I am so mad I don't know that I could vote for Obama if he got the nod. From other blogs I know that Obama supporters would have a hard time supporting Clinton.

    McCain is a strong candidate. It looks to me like the Dems are going to go down to defeat if something drastic isn't done.

    Something drastic like the convention nominating someone other than Obama or Clinton.

    John Edwards anyone?

    Parent

    Gore? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:36:17 PM EST


    Parent
    We could dream. (none / 0) (#158)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST


    Parent
    That is wrong (none / 0) (#91)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    the blog world is NOT the real world.
    Many people are not even paying attention...they do not tune in until October.

    Parent
    A welcome breath of sanity and humility (none / 0) (#107)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    This article explains how little one can predict from the primary to the general.

    Parent
    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#113)
    by honora on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    My 75 year old like-long Democratic mom just called me on the phone.  "Did you hear what they did to Geri??  Do you know about his pastor??  I have been talking about my unease about Obama for months and she has just looked at me like I was crazy.  Now, she gets it. To paraphrase Michelle "Old white women are going to wake up and get it!!"

    Parent
    Mothers (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    I will repeat myself... my mom is not on the net and she in not happy.

    Parent
    And Aunts (none / 0) (#188)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    My aunt who isn't political sent me an email today talking about Geraldine Ferraro and Obama's pastor. I didn't think the woman even knew who GF was but she does watching morning TV.

    This goes deep.

    Parent

    This is from Riverdaughter. I just found it. It (none / 0) (#196)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    says it's very important to contact the DNC now and gives an email address:

    Bumped up from the comments from Tucsonlynn:
    From an email I just got. I suggest using it. to express your outrage.
    "Word is filtering out from the campaign that we should contact people we know at the DNC ASAP. The FL and MI decision will be going down soon. The person we should really pressure is Phil McNamara. Phil will not be making decisions but he is the staffer who runs all affairs for the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Also if he receives a flood of messages it will get back to Dean.
    Obama is pushing for a 50-50 split of the delegates. That doesn't refelct the will of the people. It reflects the wishful thinking of the Obama campaign."
    Phil McNamara
    mcnamara@dnc.org
    Now's your chance, guys. Make your voice heard, especially if you are in a state that went decisively for Clinton. Without FL and MI, our votes are meaningless as well. Let them know that there are millions of us out here who know what's going on and the jig is up. Make it polite, of course. But if you must, tell them, "Don't make me come to Denver and cause a scene."

    Parent

    Ditto (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by geordie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    My first comment here - as a refugee from Daily Kos - and I wholeheartedly agree.  I'm in my 50's - and, bonus, a Florida resident - and I've been a Democrat my entire voting life.  I'm currently contemplating changing my registration to Independent (as much a protest at Florida's astoundingly incompetent Democratic Party organization as anything), and it will take a LOT to get me out to vote for Obama at this point.  He and his supporters have no respect for or empathy with older voters and are making no effort to speak to even middle-aged voters like me.  I care about Social Security, I care about the economy, I care about the environment - yet all I hear from him is some sort of nebulous "vote for hope" crap.  And now his campaign wants to forget Florida?  Well, we can forget him, too.  And he can forget the White House.

    And if young women cared a rat's ass about the right to choose, they'd have been out there voting for Gore and Kerry - they didn't, so, you know what, I'm never going to need an abortion at this point, what do I care?  Yes, I am bitter and distressed at what's happened this year - but while I won't vote for McCain or a third party candidate, I may just stay home because I've been told too many times already this election (mostly at DailyKos, admittedly) that nobody cares what I think or how I vote.

    Parent

    A few things (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    I have a lot of respect for the over 50 voter.  Obama cares a lot about those issues and "vote for hope" is one of his messages not the only one.  Also, about that youth vote for gore and kerry - I think people forget that we have another generation boom here.  Many of us weren't eligible to vote for Gore and Kerry (I was able to and DID vote for Kerry).  Also, it's not JUST about abortion.  It's also about tax cuts for the rich, TORTURE (which John McCain originally got right but then just voted AGAINST a Bill explicitly outlawing it).  Or let's see, the fact that he thinks it's funny to sing about bombing Iran.

    Finally, you're right Florida is a discrace, I think they should re-vote or seat the delegates.

    Parent

    Excuse Me For Being A Wee Bite Skeptical (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    After months of a united Democratic Party debunking the Republican meme that Social Security is in crisis, Obama decided that he would campaign on the fact that Social Security is in crisis.  According to Senator Obama, Social Security is back on the table.

    Obama choosing to distribute Republican-like "Harry and Louise" fliers which jeopardizes Universal Health Care also makes me doubt that he has a commitment to health care.

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    Well if it is about all those things too, then I see no reason why HRC supporters should be hammered with the message that they must support Obama because young voters and AAs won't do the reverse.  Do Iran, torture and tax cuts for the rich not matter to those groups?

    Again, it's the "you have to do it because they won't" argument that kills me.  It's a playground argument, it's a "take your ball and go home" argument that older women are supposed to put aside their principles and preferences "for the good of the party".  It's frankly a little insulting.  

    Parent

    About as much as (none / 0) (#202)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    paying their fair share of health insurance or protecting Social Security matters to Obama supporters. The argument cuts both ways.

    And about those tax cuts - I stand to pay more taxes if the cuts are repealed. I think they should be repealed, but if you can't pay your fair share or protect the system I've been paying into all my working life ...


    Parent

    Obama cares a lot about those issues (none / 0) (#145)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    Oh really? So I and thousands, possibly millions have just missed that message? Are we just not paying attention?

    No. He does not care about our issues, nor do his supporters.

    Hillary cares about our issues, and the issues of the working class, Latino, poor, and sick.

    We are not stupid. Why take a chance on him and "our aspirations" (whatever the F that means) when we've got a sure thing?

    Parent

    absolutely agree (none / 0) (#62)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    I absolutely agree, 'older women' which I still am not quite sure what the age cutoff is for that. Will stay home, or vote for McCain. There is a fair crossover to him from her vote.

    Parent
    WOW (none / 0) (#76)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    just....wow

    Parent
    I'm glad we don't concern you (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    What exactly have young women done to offend you?  We didn't vote for your candidate?  That means we treat you as has beens?  Maybe we just have different priorities.  I can accept that without dismissing yours as unimportant.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    I think the anger comes from continually hearing that while young people and AAs will sit out, older women will come around because of the Supreme Court.  It's pretty arrogant to treat one of the most devoted segments of the Democratic Party that way.

    I am a 30 year old woman, so I guess I split the divide here.  I'm certainly sympathetic to those who will sit out, although that is not something I will do.  The message I have heard from "analysts" and Obama supporters seems like double blackmail (although a harsh term):  1)  You have to bend on your principles because these others won't and 2) don't forget Roe v. Wade!  At a certain point, you start to get angry that your principles don't matter, that you have to be there because you always have been.

    As I've said, I'll vote for the Democrat, but Obama won't get my money or my time.  Because I don't like being taken for granted any more than any other voter.  

    Parent

    Speaking as (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    one 'o those "older women," the reaction is not against you personally, but I'm increasingly reading and hearing commentary that we "old white women" are "hard-core racists" (actual quote) because we mostly support Hillary over Obama, especially if we also happen to be lower-income.

    Yes, you "young folk" obviously have major issues around debt and economics, just as we do.  But you also have long lives and mostly professional careers ahead of you, which give you a heck of a lot more time to recover from a mistake.  We old gals have a much shorter timespan in which to get things in this country and in our own situations fixed, and we're worried not only about ourselves but our children.

    We're just not that into rolling dice, at this point in our lives.  Many of us see Obama as Bill Clinton said, a roll of the dice, and we see a whole lot of young people, often including our own children, happily willing to roll those dice on everybody's behalf.

    Parent

    Im hearing this from many places today (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    Ive been concerned about the anti women tone towards women for some time now, but even my lefty, way lefty, the most Liberal peaceful and proud to be Liberal in the family, is now totally torked off, imagine my surprise when she knew who JF was to begin with.  What was the final straw she can't explain it, is it because JF was a random female hit, what why now.

    Parent
    Who's JF? (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    I can't quite unroll what you're saying.  Could you give it another shot?  Sounds interesting!


    Parent
    sorry GF (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:25:42 PM EST
    Geraldine Ferraro.

    Parent
    Wait 20 years and you'll understand. (none / 0) (#147)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Well said (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    And thanks for saying it.

    Rewarding people for being too stupid to tell the difference between McCain and Clinton is the point at which I get off the Democratic bandwagon.

    Parent

    You are wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
    Embittered women will not get over it and vote.  You must not know any embittered women.

    If they do not do right by Florida and Michigan, the Democratic party can go to hell.  And I have been a party worker since 1971 - and I will be embittered.

    And I will not be appeased.

    Parent

    Species (none / 0) (#69)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    That reminds me of the conversation from the movie Species

    Doc: We decided to make it female so it would be more docile and controllable.

    Guy: More docile and controllable, eh? You guys don't get out much.

    They should never underestimate the ability of anyone to hold a grudge. When I was a surly teen my mother and I went months without speaking while holding a grudge. I proudly come by my grudge holding ability through her.

    Parent

    Somehow I do not view Dem women a crowd that (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    can or will be victimized so Im feeling real sorry for Obama et al at this point.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    Embittered women wil get over it and vote.  Clinton's democratic base will always vote democratic.

    Embittered women?  Wow... what a misogynist comment...

    You must be speaking of yourself; you surely sound embittered... and full of arrogance: don't take anyone vote for granted.

    Parent

    Is there a phone number for the DNC? I'm furious (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    and I really want to tell someone about it.

    Parent
    All they'll do is (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    Ask you for money.


    Parent
    Yeah, well I'd like to leave them a message about (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    that too!

    Parent
    Well Ok then (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    I sent them an email a month ago.

    They asked me for money.

    I told them to stop asking me for money until they resolve the situation.  I said if they resolve the situation, I would send them 100 bucks.

    They replied with a simple request to give them the money they need to defeat McCain.

    But all I wanted to do was give them an incentive to stop defeating themselves.


    Parent

    Well, I just went to the DNC wesite. They have a (none / 0) (#148)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    comments link.  I gave them a comment. I highly suggest others do that also.

    Parent
    How is giving away half my vote FAIR to me? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    Obama should concede the states he gave up on when he made his personal choice to take his name off the ballot and the tactic didn't work in his favor.

    He's already taxed my patience with turning up his nose at every solution offered but annointing him heir to the Bush throne.

    This nonsense that Obama will grudgingly "accept" half of people's votes now is as revolting as his promise to risk half of people's trust in the GE towards Republicans acting in good faith (cause Obama's fresh never before seen charm will just hypnotize them into doing what he says!)

    NO SALE.

    Parent

    It won't salve the wounds so long as... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    everyone continually rubs them!  As my mom used to say, if it hurts, stop picking at it.

    BTD:  You forgot an important tid-bit that is very relevant.

    "Florida law prohibits election officials from authenticating votes cast in the Democratic Party's proposed do-over primary by mail, state officials said Thursday, a potentially fatal blow to the increasingly embattled plan.

    ''There's no authority under Florida law that would allow county supervisors of election or the state to verify signatures in an election of a state party,'' said Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for Florida's secretary of state and Division of Elections."

    I tried making this argument earlier to no avail, but the Florida election officials have come out with it.  It's true--mail-in primaries in Florida can't be slapped together in a few weeks.

    Also, as expensive as it is, I doubt the Congressional delegation wants to pitch it to their constituents, considering the delegates would not put Clinton in the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote.

    Bottom line:  it's a political ruse, not a stark reality.  The supers will decide, and Florida isn't going to change that.

    Good Post (none / 0) (#33)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:48 PM EST
    and I agree with most everything you're saying ...

    One other aspect of all this that everyone seems to have forgotten is that to "re-open" Florida and Michigan will be very costly for both compaigns.

    To do an effective job campaigning in those 2 states, particularly FL, given its size, will cost each campaign $10 to $15 million.  Since we already know the likely outcomes of the revotes, that seems like a real waste of money given the primaries elsewhere and whatever campaigning will go on between early June and late August in Denver.  

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    As far as Michigan goes, I think the cost would be worth it, and here's why.

    Giving them 50/50 is making the contest moot and doesn't do much for the Democrats PR campaign in the general.

     Furthermore, since super-delegates are basing their decision in some part, at least, on the performance of Obama and Clinton in "key states", then we need a real primary in Michigan to determine who is stronger there.  

    As far as Florida goes, everyone knows where it's constituents stand regarding Clinton, Obama and McCain.  The super's have polls and a previous primary to tell them where it stands--squarely in Clinton's camp.  Another "re-do" costing 30 Million to tell them the same thing will seem foolish in hindsight and bite them in the a**.  The super's will remember this when it is time to decide.

    Finally, I don't see the harm in seating Florida as is.  If it would give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates, it seems entirely unfair to deny her that.  If it wouldn't give her the lead, then it seems irrelevant.  So why not seat them other than to punish the state party?  

    Parent

    No, No, Yes and Pretty (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    I think I've covered everything.  

    It is a reasonable proposal (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    Both sides compromise and we can move on to the rest of the primaries and caucuses.  What is it you don't like about the proposal?

    Um, giving Obama unearned delegates? (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    That would be the first objection.  
    Then there's they idea of reducing Florida by half when they were unfairly punished in the first place and therefore, not exactly treating the Florida delegates as fully franchised when we need them in the fall.
    Then there is the whole thing about the candidate who actually won Florida not getting the bump she deserves.  
    Then there's the notion that somehow Dean et al are trying to game the system.
    Ok, that's enough for a start.

    Parent
    Giving him unearned ones and taking away her (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    earned ones! That's really fair.

    Parent
    It is a compromise (none / 0) (#27)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    The time for a solution that doesn't involve a compromise is quickly running out.  The longer this goes on the more it reflects poorly on Democrats as a whole.  

    Parent
    "reflect poorly on democrats" (none / 0) (#30)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    I would say we are long past that.

    Hello Nader

    Parent

    I dont' think Dems (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    want to pay for the primary to give her a "bump" that in the long-run wont' be decisive.  The super's are deciding the nomination now, and this whole Florida/Michigan thing is just a canard.   Neither of them will get enough delegates out of Michigan and Florida (or any of the remaining contests) to seal the nomination without the help of supers.  So, maybe they're all beginning to recognize that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

    I'm also fairly certain the Clinto camp doesn't want a re-vote in Florida, Bill Nelson be damned, because they'd most likely underperform the earlier vote, and they know that they're going to need to save some political muscle for the fight over super-delegates in any situation.


    Parent

    It is always worth the trouble (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    to let the peoples' voice be heard.

    Parent
    The 1/2 vote to me isn't as big a problem (none / 0) (#57)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    That was what it was supposed to be in the first place.

    The big problem is definitely giving Obama delegates he didn't earn in MI...

    Parent

    Because the point is not for the DNC or the (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    candidates to decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally. The point is to let the voters decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally.

    If they wanted to penalixe FLA and MI by giving each delegate half a vote -- which is what the GOP did -- the ROOLz allowed for that all along. It would be more acceptable solution, I suppose, if they did it for both states.

    But the 50/50 solution in MI is utterly unacceptable. It negates the votes already cast, rather than gives them voice. If the MI primary vote is illegitimate because JE and BO were not on the ballot, splitting the delegates 50/50 doesn't cure that. How do we know, without another vote, how much of "uncommitted" would have voted for BO rather than JE?  How do we know whether JE's supporters would have gone for Clinton or Obama in a 2 way race?  It is certainly possible that in a 3 way race in January that JE would have gotten a sizable vote, given his populist message. So giving Obama 50% of the delegates without having any idea of how many voters would likely have voted for him is completely arbitrary.

    We know that Clinton got 55% of the votes, so why not give 55% to Clinton, and uncommitted gets 45%, with both candidates free to try to get them in their column?  Obama thus would have a chance to pick up 45% of the delegates on the merits.

    If that solution isn't acceptable, then the only fair alternative is to do it all over again.

    Parent

    I need to repeat this: (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    Because the point is not for the DNC or the candidates to decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally. The point is to let the voters decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally.


    Parent
    Obama's name wasn't on MI (none / 0) (#36)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    You'd have to be insane to seat the delegates based on a primary where one person was on the ballot.

    Giving Hillary 55% is equally wrong since how many Obama supproters stayed home because his name wasn't on the ballot.

    It's redo or a split.


    Parent

    Then it has to be a re-vote (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    I am not really advocating seating MI as is.  All I am saying is that it is no more inequitable than the 50/50 split idea. If one is inequitable, then so is the other, because neither is based on a vote in which all candidates were on the ballot.

    You don't compromise with peoples' votes. You don't decide to make them meaningless because it would cost more than you want to spend to make them meaningful.

    This isn't about what the candidates want. Its about what the voters are entitled to.


    Parent

    Re-votes are the most fair way to go (none / 0) (#47)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    In both Florida and MI....now what if no one pays for it?   That seems to be the rub.

    Parent
    Then the Demcratic Party (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    needs to change its name to the Arbitrary Party.

    Parent
    Just a note (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    All the candidates except for Edwards and Obama were on the ballot (did Dodd or Biden remove theirs too? I think they might).

    They risked this happening so they could suck up to the states that were supposed to go before Michigan: "Hey look, HILLARY doesn't think your state should be voting before Michigan! Vote for us instead." They took the risk. It wouldn't be a risk if it was guaranteed to win. And it didn't.

    Not to mention this whole 'Vote uncommitted for Obama or Edwards' stuff that went on before that primary. Do you deny that the Obama or Edwards camps were pushing that?

    Look: I want revotes. But to say that Obama or Edwards are blameless in Michigan is just too much. They knew what they were doing, and they messed up. And now they don't want to bear responsibility for their actions. The Obama and Edwards camps were responsible for taking actions that invalidated the entire primary in MI, not Hillary.

    Parent

    If FL & MI had played by the rules in the ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    ....1st place then their voters would have been heard.  Instead, they both chose to buck the system the other 50+ states/territories/etc agreed to live by and do what suited them.  As a result, both states should be punished.  This compromise steps back from the harsh zero delegate punishment handed down last year and allows Clinton to gain delegates on Obama.  I just don't understand how anyone can argue that FL & MI should not have to pay a penalty.  Worse, both states now get to play the role of kingmaker as a direct result of thumbing their noses at the other states and the DNC.  

    Is your only solution to this problem a revote with no delegate sanctions?  If so, then I think you are asking for too much.  Especially with only two and half months left.

    Parent

    Not about "states", about voters (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    I don't understand why you keep framing this as if it's "states", "punishing states", etc. States don't exist without people. This is about the voters. Who cares about the states?

    Parent
    That is how the system works (none / 0) (#81)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    The States get to decide when to hold their primaries and caucuses.  As a result the States who decide not to follow the rules get punished for such behavior.  If you want to change that basic fact then feel free to do so after the 2008 election.  Until then, however, we all have to live with the system we currently have.  

    Parent
    Well will Democrats learn (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    that nuance doesn't sway voters? Saying oh blame the DNC, blame this, blame that, that's just how the system works, rules are rules, etc, is not going to convince the voters of FL & MI to support a party in November that didn't want to count their votes in the primary.

    Parent
    Careful (none / 0) (#144)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST
    I said that in another thread and was accused of calling the voters stupid.

    Parent
    Which candidate do you support? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#89)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST


    Parent
    What a surprise (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST


    Parent
    That is pretty cheap (none / 0) (#133)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST
    If you want to respond to my argument then I would be happy to read what you have to say.  If you want to dismiss what I say because I am an Obama supporter then you are taking the cowards way out.  

    So please, give me your best shot after that comment I am sure I can take it.    

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#116)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    Same state of Florida moved the Repub primary. The RNC simply cut their delegates in half and there's been nary a word since.

    Compare that to how the Dem primary has been handled.

    The only difference is the Democratic party instead of the Republican party decides on the punishment for Democrats. It is a sad day when the Repubs can handle such a situation and the Dems can't.

    Parent

    Well, the situation might be different if (none / 0) (#152)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    MCain and Huckabee were neck and neck.

    Parent
    They were neck and neck at 0 (none / 0) (#180)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    You seem to only be looking at NOW. You do realize that the original decision took place last summer? Before any primaries. When everyone was neck and neck.

    This story may matter more to people outside of Michigan and Florida now, but it has mattered to the people of the states since the initial decision.

    The difference is closeness in the Dem primary versus the Repub primary, its about how 2 parties handled the EXACT same problem before anyone had even voted. Thats what people will notice.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#190)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    that the Democratic Party has handled this poorly. If they had just cut the delegates in half and followed the actual rules, there probably would have been less talk about the issue (if that is your point) ... until now.

    But I don't see how that matters now. Given the state of the race now, the delegate situation of FL & MI would be an issue now regardless of what specific punishment the DNC had decided on. After all, the punishment was meted out in the view that it wouldn't matter since we'd have a nominee by now.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#195)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:31 PM EST
    The above comment was supposed to be in reply to your  "Well Friend" comment. Don't know how I did that.

    Parent
    There's been nary a word since (none / 0) (#163)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    because McCain has clinched the nomination and will seat the entire delegations at the convention. Apples and oranges, my friend.

    Parent
    Well friend (none / 0) (#173)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    There was nary a word PRIOR to anyone having the Repub nomination locked up.

    Last summer and fall while there was plenty of press on the Dems screwing this up, the Repubs were able to just run their campaigns. How many press stories were there with the Dems visiting Florida and not talking to the people (unless they had money)? How many stories about lawsuits and disenfranchisement of Dems?  Apples and apples.

    Parent

    Other state legislatures... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by sumac on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    did NOT play by the rules either (ie: Iowa and South Carolina), yet the voters in those states were not penalized. And stripping MI and FL of 100% of their delegates is severe even if we are holding these two states arbitrarily to the rules, as decided with whimsy, it seems. Remember when you say these states should pay a penalty, you are punishing the voters for the legislatures' actions.

    But who cares if voters are disenfranchised? Right? It's not about the people, it's about the candidate. Honestly, at this point, I could care less about Hillary or Barack. And yes, I am a Hillary supporter, but this problem is much, much larger than the two of them. The potential ramifications of the DNC's actions (or inaction) are unthinkable. Dean needs to step up to the plate and start leading the way so that the Democratic party does not completely fracture. Why have a DNC chairman if he/she can't lead?

    Then again, maybe it would be a good thing for the party to crumble. Perhaps it is so far gone, there's no fixing it. We'll just have to start from scratch...

    Parent

    If by "you" you mean Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    they would say because this arrangement hands the nomination to Obama.

    Parent
    Obama conceding is more reasonable (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    I strongly object to taking what isn't his. HRC and JE made calculations that didn't go their way and they abided by the results.

    Only Obama is drawing out this process and making the Dems look bad.

    I'd share lunch with a fellow Dem who forgot his or hers on the fly. I wouldn't share with one who didn't like yesterday's, today's or tomorrow's and it's what s/he asked for in the first place.

    Parent

    Sounds like Obama's plan to me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:05 PM EST
    The question is how will they apportion the popular vote? I imagine this plan will still be met with an attempt to de-legitimize the actual voters (votes cast).

    Popular vote isn't counted in the Convention (none / 0) (#9)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    Popular vote could be considered by supers.

    Parent
    That is my point (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    thus how will it be apportioned? Do we then decide to "give credit" to Obama for all of the "other" votes in MI? Does Obama concede FL as a victory for HRC...etc...

    Parent
    Sounds like they're trying to (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    ignore Florida and Michigan. I think that's a terrible idea.

    If they'd cut the delegates in half in the first place, like they were supposed to, that would have been a different story.

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    taking them away completely as a starting point was always just a negotiating position meant to get to acceptance of seating half of them?

    Parent
    Where do you get that idea? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    I don't.

    If the Democratic party would create this level of gigantic mess in order to establish a better "negotiating position", they're even stupider than I thought. If they'd started out with the 1/2 delegate thing, nobody would have particularly said boo, and nobody would have any kind of good argument that they're being treated unfairly.

    Parent

    Think about what Dean wants (none / 0) (#104)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:08:09 PM EST
    He wants control of the primary process. He's got to punish FL and MI in some way that will have real impact in order to establish that control. Initial position is that they lose all their delegates, even though that goes beyond the called-for punishment, which otherwise makes no sense. The "compromise" to the standoff is still a pretty hefty punishment, and the one actually called for in the rules.

    You think no one would have said boo? I don't. I think otherwise we'd be talking about a compromise that involved seating the whole delegations. In effect the early date jumpers would have got away without punishment and the party's ability to hold the line on primary dates would collapse totally.

    And it was FL Republicans who created at least the FL mess, remember, not Democrats.

    Parent

    When coming up with a "punishment" (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    it's important to make sure it doesn't seem tyrannical, or you lose all leverage when it's pointed out that your punishment is damaging.

    There might have been some grumbling at the 1/2 delegates, but those complaining wouldn't have had a solid argument. I note that the Republican party has had zero of these problems in their primary -- they stuck with reducing the delegations by half. Granted, were they running a close race, it might've lead to more grumbling, but I think it would've been a much harder case for anybody to make that it was grossly unfair -- now, it's a harder idea to push, because now we know how the outcome went in FL, so the political stakes are clear.

    As things have gone, the party is losing its ability to hold the line anyway, unless it gets revotes -- now, they look like they're totally waffling on "the rules", and simultaneously doing it in a way almost guaranteed to piss off the most people. We're going to have a primary scheduling load of hell on our hands if we don't deal with this problem in a comprehensive way before the next such cycle, because the DNC kneecapped itself by being unnecessarily harsh, IMO.

    Parent

    I don't think they were thinking (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    that the number of delegates would ever matter. They assumed this would be over on super Tuesday.

    Parent
    This was true (none / 0) (#110)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    only until Super Tuesday...

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#103)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    It was an effort to give the FL & MI vote the same effect as if those states had voted last, by saying they don't count, then seating them at the convention anyway.

    For this plan to work, however, required someone to have clinched by now who could then seat the delegations at the convention as-is.

    The GOP plan was more or less the same, and it's worked out for them.

    Parent

    Don't agree that the GOP plan was the same (none / 0) (#139)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    they followed their standard rules, and cut 1/2 the delegation, not the whole thing.

    Parent
    They are similar in that (none / 0) (#177)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    both parties felt the punishments would be rendered moot because some candidate would clinch the nomination early, thereby permitting the full delegations to be seated.

    The spin I kept hearing early on from supporters of all candidates was that the DNC punishment wouldn't matter in the end because we'd have a winner by now.

    The only difference I see between the two parties on this is that the GOP was willing to let FL & MI count for half their value during the expectations game and horse race, while the Dems wanted them to count for zero during that period.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#186)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    I agree with you, more or less, but wanted to add that the difference between counting half the delegates and counting none is a very large one if the terms are declared before the election. Had there been half the delegates, nobody could now be making the argument either that the election results are totally invalid because everybody thought it was meaningless. It would have given a perfectly fine core result from which the party could do whatever it wanted, and which the superdelegates could take into account in case of a very close result.

    I do agree on their motivation, though. I think they genuinely didn't think the race would last so long -- which the more I think about, the more I think was a dumb assumption to make, given that we also did away with winner take all contests, and given the gravity of the situation if they were wrong (as they have been).

    Parent

    How clueless? (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    After the last two presidential election "results" crapped upon us, and knowing we HAVE to set the just and democratic example, how clueless is the Democratic Party?  One cannot achieve a state of cluelessness any more profound or obvious.

    They're turning water into dust.

    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM EST
    The only way it could be more absurd would be for OHIO to be in dispute.  No wait, it couldn't be.  Because then some may think democrats are organized enough to take revenge on the two state that denied them the presidency.  

    No.

    They have to pi#s off Florida to remind everyone of 2000, and how much of hypocrites they are, and then add Michigan to leave no doubt about their stupidity.  

    Case closed.

    Parent

    FL solution is like the Repubs (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    The RNC punished FL by only allotting half the delegates. This proposal for the Dems, at least on the FL side is at least better than the insane 50-50 solution. Is this what Obama was hoping by floating that 50-50 idea yesterday?  That after that idea Clinton would surely think this is acceptable as a compromise?

    First choce - count them all.  2nd choice - revote.  Third choice - this. it may be the best Obama and the DNC let her have in FL.

    That MI 50-50 is unacceptable.  He took his own name off the ballot.

    50-50 (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by AF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    is unacceptable in MI, I agree. But seating the MI delegates based on the January primary is even more unacceptable.

    If you think the "he took his name off the ballot" argument is going to convince anyone other than die-hard Clinton supporters, you're kidding yourself.

    Parent

    50-50 may sound (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    unacceptable but that is close to the current polling in the state.....

    No compromise is perfect....

    Parent

    No thanks (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    Not this plan!! I hope Hillary rejects it... because I do not have much faith in Dean.

    4 words (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    Dean. Foot. Scale. Obama.

    Funny, (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    my long comment on this was somehow lost in the previous thread.  Here I go again.

    No one, not even Hillary Clinton has the right to give those delegates away.  The right to vote and for that vote to be counted is fundamental to a democracy.  I feel outraged that I even have to write this.  

    What adds insults to injury is the completely casual way the press and the bloggers (those on the Obama side, anyhow) cover this.  It's absolutely outrageous.  

    This is like the runup to the Iraq war, when in a matter of war, of life and death, the press chose to just play he-said-he-said (there were really no opposition points of view printed), and then go back to their comfy life and end a hard day of work with a glass of bear. It's the same thing all over again.  

    Hillary should remember that she is running for POTUS, for which she would take an oath to uphold the constitution, and fundamental to that piece of document is the right to vote and for that vote to be counted.  I mean, shouldn't that be fecking OBVIOUS to everyone?

    Why is everyone missing the forest and is obsessed with twigs here and there?  What is wrong with everybody?

    oops! (none / 0) (#38)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    glass of beer.  I can never spell properly!

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    political parties are not recognized by the Constitution.  

    Parent
    so convenient. (none / 0) (#50)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Let's all go back to backroom deals then, shall we?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM EST
    Convenient for whom?

    This is the first primary in my life that my vote ever mattered in.  So I guess I don't see primaries as sacrosanct.

    Parent

    So, Obama gets rewarded for taking his (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    name off the ballot in Michigan by getting an equal number of delegates, even though we have no idea how many of the "uncommitted" votes were cast on his behalf.

    If I remember correctly, he lobbied the other candidates to leave Hillary as the sole candidate on the ballot so as to de-legitimize her victory, in a state he didn't think he could win, and now, he might be rewarded for it?

    No.  It's way beyond absurd.  It's blood-boilingly unfair.  

    LOL (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    So instead of acting as the Repubs did and cutting the delegates in half, the Dems decided:

    • Disenfranchise millions of voters
    • Allow 4 state Dem leaders to put forth pledges to the candidates insisting they ignore 2 swing states
    • Spend money and time looking for solutions
    • Allowed candidates to fundraise in boycotted states while refusing to talk to people in the states so they get headlines that Dems are in the state but ignoring voters
    • Endure over half a year, so far, of bad press showing they can't handle elections
    • Tell voters their votes don't count. They do count. They don't. They do. They don't.

    All so they can end up using the Repub plan in Florida anyway?

    Not to mention just totally screwing the people of Michigan. Why this plan just has WINNER written all over it.

    %*& $hi# (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Mike Pridmore on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    And you can quote me on that if you want.  This is one of the sorriest suggestions I have seen.

    How clueless is the Democratic Party? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    Excellent question I'm thinking very.

    Howard (none / 0) (#207)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    Dean is absolutely the worst in leadership.  

    I still think he is either MR. INCOMPETANT ( a title heretofore reserved only for George W. Bush) or is in the tank for Obama.  His inaction is unforgiveable.

    And to think I might have voted for him for President.

    GAWD, HE IS BAD.

    Parent

    Unity (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    Crushed.
    You know... (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    This proposal is geared toward one end, but it is not directly Obama it has in mind.

    The Democratic party's proposal is designed to appease African-Americans above Hispanic-Americans and older/senior voters. By seating all of Michigan's delegates 50/50 by party fiat, the DNC seeks to avoid the appearance of disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Michigan. This solution does not penalize Michigan, but obviously punishes Clinton while rewarding Obama.

    Florida, however, takes the punishment that Michigan escapes. In this case, the party signals its willingness to disenfranchise Hispanics and older/senior voters. Apparently, the appearance of disenfranchising these segments does not create as much fear in the DNC's heart. It also punishes Clinton, while applying no punishment to Obama who  broke his pledge to not campaign in Florida.

    Overall, this looks like a transparent signal to superdelegates that the DNC will not tolerate any solution that will result in Obama losing the nomination. The DNC has determined its best strategy is to abandon Hispanic votes to McCain and ride the storm of backlash from older/senior voters. Also, by effectively punishing Clinton for adhering to their pledge and rewarding Obama for his violation of their pledge, the DNC is also evidently willing to alienate women voters.

    The question then is, will older/senior and women voters in other states reward or punish the Democratic party for relegating them to second-class party members and American citizens?

    Interesting ideas. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    It does seem as though there is considerable reluctance to to do anything that will upset the current status quo and it most definitely seems like they were hoping that FL/MI wouldn't actually be significant in the long run.

    Now they've painted themselves into a corner.  Any valid argument for penalizing FL and MI also penalizes the voters.  So my question is:  What is more important - the process or the voters?

    (And the question that is always on my mind lately:  How screwed up is this primary system and can we fix the damned thing before 2012?)

    Parent

    I am beginning to think... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:34:05 PM EST
    this needs to become a visible movement for democracy - to overwhlem a login-screen movement for a candidate. The DNC and Obama have only rules and hedges to stand on. The voters of Michigan, Florida, and the Democratic coalition that supports Clinton - working-class, women, Hispanics, and Asians - have a clear edge with the argument for democracy.

    If the DNC favors Obama's mostly non-traditional coaliton of Independents and Republicans and affluents, the Democratic rank-and-file needs to send a clear message. We are freer than Clinton to express our views, we should not ask her to destroy her career to fight for us.

    Parent

    Yes. I said above to go to the DNC website and (none / 0) (#166)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:42:49 PM EST
    express your views.

    Parent
    It would have to be... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    an Emily's List, NOW, AARP, union, and multi-ethnic associational effort. Something organized, because peeved individual, candidate voters are powerless.

    Parent
    I think we can all start thinking the words (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    "President McCain."

    Parent
    The only two fair options are (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    seat the delegates as is or do a re-vote.  Splitting the MI is the same as if no one voted.  Plus I'm sure if Obama had won Florida that side would be insistent that every delegate count.  So since Hillary won every delegate should count - not divided in half.

    I've said this before but if the Florida and/or MI voters are disenfranchised in anyway I bolt the party.  I have a feeling there are a lot of us that will do the same.

    FL and MI (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by eagleye on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    The only fair plan for seating the delegates from FL and MI is one where neither candidate gains an advantage from this unfortunate rules SNAFU.  Any other solution will fracture the party, and nobody wants that.  

    Hillary Clinton made a huge mistake and lost the respect of many Democrats by trying to claim that she should be awarded the delegates from the bogus primary in Michigan.  

    You don't need a PhD in ethics to realize that it's not right for the DNC to announce that the results of an election will not be counted, and then to turn around and say, "Whoops, just kidding-- we're going to count those votes and award the delegates to the only candidate on the ballot."

    HRC showed herself to be a conniving, transparently self-serving politician with that move.  And she was not being politically astute, either.  How in the world would she explain to the millions of African-American Democrats in Michigan that their guy wasn't even on the ballot, and the establishment white candidate walked off with the prize?  She had a chance to take the high road and advocated for a full primary that would give all voters a fair chance to participate.  She didn't.

    You're making something simple (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    difficult: the votes must be counted.  Obama's surrogates campaigned for him in MI, indirectly, telling people to vote "undecided".
    Why did Conyers give that instruction if he thought the vote wouldn't matter? Obviously he understood that in a Democracy, votes count.
    Florida is even more clearcut: Obama's message was heard in FL---more than Hillary's---and he still lost.


    Parent
    Sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    The DNC told the state party that they were stripping the delegates now, but more than likely, they would be seated at the convention (because, like everybody else, they expected it not to matter).

    Obama (and Edwards) VOLUNTARILY took their names off the ballot as campaign strategy to de-legitimize an HRC win (because they was way behind in the polls). It was also to suck up to the voters of IA and NH and their fake lofty position.

    Obama's surrogates in Michigan had a huge media blitz telling supporters to vote "uncommitted" so that when the delegates were seated, they would not be bound to HRC. It was in every newspaper every day,and even the Op-Ed pages were talking about it.

    Obama held a press conference and advertised (against the rules - the only one to break the rules) in Florida.

    It seems Obama is the only one in this equation who is a conniving politician.  I guess this is what he means by "transparency".

    Parent

    havent they offered (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    to count the uncommitted votes for O?
    if not it seems reasonable.

    Parent
    She did today advocate for a primary (none / 0) (#169)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    and Obama has not done anything, so wtf?  He's the one floating these bogus 50-50 plans trying to steal himself some delegates.

    Parent
    So much (none / 0) (#201)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST
    for "change", "transparency" and "fairness"....


    Parent
    how deep is the ocean (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    how high is the sky?

    Les Paul (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    Mary Ford

    Parent
    less talk (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    more action
    (Tim Delux)

    Parent
    It just won't do! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Doesn't sound bad (none / 0) (#4)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    I agree with MI, and Florida would seem to be about right as well.  I think Obama would win MI in a re-vote and Hillary would win in FL;orida by a smaller margin.   A net of 19 delegates seems about right and it saves people from paying.....since no one wants to.

    That is pure speculation (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    There are plenty of other folks who speculate that Clinton would win FLA by a LARGER margin, and would still win MI.  There are all sorts of permutations, and none of us could know which one would actually happen.  

    So, either you go with the historical votes, or you do them over.

    Parent

    Historical vote (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    the one where Clinto was alone on the ballot in MI....yeah thats fair....especially since Hillary PLEDGED not to participat in either one.....seems a little dishonest to go for those deligates.

    Parent
    Oh, brother (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    You seem to think that Hillary violated the pledge by leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan; she did not - that was an individual decision made by each candidate.  Interestingly, Obama lobbied the others to come off the ballot so as to leave her on it alone, and thus de-legitimize her victory.  He also had people on the ground actively urging people to come oout and vote uncommitted - I think he thought it would be a real hoot for "uncommitted" to beat an actual person.  

    The candiates pledged not to campaign, which included advertising.  They were not prohibited from remaining on the ballot, nor were they prohibited from fundraising.

    Your points would be ever so much more credible if they were based on fact, and not erroneous talking points heard 'round the blogs.

    Parent

    Not to mention that he ran ads in Florida and (none / 0) (#168)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:44:05 PM EST
    Hillary didn't and everyone's name was on the ballot.

    Parent
    He ran ads??? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    He broke his word?

    Parent
    If using the historical vote (none / 0) (#55)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    is unacceptable -- and I actually agree with you on this -- then so is 50/50. The only acceptable alternative is to re-vote.

    Parent
    Great idea (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    Let's evaluate arbitrary solutions on the basis of what random people think might have happened if people had voted in a fair election.

    Parent
    Re-Vote is fine (none / 0) (#53)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    Who is paying for it because they can't be seated the way they are currently.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    Obama benefits from all this.

    That's what I've been saying from day 1.

    Which is why I'll consider a revote no better than just refusing to seat the delegates altogether.

    Anything short of counting Jan. 29 means I'll think Obama and Dean stole the election.


    Parent

    Me too. (none / 0) (#170)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM EST


    Parent
    They can hide behind "It's the rules" (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    All they want, that's what republicans did in 2000 as the SCOTUS ripped our country apart.


    Parent
    While that may be what would happen in revote (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    (and then Obama would win) Clinton's at "Hail-Mary" stage, and she could never agree to that result in advance.

    Parent
    Absurd (none / 0) (#6)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    Let's not forget that one ingredient for the nomination is the Popular Vote count.  This would rather effectively take it off the table.

    But, hey, Dean says both candidates must agree, and I can't imagine Clinton would agree to this bull.

    Actually no (none / 0) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    the popular vote has no bearing on the nomination other than to perhaps sway some delegates opinions.  


    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    And since neither Obama nor Clinton can gets to the requisite 2025 without swaying super delegates, and since the will of the voters is actually represented by the popular vote, not by the elected delegate count (at least in my opinion), then the popular vote matters a gret deal.


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:49:19 PM EST
    So that you can argue that Hillary with fewer delegates deserves the nomination?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    So that Obama cannot falsely claim to be ahead in delegates AND the popular vote, when some of the popular vote is squashed.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    And because one-person one-vote is a concept some actually believe in.  I'm one of them. And it is legitimate and on point to argue that, on the way to the nomination, more Americans voted for you than for the other person.

    That is an argument that is valid for both Clinton and Obama, not for just one of them.

    Parent

    So you think that (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    all of the caucus voters that are not currently counted should be counted?

    Parent
    Also...Clinton "stupid"? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    How would she be stupid in accepting this?  I think it might reflect poorly on her if she staked her candidacy tooth and nail on an expensive primary do-over that is most certainly not going to be decisive one way or the other, and then had to continue the nomination process by wooing super-delegates.  The two things she needs to accomplish here are somewhat at odds--and if she doesn't handle this battle diplomatically it may affect the super-delegate race negatively.

    I think perhaps you're ignoring the reality--that she is behind--and her chances of winning are hinged upon the goodwill of super-delegates, mostly.  She needs to make her case both by gaining pledged delegates, and by appearing diplomatic and cool-headed to the supers who would chose her as their presidential nominee.

    How can she make her case to the (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    superdelegates if the popular vote in FLA and MI is obliterated, and isn't re-done?

    Again, the point is not to give the candidates what they want. The point is to give the voters what they are entitled to. They didn't make up the DNC rules, and they didn't decide to violate the DNC rules.

    Parent

    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#93)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    But it's been almost conclusively proven she cannot overcome in pledged delegates OR the popular vote unless she had major upsets.  She hasn't yet had a major upset, and there is no indication she is poised to.

    It's true the voters didn't make up the rules, but if they have to pitch an expensive primary re-do, and it doesn't decide "jack-squat", then they'll be held accountable by "fiscally conservative" opponents in upcoming elections.

    I'm just pointing out that things aren't as clear cut as you make them, and there are political considerations on all sides, for and against, in all camps, at all levels.

    Parent

    I don't think that the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    re-votes are unlikely to change the ultimate result -- accepting your premise for purposes of argument -- negates the important principle of enfranchising all Democratic voters in all 50 states.

    If it did, we wouldn't bother to vote at all, and just rely on polls.

    Obama should want the re-votes just as much as Clinton.  He has the chance to narrow Clinton's margins in both states, possibly reverse the results, and the legitimacy of his nomination is unassailable. If he wins both MI or FLA, or even one, then there is really nowhere for Clinton to go with the superdelegates.  If FLA and MI aren't enfranchised, then Clinton has the argument that Obama's lead is artificially large, and try to base a claim for their support on "curing" the discrepancy.

    We don't know how the re-votes would turn out. We can guess and speculate, but we can't know. That's what makes elections.

    Parent

    The Florida part is reasonable (none / 0) (#18)
    by AF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    The MI part is not.  There should be a new primary or caucus in MI at least.

    Florida possible... Michigan - No Way n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Does the 50-50 split break party rules? (none / 0) (#19)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    I've read some comments in the past that say it does. Any insights?

    Well it breaks MY rule (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    of not giving people votes they haven't earned.

    He might want to take that up with Kos who counseled the Kossacks to cross over and vote for the Mormon...hahaha...what fun, huh gang?

    Parent

    I have always liked John McCain before he (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    turned into the conservative hugger of Bush...I firmly believe he is the ole independent underneath it all...I have more faith in him than I do in Obama because I feel Obama has been thrust upon me by the media and the DNC....I detest manipulation and refuse to give in to it...McCain will do just fine as long as I vote democratic downticket....Obama will have to win without my help whatsoever as I don't support him and never will....

    I used to think the way except.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    ...I swore off voting for Clinton.  

    I changed my mind after someone reminded me of Katrina.  I thought McCain would be kept in check by a Democratic Congress and he wouldn't be able to get into too much trouble.  Then I thought about a little more about Katrina and decided I don't want anyone who wasn't completely outraged by Brownie and the disgraceful Federal response to Katrina to become President.  

    I hope you change your mind too.  We need all the help we can get in November no matter who our nominee is.  

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#106)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    Never will?  No matter what?  Consider you're basing your opposition to him on the fact that the media has chosen him, so you say, it seems odd to then conclude that you wouldn't ever support him.  If he turns out to exceed your expectations, shouldn't you consider supporting him?

    IF you're willing to support McCain, who is by all measures looking more and more like a war-hawk, then I find it odd that you wouldn't support Obama no matter what.

    This intra-party battle shows how divisive partisanship can be, and that rooting for your guy or gal, is more sport than reason.  These elections don't decide as much as we'd like to think they do, and we get really attached to our candidate so much so that we'll vote against our supposed interests and beliefs to spite anyone who defeats our candidate.  It's quite an experiment in social psychology.

    Parent

    Michigan Do-over (none / 0) (#97)
    by jsj20002 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    A new Michigan primary is virtually impossible.  According to today's Detroit News the Republican Senate is demanding a say in how even a Democratic Party funded primary would be conducted. Under current law, a primary election is open to all voters.  There is no list of registered Democrats to prevent Republicans from crossing over. I assume the Republicans want to vote in our primary. The only alternative is a caucus in which the local county dems would be able to make sure that only dems got to vote. The machinery for such a primary already exists.    

    Bawk, Bawk, Barawk (none / 0) (#101)
    by znosaro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    Who's scared of a little re-vote?

    Who would object to this is Barack just told his people the voices of 2.8 million voters matter, and he wants to hear them in a revote?

    Yes, Sen. Clinton should be leading more forecfully right now with regards to a re-vote (although Jeralyn has persuasively argued the merits of seating them as is, the media has deemed the results phony and we need to put that argument to rest!).  But Obama is delaying.  Obama is scared.  Obama doesn't want the votes counted.

    The 50 State Minus the Ones I Lost Which We Should Just Split Down the Middle Strategy!  Not really quite as catchy is it?

    It would essentially be reverting (none / 0) (#109)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    to the GOP penalty only after the fact and factoring in the current polling in FL and MI which would give Clinton some delegates from FL and split MI.

    I don't like it, and I'm sure Clinton won't accept it because she doesn't want the issue resolved.  It's not in her interests.

    If I were Obama, I go one better and accept it without the penalty as long as he gets half the MI delegates which he would get in any revote.  They can split any unallocated delegates from FL.

    Hillary won't get any boost from the result, it won't change the delegate map significantly, it ends the issue and it makes him look magnanimous and confident in winning.

    Florida at least makes a bit of sense (none / 0) (#114)
    by rafaelh on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST
    Doesn't it have the same effect as if the DNC had cut their delegation in half like the Republicans did? That would have been a reasonable penalty for moving ahead, not taking away all their delegates. Of course, they should have done the same to Iowa and New Hampshire but nobody wants to touch those sacred cows.

    But the 50/50 thing doesn't make sense. And I support Obama. I just think there is no sense in giving someone an argument to be offended when we can still win this clearly. If anything, give Michigan the same penalty, cut their delegation in half, and let the Uncommited delegates pick who they are going to support. You keep the penalty but everyone gets votes according to percentages. It's not like this would change anything, Obama is still going to win.

    Penalize and Punish (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    are words that must not ever be repeated again if we're to have any chance of turning FL blue.

    Even if what happens hands the nomination to Obama, stop using those words.

    Parent

    Different idea: the candidates need to (none / 0) (#120)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    come together and agree on a criterion or set of criteria that superdelegates are urged to use in choosing the candidate.
    Can Obama and Clinton agree that the popular vote should be the major factor?

    um, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    no


    Parent
    the last sentence in his post is a little scary (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    Then it would be over to you, Barack Obama.

    Don't you think this is going to court now? (none / 0) (#140)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM EST


    um, (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    yes

    Parent
    maybe (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:32 PM EST
    thats Hillarys "secret plan"


    Parent
    On what grounds? (none / 0) (#153)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    The status quo solution that nothing counts at all from these states is still quite possible and perfectly legal.  Anything else would be agreed on by all parties.  What's the lawsuit about?

    Parent
    Disenfranchisement is not an option. (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:37:12 PM EST


    Parent
    it appears (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    to be becoming one

    Parent
    Yes...going to court Monday (none / 0) (#165)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    The Federal Appeals Court hearing is Monday the 17th.

    Parent
    link? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Again, on what possible grounds (none / 0) (#185)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    There is a massive precedent that political parties can choose the rules for their nomination process.  Both candidates agreed to these rules ahead of time.  What argument will be made?

    Parent
    its simple if you ignore the complexity (none / 0) (#174)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    Howard Dean is an Obama guy.  Offering up a stupid plan like that, that destroys the Clinton win in the FL primary and just calls MI a wash is done solely to make Hillary look like the bad guy if she starts whining like Obama's been whining about even having to include MI and FL.

    My values (none / 0) (#176)
    by pavaoh on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:48:53 PM EST
    are much different than Obama's.  I watched today two different sermons from his former minister.  I was so shocked that someone could sit through that
    and proclaim it was no different from any other
    African American church.  He might be retired now but he works on the Obama campaign.  If Hillary doesn't get it, I will sit this one out.  I want a revote so bad at this point I won't support anyone who doesn't.

    I have been saying for a while (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    that that pastor and that church would be the primary reason he would be destroyed in the general.
    to hoots of racism and religious intolerance.
    "religious intolerance" can you believe it?


    Parent
    These videso are really bad (none / 0) (#203)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    though.  How many 1000s of times will they play in the fall against Obama?  They are devastating!


    Parent
    Florida and Michigan are a distraction (none / 0) (#179)
    by TrevorWynne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    Really, when it comes down to it, Florida and Michigan are a distraction. It really doesn't matter, and the media knows it. All that should matter to the media is focusing on winning in November; the sort of effort needs to be put into that that we gave in 2000.
    -Trevor Wynne  
    Washington, DC

    they are only (none / 0) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    a distraction if you want Hillary to lose and if you dont really care about winning in the fall.
    if they are shut out of the nominating process those states will go republican.
    hello president McCain.


    Parent
    I amazed.... (none / 0) (#187)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    Hillary's core group over 50 are speaking up!
    I'm glad their voice is being heard from noise from the Omaniacs. Good to see ya!

    I'm for going forward. Give Hillary Florida delegates proportional to her win. Give her the rest if she beats Obama in the popular vote at the end of the contests.If not Obama gets them. Thats fair.

    Michigan revote and apportion them accordingly.

    back at ya (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    go wrinkle brigade!


    Parent
    I keep thinking about the fact that Obama's (none / 0) (#189)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:56:54 PM EST
    advisors are Kerry, Kennedy, etc who all LOST THEIR NATIONAL ELECTION....SO I doubt they are any good at being objective about their chances in the general election...Kennedy even was responsible for another democrat losing a presidential election...They both endorsed Obama and Hillary carried their own state...How sad...I personally don't think Obama has a chance in the general election....the poll numbers right now will change drastically when the GOP starts up their drums...Hello President McCain...

    Have 'em flip a coin, (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    play a winner take all game of Trivial Pursuit... ping pong even.

    Anything but this shady wheeling and dealing micro-partisan bullsh*t.

    micro partisan bs? (none / 0) (#200)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    I think they are called voters. And citizens.

    Parent
    Not the voters... (none / 0) (#205)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    the party.

    If the party gave a sh*t about the voters, they'd decide the nomination by nationwide popular vote.

    But no, they invent the "super" delegate.

    For the record, I have no preference for either crook, I'm voting for the 3rd name on the ballot in Nov., whoever it may be.

    Parent

    The plan is absurd (none / 0) (#197)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    and I doubt the majority of Clinton
    supporters would see Obama's nomination as "legitimate" should they do this.

    If Dean wantes a plan that is accepted by "both campaigns" I would like to know

    (a) what were the different plans that both campaigns put forward

    (b) what were the reasons the plans offered
    were so far rejected by either campaign

    (c) what on earth has the DNC done so far to sit both campaigns together and mediate creatively a fair solution.

    Is there anyone at the DNC with a functioning brain? How can they be doing nothing to resolve this?

    I lost all respect for H. Dean... what a failure.
    If he cannot deal with this; I don't want to imagine how can he be effective at the head of the DNC during the GE.

    He should be fired.

    An Absurd And Futile Plan For FL And MI | 203 comments (203 topical)