MI Dems Close To Revote Solution

By Big Tent Democrat

So Michigan getting it done, but Florida Dems say no to their own plan?

Michigan Democrats are close to an agreement with presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to hold a do-over primary. Party officials and the campaigns negotiated on Thursday, and state Democratic leaders were hopeful that an agreement could be reached on Friday, said Democratic officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
As for the great compromise, Bill Nelson tried it on Obama and he said no:

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida's senior Democrat and a Clinton backer, said one option that ought to be considered would be to award delegates based on the January vote, but have them count for half the delegates of other states. However, Obama's campaign said they will not support any plan that allocates delegates based on the January vote. Nelson said he discussed the issue with Obama and Clinton on the Senate floor Thursday.

What a mess.

< Inspector General Report Released on National Security Letter Use and Abuse | Obama's 2006 Earmarks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    I can't believe I'm writing my second nice post about Nelson today. I've never been a fan. Ever. But he really has worked this issue.

    And while I also disagree with some of his plans, including the lawsuit, he has been very focused on getting the votes to count somehow. So whether or not he is successful, I applaud his commitment to the issue and all the work he has put into it. It must be incredibly frustrating to be thwarted at every turn by people in his own party.

    It should be noted (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    that Nelson was a major ringleader in making this mess happen in the first place.

    How? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    He isn't in the Florida state legislature nor is he on the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee. He couldn't make this happen as he wasn't in a position to make any of the decisions that made this happen.

    Well Ok (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    But to my way of thinking, Michigan was not INTENDED to be a state isolated on one day at the end of the process.

    It was intended to be a state grouped with other states near the beginning.

    I still think Obama is getting a mulligan on a state that would have clearly been for Clinton if it was held correctly WHEN it was supposed to be held.

    I also know Dean had something to do with that.

    But what am I gonna say.  His name wasn't on the ballot.

    So he gets his mulligan.

    Go deploy your troops, Barack.  Have at it.

    Your second chance has been granted.

    I agree- (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    it seems everything is done for Barack's benefit. By the media most blogs, and party establisment as well. It is a wonder that Hillary is as close as she is. BTW- reagan took his fight to the convention in 1976, lost(closely) on the first ballot, yet no one accused him of "tearing apart the party."

    edgar, i agree obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:33:30 PM EST
    gets the better of this deal.  it is unfortunate and reflects poorly on the democratic party leadership, both professional and elected.  hopefully the new regime will have more foresight and common sensed solutions.

    when elections get murky, the outcomes will always be challenged.  


    which is yet one more reason (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    Why i'm holding out for Jan 29 counting in FL.

    Just one deal should work to Clinton's benefit.

    You know.  Just one.

    Kind of like at the end of the basketball game, something doesn't seem right, and you count up the fouls and you suddenly realized 90% of the fouls were called on one team.


    Now that's a novel argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    This is unfair for Hillary because Michigan was supposed to be lumped in with the rest of the Super Tuesday states and because it is on its own it unfairly helps Obama?

    This rationalization gets high marks for creativity.


    Michigan (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:41:40 PM EST
    was scheduled when?

    Dean to Obama: Hey Barack wouldn't it be great for you if we could work this out in such a way that Michigan would be scheduled much later?

    Obama to Dean:  Yes.  It would.


    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST
    I loves me a good conspiracy theory.

    The motive is there (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    Everyone knows Dean feels threatened by a Clinton victory.

    Doesn't really need a conspiracy theory.

    But isn't this just great for OBama, or what??!!!


    So how (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    exactly did the Obama/Dean road show convince Michigan to violate DNC rules?

    Motivation and results (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    And a little luck.

    Truly they (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    are evil geniuses.

    When you get to the end of the contest (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
    And you see all the calls went for one team and none went for the other team, there's a point where you get to draw some conclusions about that.

    ahh (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    yes.  Blame the refs.

    If all the calls go one way (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:16:07 PM EST
    And none the other.

    If you don't want me to think the process is legitimate, just say so.


    I suspect that (none / 0) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:32:19 PM EST
    the only way you will consider the process legitimate is if Hillary wins.

    MI (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:32 PM EST
    That will be great if they can pull it off.

    The FL plan was simply unrealistic under the circumstances - not enough time to work out the logistics and too likely to just produce another non-legitimate result.

    why michigan but not florida? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:35:48 PM EST
    Why would a Florida re-do be unrealistic if Michigan can do it?

    Because Obama does not want a FL revote (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    You should know thatby now.

    I do not blame him if Clinton is going to let him get away with it.

    What I want to know is how is Debbie Wasserman Schultz going to feel when Michigan gets a revote and its full delegates while Florida gets nothing.

    Nice job Debbie.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    That's what I thought.

    Uh...Isn't Debbie a Clinton supporter? (none / 0) (#51)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
    And committed Superdelegate?

    She takes orders from Obama now?


    It's an Obama fantasy (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    Clinton can't agree to this without a resolution of FL, or Obama wins (unless Clinton totally crushes, but I doubt she would if she could only get 55% against uncommitted)

    For one thing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    Obama will be more competitive in MI. Not to be too cynical or anything...

    Yep (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    Good for you.

    Just a guess (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    I once heard Charlie Cook say (on CNN?) that "you can't say 'Florida' without the 'duh'."

    No, I'm not bashing FL, and this is meant as nothing more than a silly joke.  But FL does seem to be building quite a track record there of "interesting" elections.


    Can't blame FL (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    for the excessive punishment and the silly Pledge created by the 4 early State Party chairs

    Seat the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    I still agree with Jeralyn.

    The votes have been cast; apportion Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the undeclared in Michigan).

    If Obama continues to disenfranchise the FL/MI votes, he's toast if he squeaks by to win the Dem nomination.

    How can anyone argue with a straight (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    face that the FL and MI results are too flawed to accept? How many other states have had their own fiascos, much worse? The votes in MI and FL went on without a hitch, and should be counted.
    The RULES allow this----all it takes is a decision from the DNC.

    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    would be the Credentials Committee. From Craig Crawford
    For starters, Clinton enthusiasts note that the convention credentials committee is co-chaired by three former employees of Bill Clinton's White House: Alexis Herman, former secretary of labor, James Roosevelt Jr., a former associate commissioner in the Social Security Administration under Clinton, and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo, a White House Consultant on Presidential Travel and Advance from 1998 to 2000.

    Only 22 other members of that 186-member committee have so far been chosen -- all selected by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. The remaining 161 seats on the panel will be divvied up among delegates from states.

    The Obama camp intends to fight Clinton's credentials committee crusade to seat the disputed delegations. One reason for Obama to do so is that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations would raise the bar for how many delegates the frontunner needs to win the nomination and force Clinton to drop out - from 2,025 delegates to a majority number above 2,200.

    "without a hitch" (none / 0) (#74)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    doesn't an unsanctioned contest in which the participants signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in count as a hitch?

    Agreed- (none / 0) (#18)
    by Xenos 1966 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    Obama can settle this right now, and thereby demonstrate some menschiness.  Should be worth more than a few superdelegates, and since he is already winning by a much larger margin than the florida votes, that is all he needs.  He has already won - if he demonstrates leadership the procedural hurdles will resolve themselves.

    I continue to be surprised that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:44:44 PM EST
    has been fighting this so hard.  If he is so sure that his delegate and popular vote leads will hold up even after a re-vote in MI and FLA, he should just let it happen.  Is he afraid that Clinton winning those contests, again, will damage his momentum? Is that worse than being seen as someone unwilling to put himself before the voters and have them choose?  He keeps arguing that the reason why the original FLA vote is not legimate, even though all the candidates were on the ballot, because the candidates didn't campaign in state. Well, there were a number of Super Tuesday states that didn't got little or no in-state campaigning.  Does he really think that he would have won the state if he'd campaigned in-state, when he was campainging in and winning the SC primary just a few days before?

    If Obama thinks he is the presumptive nominee, he should act it.


    He thinks a tie goes to Clinton. (none / 0) (#43)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    I think he's right.

    perhaps he counts on... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:52:35 PM EST
    a friendly press:

    "If new primaries are planned in Michigan or Florida, they will not only have to solve all the various concerns about security, access and vote tabulation, they will have to satisfy both Clinton, who'd prefer to have the delegates seated as she won them in the disallowed January primaries, and Obama, whose campaign says it will accept any fair do-over contest."

    According to the Detroit Free Press, Clinton wants to seat as is, Obama wants a fair do-over... who is the "monster" in this article?


    Amen to that.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    Has it been discussed here (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:44 PM EST
    that the DNC has canceled the Denver hotel reservations for the MI delegation?

    I still think from yesterday... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign is trying to win this thing right now with the DNC and superdelegates--the primary continues at their peril. That Mich/Fla post from earlier today with yet another 50/50 split proposal had Obama's prints all over it, yet politico made no mention of the Obama campaign's role in drafting it (I suspect it was meant to jar Clinton's supporters into questioning her "fight," like Gore and Kerry before her). We know that MSNBC, TPM, and dailykos are in the tank for Obama, which other news outlets have jumped the shark--politico and CBS?

    Dailykos is atwitter with the stream of delegates (2) that Obama is winning today and certain that, if you pay no attention to electoral votes or state populations or the final numbers, that "Clinton is losing" (while we all at TL know that Obama already lost with Texas and Ohio!). TPM has it on good authority that Clinton personally wrote Reverend Wright's sermons in order to reveal her "pattern" of racism--they are already drafting a thank you speech for the 2008 Pulitzer prize;--oh, and, with everything else happening today, TPM decided to repost their "clown" video, which lead me to wonder which one is the clown...

    And, I am suspicious that Obama doubled down on debates. TPM and dailykos have joined MSNBC to bemoan yet another debate (which Clinton always wins - her primary % is always higher than the polls at the time of a debate). Obama must know he loses every debate in the voting booth, so what is his hook? There is a new campaign narrative in the works if Obama wants to debate Clinton twice in four days--it will be a flurry of activity plus twice the post debate "analysis" that concludes Obama won when he echoed Clinton's responses by repeating fourteen times, "Our plans are no different. Vote for my personality!"

    So, (none / 0) (#1)
    by 0 politico on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    He won't even accept a compromise that limits the Clinton gain in delegates.

    Is he saying that any solution where he does not get half the delegates from these states, whether he earns then or not, is simply not acceptable?

    Apparently n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:40:02 PM EST
    Am I crazy to think (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    that Hillary could use this as a campaign issue? Of course, that's predicated on her actually fighting for the mail primary.

    I could easily see how this would play in Philly. Democratic voters in Florida being disenfranchised. . . .

    Yes you are crazy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    What issue? She is not fighting for revotes. What is her issue?

    From the LA Times (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:38 PM EST
    New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton weighed in today on the dilemma of disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, arguing that their delegations should be seated at the Democratic convention unless the two states hold new primaries.

    "Honor the results or hold new primary elections," she said. "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."

    By Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    9:12 AM PDT, March 12, 2008

    Um - that seems pretty clear to me...


    Does to me as well (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    I don't see what all the complaining about Clinton not wanting a revote is about at all.

    I wish I knew what her issue was (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    Something is going on behind the scenes.  I guarantee it.  I would not be surprised if they were screwing her over.  I just can't think of an alternative for her not fighting harder for this.

    Say what you will about the Clintons, but they know how to strategize a campaign.  They are master strategists.  Something else is going on here.


    They probably (none / 0) (#36)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    have a pretty good read of the remaining supers.  They might know that an official victory in Florida isn't necessary for their support.  

    She should be (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:48:03 PM EST
    That's my point.

    One question re MI (none / 0) (#6)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    How will they control the voting there with no party registration and no Republican vote happening on the same day.  Does anyone know?  Perhaps they'll check against those who voted for the Republican slate way back when...

    Purple Thumbs!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM EST
    Where's Biden when we need him!

    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    Maybe Michigan has its own Debbie Wasserman Schultz who will torpedo it based on that type of nitpicking nonsense.

    Is it really nitpicking (none / 0) (#11)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    to ask basic questions about the process?  Personally I want a revote in Michigan.  I think Obama wins it.  I just don't want some setup where ever Limbaugh listener who thinks it's funny to throw the election into confusion gets to do it.

    Normally these things gets discussed and planned out over a long period of time and it's not an issue.  In this case we're rushing to come up with plans.  I don't think it's wrong to ask about the details to what we're agreeing to before its settled.


    Here's One Thing... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:32:27 PM EST
    Obama CHOSE to take his name off the ballot - HE CHOSE THIS.  It was a strategic campaign decision.  It backfired.  Tough!!  Clinton is not getting any do-overs in any states, why should HE???  Frankly, I think it would be generous to give him the Undecided delegates, since many were Edwards' delegates.  It just astounds me that he is being given another chance with MI.  Given that, and comments from Michiganders here, I wouldn't count on MI going to Obama at ALL.  And it really makes me despair for what has happened to the election process in this country.

    While I hate to invoke her name, Donna Brazille mentioned before that the DNC DOES have a system for dealing with reinstating delegates.  So, there IS a process, for what it's worth with the disturbingly POOR job the DNC has been doing, to accept these delegates as they stand.


    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    It is absolutely silly nitpicking when the alternative is NO delegates.

    No, I have no sympathy for it.


    False dichotomy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    Sorry, but I think this is taking an overly narrow view.

    There are more than just these two alternatives--no delegates at all or a re-vote done in one particular way.  I would also like to see as little opportunity as possible for Republicans to mess with a Democratic primary.  (And by "mess with" I don't mean cast a well intentioned crossover vote, but intentionally cause mischief.)


    This question is in your interests too (none / 0) (#40)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    Since Michigan won't be enough to flip the delegate count, the point of this exercise for the Clinton campaign is to impress Superdelegates.  Winning through Limbaugh fans crossing over thinking she's an easier November opponent could have the opposite effect.

    Anyway, I didn't just nitpick.  I proposed a solution and I was hoping someone would know if it would work.  Does someone know if the voting records from the earlier election are accessible to the government?  If they know if you took a Republican or Democratic ballot, it would be easy enough to have a statement you'd have to sign before voting saying something like, "Under penalty of perjury, I swear that I did not vote in the Republican primary."

    That would cut down significantly on game playing including those who played that game on the Republicans without penalizing anyone who actually plans to vote for a Democrat in the fall.  No one who cares enough to game the system wouldn't have cared to vote for Romney or McCain back when it was a contest.  So does anyone know if this is a doable solution?


    I see your point (none / 0) (#79)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
    If average people are told to obey a rule not to vote in both parties' primaries, I would bet 90% of these average people would obey (maybe 85% since we're talking Republicans), so that seems like a good idea.

    That would be a lot better than wholesale gaming of the election by Dittoheads, like what happened in MS.


    Wrong url (none / 0) (#7)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    for the Nelson comments.

    It is in the original link (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    in THIS post, the reference to the "great compromise" is the link, the, um "great compromise."

    Yep, I see now (none / 0) (#13)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:32:42 PM EST
    In the yahoo article. Followed by this about Obama and Clinton:

    "both have said to me that they intend to get the Michigan and Florida delegation seated at the convention"


    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    Yes, "both intend" but neither is doing a damn thing to have it happen in a way that matters.

    What we need.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    What we need right now is some kind of person who could be out in front of a problem.  Or in front of a group of people to work on a problem. In a kind of forward position. In a way, guiding towards a solution. Maybe even capable of being in the forefront of such a group. A large group. Perhaps an entire planet. Even if that planet was...say...liberated or something.

    If only there was someone looking for that kind of job.



    Gore. Who better to fix Florida? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    I know, I know.  But the irony is just so appealing -- send in Gore like the UN sends Jimmy Carter to other places that can't figure out how to run reliable elections.

    It obviously serves (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    both their (different) purposes to do it this way. Not the purposes of the voters or of the party though in Nov.

    BTD do the voters count in the popular vote total (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    It appears they do, not seating delegates is a different issue why would they note, am I correct? If thats correct and its up to the States but that seems like a good outcome.

    Keep your comments on topic please (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:42:02 PM EST

    Sorry. (none / 0) (#37)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    I was responding to Coldblue who asserted that Obama was toast in the general if he couldn't pull Florida. It didn't thread properly for some reason.

    Ditto - I got a Post Filed message (none / 0) (#44)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    Was the post deleted?

    Obama sure doesn't appear (none / 0) (#42)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:50:07 PM EST
    any more of a uniter than the one who sits in the WH now.

    On one hand he supports and co-sponsors a mail in voting bill.  On the other--he just doesn't trust mail-in voting.  On one hand he wants to have the delegates seated, but the other hand insists that they only be seated so long as it improves his delegate lead.  On the one hand he'll abide by the DNC ruling, on the other he knows that the DNC won't approve any plan unless both he and Clinton sign off on said plan.

    How can he unite a country if he can't unite his hands?  Apparently the anti-establishment candidate is suddenly less worried about being anti-establishment than making sure the establishment works for him.

    Um (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:16 PM EST
    Can someone explain to me why Obama would reject the FL deal?

    The mail-in vote? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    It looks like all parties are rejecting it. It would be a disaster for the DP if all it creates is yet another illegitimate and probably contested result.

    Also there's the idea that it would be Clinton supporters in essence controlling the process rather than the supposedly neutral state election machinery. Would you want your opponent's allies selecting who ballots will be sent out to?


    Er (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    This post is about a deal Obama rejected.  I am curious why he rejected it.

    I don't know if that's on topic in this thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    but he gets no benefit from it and his strategy in the general election doesn't require that he win Florida, so the cost of alienating Florida voters doesn't seem to be worth giving his opponent an advantage.

    could you please explain (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    What is his GE strategy, and what about it means that he can afford to alienate voters?

    I'd be happy to talk about that with you (none / 0) (#54)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    but perhaps there'll be another thread where it's more topical. I've already had two messages deleted from this thread and I have a feeling BTD might be watching me. Probably paranoid but he and I go back a ways. Good times. :)

    you're right (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:31:02 PM EST
    sorry about that.

    Oh boy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST
    he sounds like a man of the people.

    As a Florida Democratic voter, I'd be happy to return his sneer at me by staying home at the polls in the ge.

    If he somehow finagles the nomination, let him win this thing with trusty Wyoming and Alaska.


    I know emotions are high now (none / 0) (#61)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:50:27 PM EST
    and I see the same threats on DKos all the time. I'm an Obama supporter, and all I have to say is that I'll vote for the democratic nominee because we can't prop up Justices Stevens and Ginsburg much longer. If they go and a republican is in the White House, God help us all.

    Gives some idea ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    ... not just of the idiocy of the DNC, but really as to how corrupted politics is in Florida.

    Michigan was essentially DNC idiocy, I guess, but my understanding is that in Florida the primary got moved up through clever bill writing by the Florida "Republican" Party.

    I suspect that Obama (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    will eventually give in to the current deal or some close facsimile of it.  

    I suspect he does not want the delegates awarded NOW.  I very much can see him acquiescing to this deal on 5/13.  

    The delegates aren't the problem for Obama.  Giving Hillary an unnecessary "win" right now is what he is trying to avoid.