Report: Agreement Imminent on Michigan

Update: Change of DNC email contact address. I just got an email from the DNC. They are getting the e-mails, particularly from TalkLeft readers. They ask if you want to register your opinion, please use this email address. The address is delegates-at-dnc.org. The DNC says the other email box is overwhelmed by emails, and this will allow better coordination and filtering. The emails will also be accessible to more DNC staffers and constitutent services.

Greg Sergeant at TPM writes an agreement for a re-do primary is imminent in Michigan. No mail-in voting primary, no 50/50.

I also hear the 50/50 won't be accepted and a redo primary is more likely.

Big Tent Democrat will be very happy. And if it's a firehouse primary, he was right weeks ago. Obama previously rejected a firehouse promary.

I'm okay with a re-vote in Michigan. It's not my first choice, but so long as it's not the 50/50 proposal, I can get behind it.

A few times I've mentioned that media commentators at the time said Obama (and Edward's) decision to withdraw their names from the MI ballot was strategic since they were unlikely to win the state and thought it would diminish the value of a Hillary win. Here's a report from the Iowa Independent at the time saying five sources told them it was a consideration, but denied it was the main one.

Update: Obama supporters are holding a meeting tomorrow on how to become a Michigan delegate.

< The Risks And Potential Rewards Of An Obama GE Candidacy | Rasmussen: Hillary Leads in PA, 51% to 38% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How are they going to keep (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by eric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    the Republicans from voting in this?  Even the perception that republicans are going to cross over and vote in the Dem primary seems to taint the results.

    Stop registration (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM EST
    Don't allow anyone to switch registration as of now.

    Michigan doesn't have party registration (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    This is a big issue for me.  My idea is to either strip the voter rolls from those who voted in the Republican Primary in January or have them sign a pledge under penalty of perjury saying that they didn't vote there.

    That's exactly (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    what they need to do. They need to keep people from voting again if they already voted in the republicans primary. But I am sure Clinton's campaign is on that.

    Not really feasible. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    I think we're going to just have to accept some gamemanship, here. Sucks, but I doubt there's a good way to avoid it.

    On the plus side, we'll be seeing the Will of The People. All the people. Even Republicans. ;)


    Not an option (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    First you would need to change the state laws on the matter.  That would take months.

    Secondly too many voters would argue that they would have registered parties had they been able to vote for Obama.  

    Here in NJ most people I know were registered as Undeclareds because, eventhough this was a closed primary state, no one even voted in our primaries.  When you went to the voting place you declared at th time of voting.  

    You will have to allow that to happen for this to work.  Yes you will have some troublemaker Republicans but statistically it isn't likely to matter much.


    I disagree that it won't matter much (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    The reason it usually doesn't matter is because there's a Republican primary at the same time that the Republicans would rather vote in.  With no competing primary at all and with a popular conservative encouraging people to throw a monkey wrench, it could easily make a difference in a close election.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    How many people do you think will take time out of their day to go to a polling station and vote for someone they don't like?

    I'm sure there will be a few but not many at all.  In truth I think it is more likely to happen when both parties are having a primary at the same time.


    Before Texas... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    ...I would have agreed with you.  Even still you're right in that it can only really push votes a few percentage points off or so.  Hopefully they'll figure out something.

    Don't Think They Register By Party Affiliation In (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    Michigan. Maybe wrong but I think that is what I read.

    There is no (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    party registration in Michigan.

    Michigan primaries have been damaged in the past by Republicans crossing over to make mischief.

    This happened most notably in 1972 when the Republican primary was meaningless.

    That's been my fear regarding a re-vote at this time.  With no Republican primary they'll be free to cross over and warp the outcome.

    But there doesn't appear to be any choice now so we'll have to roll the dice and hope the outcome is a match of the January primary.

    Among the reforms that should be made after this cycle is the prevention of independents and Republicans from voting to choose our candidates.  That's been a problem since the McGovern "reforms" and a big reason why I am a strong supporter of the superdelegate concept.


    My Worry Also n/t (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    I would assume... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    ... that anyone who voted in the Michigan GOP primary would not be allowed to vote in this one. Since that was a contested race, that should disallow most Republicans.

    And (none / 0) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    keep out Dems who crossed over to play havoc in the R primary because Obama removed himself from the ballot

    Speaking as an Obama supporter... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    ...I have NO problem with those people being barred from this vote even though it would slightly hurt my candidate.

    You're assuming that every Dem (none / 0) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    who crossed over to vote for Romney was an Obama supporter.  Don't forget that Edwards was also absent from the ballot.

    I participate in Democratic politics and among Democratic activists in our county it would have been hard to find an Obama supporter.  It was mostly a split between Edwards and Clinton.

    Anecdotal, yes, but don't assume that anyone not supporting Clinton at that time was by default an Obama supporter. You would be wrong and many of us (myself included)voted Uncommitted.  


    Not as big a problem as disenfranchising voters (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    That's always been an possibility in any primary anyway; in any vote. I'd rather see this than a party loyalty oath.

    ::: shudder :::

    If any candidate wants to whine about this later on, it's only proving he or she's incapable of governing.

    We need a solutions-oriented candidate who can tackle problems, not someone who spends more time watching the applause meter and pouting if it isn't up the red zone. Ugh. Reminds me too much of the fake president dancing for the cameras now.


    Clinton won all but 2 counties in the first race (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    Here's the map. Anyone have any ideas on which counties besides Wayne (Detroit) would go to Obama on a re-do? I can't imagine it would be Northern Michigan. Washtenaw is the main college county and that's one of the two where the uncommitteds won.

    Isn't N. Michigan (none / 0) (#21)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    Similar to Wisconsin?

    The UP (none / 0) (#29)
    by eric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    is right next to Wisconsin and a lot like it.  But not like Madison, more like rural Wisconsin.  White people, Pickup trucks, guns, and they say "eh?" like Canadians.  The Democrats are on the conservative side.

    My wife is from there.  We visit often.  FWIW, her parents like Obama.  But I think that isn't the general sense there.  I would say that Clinton wins in the UP.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    Hillary actually won half of the WI counties that adjoin the Upper Peninsula, even as she got crushed statewide.  To the extent there are actually people in the UP, it is 100% Clinton country.  It's the closest thing we have to a region like SE Ohio.

    Here's the 2004 county map for the (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    general election.  Emmet, by the way, one of the uncommitted in the primary this year, went pretty reliably for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

    There also are not (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    enough people there to make any difference.

    The only concern would be Wayne County but that could be offset by Oakland and Macomb Edwards supporters going for Clinton just as this Edwards supporter will vote for Clinton.  Clinton should emphasize Obama's perfidious stand for NAFTA.

    In Michigan, if you want to see people's faces turn purple with rage, Democrat or Republican just say NAFTA.


    I suspect that (none / 0) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    Southern Michigan will lean towards Obama.  

    "Uncommitted" won Emmett Co., so (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    I assume that is the county East Lansing, home of MSU, is located in.  

    Not even close (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    Ingham County is the home of MSU, and the state capital.

    Emmet County is in Northern Michigan, it's sort of resort territory, although I frankly can't imagine what accounts for uncommitted winning other than very low turnout overall.


    Oops. U of M people never (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    could figure out where MSU was.

    Hee hee (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    As a graduate of both schools, I don't even feel MSU is all that liberal as colleges go.  Although we did have some rousing Gulf War protests back in the day... for the 2 or 3 days that war lasted.

    Ingham is more than East Lansing (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    and East Lansing is more than compensated for by Lansing and suburbs in Ingham County.

    And NAFTA is the filthiest acronym utterable.


    It's hard to keep track of your little brother (none / 0) (#85)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    /Mike Hart

    One potential issue (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    is whether the DNC will award MI its full slate of delegates while Florida is resolved by getting only 50% of its delegates.

    The Florida Dems are in for a lot of flak for their actions this week. PARTICULARLY the Congressional Dems.

    Their actions are inexcusable.

    What's the issue? (none / 0) (#46)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    I think Dean's on record as saying that if Michigan holds another primary in keeping with DNC rules, the full delegation will be seated.

    "All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said Thursday during interviews on network and cable TV news programs.

    Florida, well, who knows what will happen with that. But if Michigan revotes, then they're free and clear, I think.


    Good for Dean (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    In which case, FL Dems have some 'splainin to do.

    well if the site you linked us to (none / 0) (#51)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    vis-a-vis FL is an indication it looks like they are finally getting back on the tracks.  Hopefully they can get everybody on board this time.

    We'll see.


    I understand it is a full blown primary (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST

    Me too (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    that would be best.

    And there is no doubt (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    NONE, that the 4 state pledge did not require pulling your name off the ballot.

    The reason Obama rounded up other candidates to support his "additional commitment" to withdraw names from the MI ballot were PRIMARILY to deny Clinton even a straw poll victory in MI and, secondarily, to appease the 4 early states.

    I do not care if they deny it, common sense makes it obvious.


    I agree with this as well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    Geez 2 straight points I agree with you on, BTD.  I'm starting to get worried. :)

    Their decision to pull their name off of Michigan was most certainly to avoid giving Clinton a straw poll victory.  They would have done the same in Florida if they could have.


    Me too. (none / 0) (#15)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    Yeah have things calmed down in here?  If so I might join in...

    The quote "addiitonal commitment" (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    is what Obama called it.

    Thank (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    The Lord.  50/50 was just as crazy as assuming that everyone who voted "uncommitted" was voting for Obama and therefore the delegates should be seated according to that dubious thesis.

    It was a brilliant move (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    Unlike FL, nobody outside MI officials and Clinton die-hards has suggested seating the entire delegation.

    People should note that prominent Clinton supporters Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell have agreed that seating the FL and MI delegations based on the Jan. vote would be unfair to Obama:

    We're not suggesting, as our colleagues Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Charlie Crist of Florida would prefer, that the results of the previous nominating contests in those states be honored. Just as there is nothing fair in disenfranchising voters for decisions they did not make, there is nothing fair or democratic about seating delegates elected in states that were not honestly contested or where all of the candidates were not even on the ballot.

    When a candidate's own supporters agree that an option is unfair to the other candidate, that option is very hard to defend.


    No question (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    it was, at the very least, to taint an obvious Clinton victory.  

    THAT was the only real consideration.


    Meaning not firehouse? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    Correct (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    Hopefully this will light a fire ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    under the DNC and Clinton campaign regarding Florida.

    Seems to me the DNC and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    are the ones who need to get on board.  Clinton can't do this alone and has, in the recent past, advocated a new primary if the first one isn't going to count re seated delegates.

    And the MI Legislature (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    They have to approve it by next Friday before they go on spring break in order for it to happen.

    My comment was w/respect to FL. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    It still boils down (none / 0) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    to the state party being behind it first and foremost.  If they don't push a plan forward then it doesn't matter what the DNC or Obama or Clinton have to say about it.

    Politicians are followers ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    not leaders, if enough people get behind anything the politicians will fall into line.  Especially small fish like those in the a state party.

    Candidates speaking out emboldens their supporters to speak out and you have a snowball effect.


    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    LEt us hope.

    Let us hope (none / 0) (#28)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM EST
    And pray...It's not looking that hopeful, though.  There is also another, cynical, smart (in the short term) reason Obama is not out on the frontlines campaigning for a FLA revote.  Clinton has realized she absolutely needs FLA (barring serious craziness in the remaining states) to get close enough to Obama's delegate lead.  She's having to spend a lot of time on this and it doesn't take him very long to say "hey, we're just following the rules and we'll do whatever the DNC tells us we should do."  

    Of course it was strategic (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    When historians sit down to examine the process they will concede everything broke Obama's way.

    The rules are apparently one of Obama's supporters.

    Yup (none / 0) (#19)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    it's better to be lucky than good :)

    Well I think that concedes the point then (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    Obama isn't that good.

    And we'll have to find that out either in the GE or while he's president.


    Now, now don't be bitter (none / 0) (#81)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:44:23 PM EST
    He knows how to win. That is not a bad thing. It is something that the Dems desperately need in November and after.

    And, he knows how to win pretty (meaning the only people he's really turning off are die hard Clinton supporters)
    If he's not that good, I'm confused about why he is ahead in votes, delegates and states won. But I will leave you to your opinion.


    You make your own luck n/t (none / 0) (#86)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    define firehouse primary (none / 0) (#10)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    I've no clue what that means.

    never mind (none / 0) (#23)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    should have googled in first place.  why not just call it a caucus?  We caucus in CO we don't firehouse primary...lol.

    Less time (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    It is a truncated process.  Instead of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, they shorten the hours.  May even have few precinct sites.  Someone correct me if I am wrong.  

    So.... MI might be THE ONE that decides (none / 0) (#13)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    the latementum for super!!! The big winner is MI .. no doubt!!

    I hope a 527 or ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    the Clinton campaign runs ads about Obama's support of the 50/50 solution if a redo in MI is held.

    Money? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    Is there any word of who is paying for this?

    I heard it'll be soft money (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    raised by both campaigns.

    But, this is the question: if MI can get together a workable plan and pay for it, why can't FL?

    I am really annoyed Clinton isn't shouting about this, but then I also think something else is going on with FL.  I think everyone is showboating, to be frank.  There must be something about mail-in vs polling that works against Clinton or else she would be pushing harder.

    Gee, if only there were someone in charge of the dems who could step in and work this out.


    Here is an explination for why Clinton does not (none / 0) (#79)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    want a Florida re do from Mark Schmitt over at Tapped.  (It includes some nice compliments to this site.)

    I am glad you have switched from the Obama is secretly torpedoing theory you proposed on an earlier thread to a Clinton cares more about winning than about enfranchising the Florida voters or making sure the Dems win Florida in the general theory.  


    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    That article suggests that Edgar08 has been right all along in his concerns.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#83)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST
    Because we're Florida. :D

    I wish I could say I'm surprised by how the different politicians here are acting, but I don't like to lie. We don't have any leaders or anyone who isn't so self-serving that they would do what is best if it goes against the results they want.

    It's odd to me that people and the party running to be leader of the free world, which happens to involve solving problems whether they were responsible for creating them or not, don't seem to really want to fix this.


    Is Obama's consent re MI (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:38 PM EST
    re-do consistent with his meme he'll do whatever the DNC decides re MI and FL?

    I think so. (none / 0) (#58)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    As far as I know, the DNC has no objections to Michigan redoing it's primary. In fact, I'm sure Dean is positively thrilled at the idea. It solves a major headache for him.

    I don't think so but am open (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    to persuasion.  

    Uhh.. (none / 0) (#64)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    Why does it strike you as inconsistent?

    Obama said back whatever play the DNC approved. Presumably, the DNC will back the Michigan redo, as will Obama. No inconsistency that I can see.

    Am I missing something?


    Besides a few words in my second sentence? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    Should read "Obama said HE WILL back whatever play the DNC approved."

    And on that note, I'm going to lunch.


    Your posts have made me (none / 0) (#82)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    laugh out loud at least 3 times today.
    Thank you! I needed that SO much!

    II haven't read or heard that the DNC (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    announced it approved the MI re-vote plan prior to Obama saying its o.k. with him.

    That's because... (none / 0) (#72)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    Everyone (including Obama) is assuming that the DNC will approve the plan. And frankly, that strikes me as a pretty good assumption, given Dean's previous statements on the matter.

    If, for some reason, the DNC refuses to accept the plan, Obama would have to change his tune or risk being incosistent. But as of now, I think he's is the clear.

    YMMV, I suppose.


    This still stinks (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    It is what it has to be.

    But it stinks.

    Zuh? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    A full-blown primary redo which results in the entire delegation getting seated?

    Other than the cost, which to my mind will be money well spent, what's the downside?


    When was Michigan supposed (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    To fit into the schecule?

    if MI and FL had counted (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:22:45 PM EST
    Clinton would be challenging McCain to their first debate right now.

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    Holding elections now really doesn't add any legitimacy to the process.

    Nor will it make me believe Obama actually won if he actually does win.

    If that's the purpose of holding these, it's not going to work.

    If these revotes deviate from what we all know they would have been back when they should have happened, no one but Obama supporters are going to recognize them for being worth more than a hill of beans.

    There's a potential for this to just make things worse.  A lot of folks are going to get a good whiff of the stench coming off this and while they might not be throwing lattes across the floor in Denver they'll be grinding their teeth thinking about what should have been?

    And that's worse.

    People don't let things like this go.

    I know I won't.


    I'm sorry, what would the results (none / 0) (#84)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    have been? You state "we all know" but I must call you on that, because I do not know. I think that is the point of holding an election that counts from the beginning and each party has the chance to campaign and make their case to the voters.After the vote, we all will know what the results are. And unlike the straw poll in January, the results will count.

    Why do you keep harping on the schedule? (none / 0) (#87)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    Who cares?  What possible bearing does that have on fairness?  With respect, it seems like you're just grasping for reasons to declare anything that might hurt HRC unfair.

    if ifs and buts were candy and nuts (none / 0) (#88)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    Any time after Febuary 5th? (none / 0) (#62)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    Granted, I doubt they were originally planning on being this late, but it'll work out well for them. They wanted a significant say in deciding the nominee...and believe me, they'll get one.

    On Feb 5th? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    Back when a lot of other states were voting, and the Clintons weren't being smeared as racist?

    Obama never would have had a chance.


    in two thousand four (none / 0) (#71)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    the open window for states other than new hampshire and iowa was feb three through june three.

    michigan and washington held a caucus on feb seven.

    levin, wrote this letter to dean on twenty seven feb two thousand three:

    Dear Governor Dean,

    The Michigan Democratic Party will soon be considering a proposal to set the date of our presidential delegate selection caucuses on the same date in 2004 that New Hampshire schedules its presidential primary.

            Since 1980, the Democratic National Committee has established a window within which delegate selection contests are required to take place.  Those same rules, however, have allowed New Hampshire and Iowa to hold their contests before that window, distorting our nominating process by giving these two states disproportionate impact and making the delegate selection contests in other states less meaningful and in some cases irrelevant.

            Many Democrats have long felt that our national party's presidential nominating process unfairly and disproportionately advantages New Hampshire and Iowa and the issues these two states care about to the prejudice of other states.  We have urged the DNC to eliminate the privileged status of these two states, but our recommendation has not been adopted.

            We understand the consequences of scheduling our delegate selection caucuses outside the window of February 3 - June 3, 2004, established for all states except New Hampshire and Iowa.  If we schedule our caucuses outside of this window, we will be fully prepared to defend our position at the Democratic Convention in Boston next year.

            You may be asked to make a commitment not to campaign in Michigan if we schedule our delegate selection caucuses the same day as the New Hampshire primary.  We urge you not to make any such commitment.  Michigan has just as much right as any other state to determine the appropriate date for our delegate selection caucuses and to hear the views of the candidates.


    Feb 7 then (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    That's what I figured.

    I figured it would have been grouped with the rest of the Super Tuesday states.


    super tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    was march second in two thousand four.

    it starts to become clear, (none / 0) (#76)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    when you look at the jostling of the two thousand and four campaign, how dean became the dnc boss.

    he wanted/promised this issue to be in the forefront in the next cycle when he sought out the position.

    this mess is his doing.


    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    In a way, he had to know this was coming.

    and (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    Sen Levin approached the DNC in 1999 or 2000 with the same request.  They said they would look into and promptly blew him off.