No to Obama's Proposal of 50-50 in Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:44:00 AM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This:

On January 15, 2008, 594,398 Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. The official Michigan election results are here.

328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

That's called stealing an election.

Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat. [More...]

Just yesterday, Rasmussen moved Michigan from the "likely Democratic" column to "toss-up" for November, following a poll showing McCain with a statistically insignificant lead over both Hillary and Obama. Michigan is an important state for Dems to win in November.

By early September, 2007 when Obama took his name off (pdf)the ballot, trailed Hillary in multiple polls.

For the reasons I set forth here and here,
the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida) and award and seat the delegates from the Jan. 15 primary now.

As Hillary told NPR yesterday about Obama's withdrawal of his name from the ballot:

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."

That's being generous. Several media commentators have suggested he withdrew his name was for strategic reasons, wanting to keep Hillary from claiming a win in a race he knew he would lose. That could also be why, unlike Hillary, he refuses to support a re-vote, maintaining it wouldn't be fair and would be fraught with peril of fraud. Only if the DNC orders it will he agree to the process.

And this is rich:

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

His reasoning seems to be, if we don't seat the delegates until the convention, we don't have to count their votes now and I'll be ahead by convention time. Once I'm the nominee, by all means, let's seat them.

There's a very simple, fair answer to the Michigan dilemna: The DNC does a big "mea culpa" and removes the penalty. Hillary gets the delegates according to her vote total. The uncommitted and other candidates' delegates remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention in Denver.

For others angered by Obama's audacity in proposing a 50/50 "give me the votes I didn't win" plan, check out Corrente, RiverDaughter, Angalchel. Read their commenters too.

If you want to register your opinion, the DNC staffer to contact is here. The address is delegates-at-dnc.org. Mention you are a Democrat. Be emphatic but courteous. (Note: Change of e-mail address - the DNC says the email box is overwhelmed by emails, particularly from TalkLeft and asked for a change. Use the delegate e-mail address provided here]

BTD NOTE - Comments now closed.

< The Justice Dept. IG's Report in Simple English | Revote Recap: MI Dems Fighting For Their Voters, FL Dems Intent On Handing FL to The GOP >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

No to Obama's Proposal of 50-50 in Michigan | 210 comments (210 topical)

The 50-50 thing distresses me no end (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by ChrisO on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:49:23 AM EST

and it was clear from Halperin's report that it's an Obama ploy, thrown in the mix of a compromise proposal, with Halperin reporting that Clinton will probably take the deal. Obama's trying to say "Look, I'll compromise and settle for half of the Michigan delegates and we can put this whole mess behind us, unless Hillary wants to drag it out and damage the party."

And no doubt... (none / 0) (#160)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:09 AM EST

...his followers think it's infinitely fair since "she can't win anyway"...

Right?

We really haven't come very far from the 2000 election have we?

[ Parent ]

I'm a "follower" (none / 0) (#175)
by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST

and I don't think it's fair. Revotes are the only way to get this resolved with any semblance of fairness.

[ Parent ]

: Props to you... (none / 0) (#211)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM EST

...50/50 makes about much sense as saying we'll flip a coin and winner take all... revote all the way.

[ Parent ]

50/50 - No way (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Boo Radly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:34:11 AM EST

The voters will not stand for it. I wrote Phil McNamara much earlier, I signed a petition as well for Voters asking for All Votes to be counted. It is at the Corrente site. Jeralyn - you never sleep! The graphic is great - legal pad.
BOs audacy is too much in my opinion and really will turn off voters - sane ones anyway.

thanks for the graphic praise (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:46:15 AM EST

CL, our man in Hollywood does all our cool graphics , when you see ones that a 6th grader could do, those are mine. I'll never be able to figure out photoshop 6 and cs-2 but I try! Glad you liked them. Feel free to copy it and upload to your own server and use. If it doesn't have a by tl at the bottom I don't mind others taking them.

I can't imagine Hillary will give in to a 50/50 split, but just so she knows her core voters are with here, I thought it would be great to make the rounds.

[ Parent ]

: Another take (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by ghost2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:52:19 AM EST

Can you imagine what republicans would do with a compromise like that? Let me guess: "Democrats believe that instead of counting votes, they should divide the votes. That's how they'd run the country too." The possibilities are endless. It will be a running joke.
You'd think Michigan will forget about it? This is not something that Barack can go faint on the couch and cry racism. Can you imagine Republicans campaigning in Michigan and Florida and reminding voters every day that their votes weren't counted?

[ Parent ]
: OT - important (none / 0) (#170)
by Josey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:54 AM EST

The FL Dem Party is seeking input from FL Dems for solutions.
But ONLY today.
http://www.fladems.com/page/s/primarymemo

[ Parent ]

Revote will be great for Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:34:17 AM EST

It makes us look like the can-do party.

Thanks for listing McNamara, I will write him tomorrow. OK tonight.

Just wrote McNamara (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:37:05 AM EST

It might be repetitive and corny but I hope it's emphatic:

Mr. McNamara,
Congratulations on an invigorated Democratic party and primary. All eyes are on our party this primary season and we are using this opportunity to spotlight our values of fairness, equal opportunity, diversity, caring for the least among us, and most of all, our value of democracy!
With the spotlight on the party at this historic time, it is of paramount importance that we honor both the voices and the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida. The way we can do this is to hold a re-vote in both of these states with expediency and competence. (Competence - that's a Democratic party value too!)
Revotes may be expensive, they may be inconvenient, but let's show America that we can do this! What better way to restore confidence in democracy than by showing the people we can raise the money to hold these revotes in these two crucial states even when it seems impossible?
Just as many disaffected Republicans are taking a look at our party as their new political home, we cannot become another party which disenfranchises the will of the voters in Michigan OR Florida. We cannot hand the cynics and the downtrodden an excuse to buy the myth that "both parties are the same."
To split the Michigan delegates 50/50 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when that is not the way Michigan voted would be to steal votes from the voters.
Yes, we are Democrats - if anybody can make it possible for people to vote in inconvenient times, it is us! Let's make these revotes happen -- and no more screwy caucuses that disenfranchise the elderly and the shift workers -- so that all Americans can see what we are made of!
Aren't the people of Michigan, first and foremost, people of America? Please don't decide their delegates for them.
The spotlight is on our party. Please take this opportunity do the right thing and make our party shine.
Sincerely,
[me]
San Francisco, CA

[ Parent ]

Great e-mail (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:16:34 AM EST

Positive and on message. Mine was much shorter and less tactful. More in line with count all the votes accurately in Michigan and Florida if you want me to vote in November.

[ Parent ]

Mine included (5.00 / 3) (#93)
by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:16:39 AM EST

the check on the DR table for the DNC that will not get mailed until this is resolved. There should be no do overs period. They voted. AND believe it or not, people in the real world do not even know what this is about and that is probably why OHB can get away with wanting a 50/50 split. I am sorry to say, I once thought he would be a good President as well as Hillary and Edwards. I have changed my mind greatly in the last 3 months and see all the cracks in his armor. And even though he would be fun to have a beer with, I don't trust him with running my country.

[ Parent ]

: I Hear From People Who Know Her Personally (5.00 / 1) (#200)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:15:58 AM EST

that Hillary is a very fun person to have a beer with. Obama when he is not giving prepared speeches appears very aloof to me.

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the post, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by felizarte on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:35:56 AM EST

my sentiments precissely. I for one won't be voting for him for this reason.

: Thanks Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#58)
by dutchfox on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:18:17 AM EST

for keeping us abreast of all the shenanigans.
Obama's idea is kwazy! I'd call it the Audacity of Audacity!

[ Parent ]

Thank you, counselor (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:39:05 AM EST

from one lawyer to another, for stating the case succinctly and correctly: "That's called stealing an election." I'm sure we'll shortly be hearing from the "sham election," "faux election," "beauty contest," "rules are rules" crowd who will once again claim that the omission of Obama from the ballot somehow rendered the Michigan primary unfair, undemocratic, illegitimate, etc.

And we'll once again hear them cry out at the injustice of Obama supporters in Michigan being denied (robbed, robbed I tell ya!) of their right to cast a vote for their candidate, again conflating voting rights with voting preferences, and in the process conveniently ignoring or smugly dismissing the fact that it was Obama (that's right, Obama, not Hillary, not the DNC, not Rush Limbaugh) who denied them their preference in order to humiliate Hillary and obtain tactical advantage in subsequent contests.

Edwards and Biden supporters were doubtlessly disappointed to vote uncommitted, as well. However, disappointment over self-inflicted wounds by one's preferred candidate does not render an election unfair or undemocratic. There was not a single structural or functional problem with the Michigan primary, nor any reported instance of voting rights violations that would render it invalid as an election. Apparently, the only problem with the Michigan primary is that Obama did not win it.

The charming hypocrisy (none / 0) (#108)
by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:33:07 AM EST

of the Clinton campaign on Michigan. Here is Hillary Clinton in October, 2007:

In an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall, Clinton explained why she was the only candidate who did not agree to New Hampshire's request that she take her name off the ballot in Michigan.
"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

I find the Clinton protestations on Michigan and Florida nothing short of hysterical and as fine an example of hypocrisy as I have ever seen.

[ Parent ]

are you saying (none / 0) (#114)
by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:37:33 AM EST

that is was clear in Oct 2007 that this was going to be a huge honkin' mess?

And if you accept it as a political ploy that Obama took his name off, can you not accept that as a political ploy Clinton made this statement? Surely, IA and NH would have been furious if she said that MI was valid and important.

It's called playing politics. It's what politicians do.

[ Parent ]

She signed a pledge... (none / 0) (#179)
by mike in dc on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:06:56 AM EST

...to neither "campaign" nor "participate" in MI or FL. While in FL it was apparently impermissible for candidates to remove their names from the ballot and still remain viable for the fall, in MI there was no such requirement.

Leaving her name on the ballot = participation. She broke her pledge, and then dissembled about it.

She ran on the ballot against "uncommitted" and Kucinich. It's pathetic she only "won" by 10 points.

The spinning on this is ridiculous. There was no valid primary election in Michigan, because it was agreed it wouldn't count and that candidates would neither campaign nor participate, because the other major candidates' names weren't on the ballot, and because the turnout there was significantly depressed compared to Republican turnout(putting the accuracy of the results into question).

It's simply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, in my view, to try to pretend the Michigan primary was a fair and valid contest.

At least Florida had the veneer of fairness(even though there's the obvious point that Clinton went into primary season with 20 point advantages in every state where candidates had not yet campaigned, due to both name recognition and Clinton nostalgia) because the other major candidates' names were on the ballot.

[ Parent ]

: not correct (none / 0) (#207)
by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM EST

there was nothing in the pledge about being on the ballot. The pledge stated you couldn't campaign in either state.

[ Parent ]

Yes I am (5.00 / 7) (#9)
by felizarte on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:52:43 AM EST

and I am pretty sure many voters in Florida and Michigan because the Democratic Party did not care for their votes.

I am an American first and democrat second. It is more important to me to preserve the rights of citizens to vote.

The only consideration here is VOTERS RIGHTS for Florida and Michigan. The voters did not do anything wrong. They voted in the only election available for them to cast their ballots. This shows lack of leadership on the part of the democratic party. If McCain wins, the fault lies with the party. It is their responsibility to preserve voters rights. It is their responsibility to resolve the situation that is FAIR TO THE VOTERS. Candidates should not have any VETO power over the resolution of this sorry situation.

My loyalty to my party ends when they no longer respect voters rights.

*nodding* (none / 0) (#34)
by Rainsong on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:15:13 AM EST

They voted in the only election available for them to cast their ballots.

Exactly.

The Party didn't tell the voters that it was all part of a nod-wink deal with the candidates, and that their delegates would be seated after all, but - only - once the nominee was known.

To me, its saying that those people who voted,
still elected delegates that were designed to count - (eventually) - but only when the Party was good and ready to count them, ie at a time when those delegates wouldn't matter to the outcome, like it was decided that those two states were never meant to have a "valid" primary at all.

[ Parent ]

The difference between you and me (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by felizarte on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:27:48 AM EST

is that I will still say COUNT THE VOTES if it were Barack who was entitled to the votes.

Your objection, whatever rationale you have is rooted in the fact that counting the votes (whether as is or revote) will benefit Hillary Clinton and possibly allow her to overtake Barack's pledged delegates and popular votes.

Cheating is cheating no matter who does it.

[ Parent ]

: Agreed : it would be the same if reversed. (none / 0) (#41)
by Rainsong on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:55:18 AM EST

.. I referred to generic candidates, not specific ones.

[ Parent ]

I'm not voting for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:52:54 AM EST

Read more closely, I said hundreds of thousands would but did not include myself in that group. I said if he plays fair and square and gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.

If I think he stole the votes, I may t

I'll take a trip to China or Europe during election week. I'm in a key state, Colorado, which the Dems will have a hard time winning. It could go either way but is usually red, outside of the Denver metropolitan are, Pueblo, Boulder and Aspen. Obmama, if he is the nominee, needs us all here working for him. But if he steals these votes, all bets are off.

I'm with you Jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Rainsong on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:23 AM EST

I've just come over here from scanning through Thursday's newsfeed links at RealClearPolitics, and feeling so depressed at the huge array against Clinton.

The last one:
Why Dems Wont Overrulre Obama
saying that even if the super-dels did think she is the more electable, they'll still vote for Obama because of 'liberal white guilt', pride in the Party's civil rights history, and fear of offending the A-A Party insiders. And of course, the Party won't split over it, I'm assuming from reading between the lines, because everyone else will see this as ultimately fair and reasonable.

I feel like I'm stuck in Orwell's novel - 1984.

I feel guilty because the psycho-social conditioning, just isn't taking hold in my brain like its supposed to, no matter how hard I try - for example, I keep repeating all the mantras, I even tried running Obama Girl's routine, but I just can't "see the light".

But thank you so much for talkleft, I'm so glad I found this place. And you're sooo right, in plenty places, not just CO, Obama needs more than our reluctant votes in November, he needs us working the ground for him.

But if he steals these votes, all bets are off.

Right On.

[ Parent ]

If that were entirely true... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Oje on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:54:53 AM EST

then, Obama would not be making this play to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters. There is a threshold at which the superdelegates will exercise their judgment, rather than their fear. That threshold will most certainly be passed if Clinton beats Obama through the rustbelt from Pennsylvania to Michigan, adds Florida to boot.

He clearly lost the nomination after Texas and Ohio, so he needs to do whatever he can to call the race with his delegate lead at 100+ before the primaries go any further.

[ Parent ]

*hugs* Oje... (none / 0) (#40)
by Rainsong on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:48:31 AM EST

thanks for the message of -hope- ,
its one that I 'can believe in' :)

Maybe I just had an overdose of toxic MSM wearing me down today. Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas were very impressive, and with so much against her too.

So, attempting to disenfranchise MI and FL, (or to confirm their first disenfranchisement by the Party), is one tactic. But, how does the offer of debates fit in with this strategy?

[ Parent ]

Why does she have to prove that she can win again? (none / 0) (#96)
by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:21:02 AM EST

Is this like the Charlotte Whitton Quote: "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good."

Why must she win twice? Please explain to me why Obama is being given lollipops like a spoilt petulant child and she's being treated like this?

There is no turn around - at some point someone must stand and say "enough is enough This is the last straw"

He ran unopposed for his state senate seat. Why can't she run unopposed on a ballot?

I cannot be a democratic, I can't live by these rules.

[ Parent ]

: umm... (none / 0) (#158)
by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:12 AM EST

He ran unopposed for his state senate seat. Why can't she run unopposed on a ballot?
Right... the two situations would be really similar. If one of the two situations was completely different.

[ Parent ]

Jearlyn, thanks for the post. This is what I've (none / 0) (#177)
by Angel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:06:43 AM EST

been saying for a while now. I took a little heat a while back for saying that my husband and I would sit the general election out if they "gave" the nomination to BO. I believe in democracy. I believe everyone's vote should count. I don't believe in awarding votes to someone when they didn't receive them. It is wrong for the Democrats and it is wrong for the country. If people don't see that BO is not a candidate for real change, that he is just another politician who knows how to work and game the system, then I feel sorry for them. Our country will suffer the consequences.

[ Parent ]

This is incredible hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Thurloe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:31:12 AM EST

I have enjoyed reading Talk Left for years. I had to create an account just to respond to this post. I enjoy passion, but I also value facts and reason.

If you want to quote vote totals, please quote the 933,000 more people voting for Obama than Clinton so far (813,000 not including the Texas Causus vote... I added in +100,000 for Mississippi). I expect the same indignation about voter disenfranchisement when convention time rolls around when the superdelegate tug of war begins (assuming Clinton is still in).

The way the delegates are split (and I hoped you would know this by now), is through proportional representation. Districts can have 4, 5, etc. delegates. If it is 4, Hillary would have to have a 3:1 advantage in the voting to get the third. If it is 5, a 3:2. I have no idea how you think the 5% of her voters would get delegates? Pieces of a delegate? This error alone undermines the post, but let me add some background on some other issues:

The time for Michigan to get its delegates is at the convention. The first vote was already disenfranchised before it started. But it was with a wink-wink because everyone knew that the winner would magnanimously allow the delegates to be seated by the rules committee at the convention (with the support of his/her delegates). I heard discussion of this before the Michigan vote itself.

The reason Edwards and Obama dropped themselves from the ballot was because they felt that name recognition would matter most when they couldn't campaign. They felt that Hillary would win and if they were not on the ballot, the media would be forced to claim it the false primary it was. I know this is unfair to Michigan and there are many posts/comments on why it happened in Michigan, but the rules are the rules. Obama made a calculated decision within the rules. However, Obama did not cause the disenfranchisement, nor did removing his name from the ballot cause it. It just kept Hillary from getting a momentum bump (not delegate bump) from it.

The reason Hillary now needs those delegates before the convention is twofold. She is well behind and she needs to be closer to have a better argument for the superdelegates. Also, a late win, which she would have if there were a Florida re-vote on June 3rd, could be great momentum going into the convention for the superdelegates. However, all the pundits and polls say she would lose in Michigan on a revote. A 50/50 split would be the best she would get. But that re-vote would cost close to 15 million and be a logistical nightmare.

There is a very simple reason Obama does not want a re-vote. He is not afraid of losing (in Michigan), nor does he care about the few delegates. They do not mean as much to him as they do to Hillary. However, the longer this drags on, the more mud gets slung both ways. And the more Democrats, such as those here, make declarations of not voting for this person or that person in the general instead of actually worrying about who the nominee is and working against the Republican.

I have seen things here twisted enough already. Do I want that to go on through June full bore in big states?

I disagree (none / 0) (#64)
by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:37:54 AM EST

A 50/50 split is the best Obama could get. Hillary's upside is much higher.

And twisting? All pundits and polls do not show Obama winning in MI. If you are going to get on your sanctimonious high horse, at least get your facts straight.

[ Parent ]

Obama "felt that Hillary would win" so (none / 0) (#78)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:01:52 AM EST

took his name off the ballot, you write.

Yep. Yet you side with him on this. Think.

[ Parent ]

There is an important sidenote (none / 0) (#123)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM EST

In an election with zero campaigning and zero adverts etc then the candidate with the huge name recognition advantage built in was Hillary Clinton. The fact that it was good politics for Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the ballot doesnt change the fact that their was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the no campaigning or PARTICIPATING pledge on Michigan.

If Hillary had honoured the pledge as well then we would not be having this conversation.

[ Parent ]

Oh come on... (none / 0) (#208)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM EST

If simply having a name on the ballot constitutes "participating" then every candidate violated the pledge in Florida. But somehow this is always about what Hillary did.

Obama and Edwards clearly removed themselves from the Michigan ballot as an olive branch to Iowa and not in deference to some pledge (else they would've done it in FL too).

[ Parent ]

: Except in Florida you have to swear you (none / 0) (#213)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST

are not running for President to be taken off the ballot. Which would not be true of any of the candidates.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Context is everything (none / 0) (#205)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST

The reason Edwards and Obama dropped themselves from the ballot was because they felt that name recognition would matter most when they couldn't campaign. They felt that Hillary would win and if they were not on the ballot, the media would be forced to claim it the false primary it was.

Not exactly what you wrote.

I oppose a 50/50 split as fundamentally guaranteed to start an argument we don't need.

I don't care who wins, I am voting Democratic because I believe the consequences this time are a lot worse than any previous time since 1980. On the issues the candidates are not that far apart. And its not going to make a difference as a Democrat who is in office, if you don't vote for more and better Democrats in congress.

Staying home or taking a trip is not the solution. If you really can't vote for your non-favorite candidate fine, but at least vote for the Democrats down ballot.

I know over the years dire predictions have been made about the Supreme Court if the Democrat doesn't win. Well guess what- this year it is more true than any other year. The more liberal justices are the older ones this time around. So another vacancy is likely to be Stevens or Ginsberg. McCain is anti-choice and has sold himself to the anti-choice crowd. All they need is one more justice. Don't believe me? Ask any lawyer who follows the court.

And there is more than Roe at stake. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas are after far more than Roe.

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, be my guest, just don't shoot me or my daughter in the process.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

arguments for a split (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:01:11 AM EST

are BS and need to be shouted down now, not by us, but by the two candidates. If Barack Obama wants to prove he isn't a plain-Jane old-fashioned hypocritical a-hole politician then HE needs to stand up and say: "Whether I win or lose delegates is not as important as having every vote counted. Whatever needs to be done to get a replacement election slated, organized, paid for, and held is fine by me." (Hillary has already said she will do whatever it takes to get the delegates in both states seated.)

Both he and Clinton should also publicly and loudly admonish state party leaders and the DNC to make sure that this type of bs never happens again.

Hilarious... (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by reynwrap582 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:14:18 AM EST

Obama suggests avoiding the potential fraud of a revote, with the absolute fraud of a 50/50 split. I guess you know what you're gettin' though.

sure it should (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:18:00 AM EST

Markos isn't a Republican(again), he's a businessman selling talking points. He actually believes in everything he has spouted regarding "Crashing the Gates". His problem is the same problem Anna Marie Cox had--once he gained a little notoriety, gained a little bit of clout amongst traditional media, got to do guest spots on tv and hired by Newsweek--he decided the message wasn't as important as continuing to be heard, continuing to be relevant to a larger audience than a few thousand loyal bloggers--by whatever means necessary.

I think he views Obama as being a "gate crasher." Fine, so do a lot of blind followers. But part of dkos and other prog blogs was to do things the right way--the anti-Rovian way. He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has become Rove and his sycophants the propaganda arm. I'd be fine with dKos, there are still a ton of great diaries and front page posts, save for the continued allowance and promotion of falsehoods, innuendo, and baseless assumptions. Any poster can say what they want "Hillary is a racist, Hillary must bow out not..." I don't care about that. What bugs me is the FP'ers all helping to fuel the fire. The blind leading the blind into a brick wall.

I'm a proud lifelong democrat. What is going on with Obama supporters kinda of makes me feel ashamed that Obama is a Dem.. He might believe in a lot of the same things that I do but how he is trying to win this election I most definitely do not agree with.

I would most likely vote Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:24:10 AM EST

if Hillary loses. But you are playing with fire by ridiculing the previous commenter.

Voters will consider country first, party second. The Democrats have majorities in the house and senate and they can't get anything done. If the Democrats can't govern a primary, how can they govern a country?

Sure that makes sense. (none / 0) (#70)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:50:18 AM EST

One of the key reasons that the Democratic congress and senate cannot get a great deal done is that they are dealing with a Republican White House!

[ Parent ]

And McCain can campaign on (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by ding7777 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:59:24 AM EST

there being no difference between him and Obama (privatizing Social Security, no mandates for Health care, support John Roberts, etc) so vote for the guy with experience.

This is why I think Obama is unelectable.

[ Parent ]

Can you not actually find some real (none / 0) (#110)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:34:27 AM EST

positions to make your argument.

Obama is not for privatising social security.

He is for universal healthcare, and indeed in the past has said that ideally he would favour "single payer" healthcare if designing the system from scratch.

The argument that just because his proposal does not contain a mandate then it is the same as McCains is wrong. I have not seen any serious analysis of their positions that equates Obama's (universal healthcare, but without mandates at least at the beginning)with McCain's (status quo).

That argument is about as strong as me saying, well as Hillary voted to invade Iraq, and so did McCain, and McCain has said it's ok to stay in Iraq for 100 or 1,000 years then their positions are the same. I certainly think Obama's positions are better on foreign policy and he is likely to get out of Iraq much faster than Hillary, but I would still take her any day of the week over McCain.

[ Parent ]

Since Obama's Health Care Plan Is NOT (none / 0) (#136)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM EST

universal and he distributed "Harry and Louise" fliers against Universal Health Care, I think your argument stretches the truth.

Obama has also campaigned on the theme that Social Security is in crisis and put it back on the table.

[ Parent ]

I agree with Atrios and other commentators (none / 0) (#157)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:06 AM EST

that his even agreeing that there is an issue with Social Security was unwise, so I'll give you that. But his saying that an option to secure the future of Social Security would be to lift the cap on payroll taxes ( a very progressive position and once that would make the tax system more progressive) is a million billion miles from him being in favour of privatising social security.

[ Parent ]

Social security (5.00 / 1) (#221)
by mm on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:29:28 AM EST

This is the issue that finally pushed me over the edge with Obama. When he was 20 points down in the polls he began attacking Clinton over the Social Security issue. He basically attacked her using republican smears against her "character".

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102907.shtml

BACON (10/27/07): Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

BACON (continuing directly): The statements marked the latest escalation of campaign rhetoric from a candidate who earlier this year declined to criticize his chief opponent for the nomination. Increasingly, he is taking on not just Clinton's policy views but also her character, and is casting the Democratic front-runner as someone who makes decisions based on polls and calculation, rather than on her convictions.

He's basically calling Clinton a liar and a panderer with no real convictions when in fact she is the one taking the strong Democratic position pushing back against the plutocrats in the country who have been trying to get their hands of SS for a long time.

When Obama went to that conservative newspaper in Nevada and talked about how the Republicans had been the "party of ideas" for the last 10 to 15 years, this must be one of those neat ideas he was talking about. The Republicans have had only one idea regarding Social Security for the past 60 years. They. Don't. Like. It. And they want to end it. I simply don't trust Obama.

[ Parent ]

Not really... (none / 0) (#192)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM EST

...the SS cap is at somewhere around $97K.

Family of four earning about $100K isn't exactly living the good life. But it's progressive to raise their taxes?

[ Parent ]

: Riiiiiiight (none / 0) (#215)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:22:38 AM EST

So removing a cap that would only effect people earning over $100,000 a year is not progressive (and even then it would only marginally effect people who earn slightly more)?
Next thing you will be telling me that the "Death Tax" only effects small family farms.

[ Parent ]

We gave dems (5.00 / 3) (#90)
by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM EST

the house and the senate. What have they done? Now, they want us to give them their chosen candidate. To do what?

It has to stop at some point. Maybe if they realize that they are at the extremes of the party rather than the norm, and that the voters are the ones pulling the strings, it will be better for us all.

though, they didn't learn that with Kerry, who lost the core dems because of his elitist NE attitude, so who knows?

At this point in time, with this chicanery, and many other things that have come to the forefront (some so explosive they aren't even being talked about here in the interest of harmony, which I agree with) I am extremely likely to be out of the country as well come November.

[ Parent ]

Kathy- do you understand how govt. works (none / 0) (#98)
by kenosharick on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:22:38 AM EST

at all? The Dems can pass very little without at least 60 votes in the Senate. Then there is a right-wing zealot in the WH who vetos anything they do get through. It is not quite so simple to make the changes we may desire.

[ Parent ]

Well Obama claims he can reach across the aisle (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM EST

Why didn't he exhibit that in the Senate, by getting the less than 10 Repubs the democrats would need to accomplish something?

How's Pelosi and Reid and there "let's all just come together BS working"?

How come the minority Repubs can block so much and the minority Dems couldn't do phit?

[ Parent ]

Ya So (none / 0) (#99)
by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:25:58 AM EST

Pass it and make him veto it. Put them on the record and force votes. I think it is you that doesn't understand politics.

Reid and Pelosi both need to go. They are disasters.

[ Parent ]

: exactly (none / 0) (#106)
by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:32:21 AM EST

why haven't they passed bills demanding withdrawal, for instance? I think Obama put, like, eight bills up for that, right?
Seriously, I have been very disappointed by the way the dems have rolled over for the White House. I totally understand that they do not have the votes to override a veto, but they can coordinate their legislation to get repubs on record as voting against popular bills so that come election, those repubs have to explain why they voted against them.
I have been very understanding toward Pelosi in particular, because you can't herd cats, but that remark she made the other day has me infuriated, and convinced that there is a reason nothing big is getting done.

[ Parent ]

Sent letter (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:38:31 AM EST

Thanks Jeralyn for letting us know who to write to, even though ultimately, the DNC does not give a flying hoot nanny.

Based on Dean and company not having made a clear plan that included the worse case scenario I think they should all resign right after the election. This is disgusting policy, to allow such a gaping hole in bad planning.

They planned for a cake walk, and got the Iraq outcome. Now tell me why these guys are better at running the country? This is strategic planning 101 folks. They did not plan for the worse case scenario. What a bunch of goof balls. Now, whatever happens is illegitimate.

What the? (5.00 / 5) (#67)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:46:45 AM EST

This is NOT about Obama. This is NOT about Clinton. This is about allowing the voters of two states to have their votes count!

Holy crow what is the matter with people that can't see that? But, but Clinton did, or but, but Obama said... So What?

The DNC created this mess and they need to fix it. NOW!

No one has the right to remove 50% of any one's vote. I thought this kind of crap was why so many of us loathed the Republicans? Now many progressives think it's all right to disenfranchise voters in order to give their candidate a boost? Or to keep the hated/evil rival from getting a boost? This hypocrisy needs to stop now. It's not about who is ahead or who stands to gain; it's about what's right.

The Democratic Party needs to do the "right" thing right now. No more more baloney, no more crapola, no more phony rhetoric or attempts to gain an advantage for one candidate or another. The only thing of importance is that the voters of this country, and Florida and Michigan are still a part of the country, aren't they, have their votes counted. All their votes. 100% of their votes.

: Michigan Delegates (none / 0) (#212)
by jsj20002 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST

I beg to differ. The DNC did not create this mess. It was done by the Michigan Democratic Party deliberately to provoke a confrontation with the DNC. Senator Levin, Governor Granholm, Mark Brewer, Debbie Dingell and Senator Stabenow, in descending order of personal responsibility, teed up the January 15 fiasco and so far as I know they are losing the confrontation with the DNC. Had Michigan had a regular caucus on February 9, this argument would not be taking place. I'll still campaign for Senator Levin, but I intend to give him a piece of my mind at his next fundraiser "Up North."

[ Parent ]

Write to the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by superjude on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:58:50 AM EST

Last nite I emailed Phil McNamara of the DNC letting him know my opinion of this mess. I told him that the people of Michigan should not suffer because of a kerfluffle between the the DNC and state officials. Obama was on NPR this AM - Steve Inskeep did not challenge him when he said "my name was taken off the ballot in Michigan". This passive voice - my G-d - who could have done such a thing!! And he mocked Hillary and her supporters and the Michigan voters by saying even his 6 year old could tell you that it wasn't a fair election. I'll tell you - this guy is really something ... possibly as good a communicator is Ronnie Raygun himself.

While I would NEVER vote repub- (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by kenosharick on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:18:43 AM EST

I can understand he sentiment as The vicious way I have been treated by Obama supporters is unprecedented. There are certain blogs I cannot visit unless I want to be called a "troll" or worse for supporting a Democrat. I have been involved since 1980, and never seen such nastines as that comng from Barack's supporters.

Yes, well just wait (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:41:34 AM EST

until the 527's get into the game. Obama is going to be slaughtered in a general election. This will be like Kerry redux except the results will be even worse. He will Lose PA, MO, OH, MI, FL, CO, NV, NM, NH....

But they think they can win the red states lol

: I am with you (none / 0) (#137)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:48:56 AM EST

I have been there for months

[ Parent ]

Your response to stealing is ... more stealing? (3.40 / 5) (#11)
by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:00:31 AM EST

Barack Obama's campaign managed to get his name off the Michigan ballot so that he would be in compliance with the pledge not to "campaign" or "participate" in the Michigan primary. To me, keeping one's name on the ballot equates to "participating" in that primary. So, the solution is to reward Hillary Clinton for violating the pledge and to penalize Obama for complying with it?

That sure seems where HRC wants to go with her quote on NPR:

"'That was his choice,' [Hillary Clinton] says in an interview.... 'There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted.'" (emphasis added)

I believe the bolded portion above is simply not true. Look at the plain meaning of "participate" in the context of an election. The first thing you have to do to participate in an election is to get your name on the ballot. If you don't get your name off the ballot you are effectively "participating" in that election. Clinton's current actions in trying to count the stolen Michigan votes is, in itself, proof of her "participation" in that primary contrary to her pledge.

Seating delegates based on a vote that everyone knew didn't count, and in which one candidate didn't even appear on the ballot, is as arbitrary as using "Rock, Paper, Scissors" to divide the delegates. To do so in favor of a candidate who violated the Democratic Party's rules to gain an advantage is to reward that candidate with the use of "Rock" and "Paper," and "Scissors," too.

they didn't promise not to be in the primary (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:35 AM EST

or to remove their names. Chris Dodd signed the pledge and he kept his name on. They promised not to campaign, period. They were even allowed to hold fundraisers in the state. Read the pledge, it's in one of my earlier posts linked above. Obama's voters were told to vote uncommitted. His supporters took out radio ads telling them to vote uncommitted.

He took his name off because he knew he wasn't going to win it. He has to live with that decision.

Either count these votes or do a statewide primary revote. No caucuses. Michigan expressly provided for a primary not a caucus this year.

[ Parent ]

Dodd, Richardson etc were nowhere in polls (none / 0) (#46)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:15:41 AM EST

They had to do something to try and appear relevant, so they decided to parse the pledge and leave their names on the ballot.

Edwards and Obama took their names off as they interpreted a pledge "not to participate" as requiring them to remove their names if possible (which they were unable to do in Florida because of local election law).

You can argue that Obama and Edwards saw a side benefit in removing their names in that if there was no campaigning in the state then Hillary had a built in structural advantage due to her name ID. You could argue that they were forestalling exactly this eventuality where Hillary wins an uncontested primary due to name ID and tries to get it counted after the fact. I just don't think any of it matters, Hillary pledged not to PARTICIPATE in the election. How can you suddenly count it now?

[ Parent ]

: As reported back in October (none / 0) (#116)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:38:02 AM EST

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
The idea that the pledge required candidates to withdraw their names is just after-the-fact justification by supporters. There's no evidence that a single one of the campaigns actually believed it was true.

[ Parent ]

More on removing their names. (none / 0) (#171)
by liminal on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST

I'm not sure if you've seen this article from the Iowa Independent. The author claims to have spoken with anonymous sources from several campaigns who explicitly said that the Obama campaign reached out to them with a plan to remove their names from the Michigan ballot with the intention of leaving HRC as the only candidate on the ballot.

The story is right here.

[ Parent ]

Straw man alert (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cymro on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:24:32 AM EST

So, the solution is to reward Hillary Clinton for violating the pledge and to penalize Obama for complying with it?

Where in Jeralyn's post do you see the basis for this statement? Yet you spend the rest of your post decrying that straw man, which you yourself erected.

If, for example, there is a revote in MI rather than the 50/50 split that Jeralyn's post opposes, how could that outcome be characterized as "more stealing"?

In fact, nothing in the original post justifies your comment's heading or your illogical argument.

[ Parent ]

Seriously, ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:40:34 AM EST

... did you expect Jeralyn to write that Hillary Clinton violated the pledge? We apparently have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the word "participate."

The following will shed light on that "participation" argument, and it is quoted from the pledge diligently posted by Jeralyn a couple days ago:

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

Keeping your name on the ballot = participating. That seems obvious to me. Now, HRC wants to count "her" votes in Michigan. If she didn't participate in the primary, she wouldn't have any votes to count.

As for use of the word "stealing," I think my choice of wording was too harsh, but in my defense, it was in response to the wording in the original post. To give HRC all of her votes, but allow all the uncommitteds a new choice is no less arbitrary than a 50/50 split. Moreover, it is internally inconsistent with the argument that it was Obama campaigning to have people vote as uncommitted. You can't have it both ways.

P.S. I'm new to posting on this particular forum, but I have seen Jeralyn's work before and have beyond the highest respect for her diligence and ability as an outstanding advocate. We just disagree about this issue.

[ Parent ]

Nice parsing, but no cigar (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:16:00 AM EST

First, your argument conflates running for office with campaigning for office. Running for office, i.e., the actual declaration that one is seeking office and putting one's name on the ballot, is clearly distinct from campaigning, i.e., undertaking all those activities that constitute an appeal for votes, such as advertising, rallies, etc. As any uncontested election demonstrates, it is perfectly possible to run for an office without campaigning for it.

Second, the Four State Pledge expressly incorporates by reference the DNC definition of campaigning for purposes of determining a violation. Rule 20(c)(1)(b) of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules defines "campaigning" as follows:

"Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state.

While this list is not exclusive (the phrase "includes, but is not limited to" renders the list illustrative, not exclusionary), it is quite doubtful that something as fundamental to an election as placing one's name on a ballot would be inadvertently left off an otherwise quite detailed list of what constitutes "campaigning" if that was truly the intent of the DNC drafters.

Admittedly, the Four State Pledge itself is poorly drafted in that it gives rise to an ambiguity by saying "campaign or participate" (my emphasis). However, a canon of construction used to interpret statutes is useful here: noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps). Put simply, when a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute (the same basic principle applies to the interpretation of contracts, which is what the pledge more closely resembles). Here, "participate" is the ambiguous term. Given that this term is followed in the same sentence with a single express reference to the DNC definition of "campaigning," it was almost certainly intended by the drafters to fall within the DNC definition of campaigning, and not to constitute a separate category of activity such as placing one's name on a ballot.

Finally, one can infer from the conduct of the candidates that they did not share your "obvious" reading of the pledge. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton signed the Four State Pledge on September 1, 2007. Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Biden removed their names from the Michigan ballot by filing the required affidavit of withdrawal on the last possible day to do so, October 9, 2007. Funny how they didn't all rush to pull their names off the ballot for over five weeks after signing the pledge if it was so obvious, no? Think there could have been a political motive rather than a principled stand for these guys? Think they interpreted "stay on the ballot" as a violation of the pledge from the get-go? Hmmmm...

[ Parent ]

xspowr, I see that we also disagree ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:55:49 AM EST

about the meaning of "participate." I think the word is unambiguous in the context of an election. We agree that Barack Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot, but Hillary Clinton did not. By dint of having her name on the ballot, she is now able to "claim" a certain percentage of the vote. Barack cannot do that. Why? Because he didn't participate in the election.

You wish to ascribe a base motive for Obama's move to remove his name from the ballot. Why would the reverse not be true -- HRC left her name on the ballot in violation of the plain meaning of the pledge for just such an occasion?

I would like to think that Barack Obama would have removed his name from the Florida primary ballot if it was at all possible. Unfortunately, state law prevented him. The following is directly cut and pasted from the Florida Democratic Party website:

Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?
Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida's Secretary of State the names of our Party's presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q17

Additionally, unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama did not hold fund raisers in Florida, which activities could be construed as a violation of the pledge. Why punish the person who followed the rules?

You Might Want To Check Your Facts (5.00 / 4) (#53)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:36:25 AM EST

Fund raisers in both Michigan and Florida were allowed by the DNC. Obama did hold fund raisers in FL. Not only did he hold fund raisers he held an impromptu news conference in Tampa which was against the rules of the DNC. Obama was the only candidate that had political ads running in Florida.

[ Parent ]

You aren't addressing his/her point (none / 0) (#134)
by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:47:42 AM EST

How can you reconcile rewarding Hillary Clinton for breaking her pledge not to "participate" in the MI & FL primaries? Do you deny Clinton signed this particular pledge?

[ Parent ]

By Your Standards, Obama Broke His Pledge Not (none / 0) (#154)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:00:35 AM EST

to participate in Florida but you choose to ignore that information. Clinton did not do anything against the so called RULES in either Michigan or Florida. The were no rules that required candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Those candidates who CHOSE to remove their names did so for political gain. There were no RULES that prevented any candidate from doing fund raisers in either state. In fact, Obama did do fund raisers.

The so called rules also stated that the option would be available to seat the delegates at the convention.

So when Obama had a press conference in Tampa the day after he signed the pledge, did he obey the rules? When Obama ran political ads in Florida, did he obey the rules? Do you deny that Obama signed the pledge?

[ Parent ]

: You seem to be confused (none / 0) (#198)
by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:14:54 AM EST

Obama couldn't get his name off the ballot without signing an affidavit stating he was no longer a candidate for President. There is a link provided above.
You also have a strange definition of participate. If you truly believe Obama broke the rules by having a press conference and running ads on CNN then why reward him by giving him delegates? Is it ok to break the rules when everyone does it?
I do understand why people want FL & MI to have a voice but to argue that their January primaries were legitimate requires one to suspend his disbelief for a long period of time.

[ Parent ]

I have read (none / 0) (#51)
by magisterludi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:25:09 AM EST

that both Obama and Clinton held fundraisers in FL. Where did you get that info? I'd like to read it.

[ Parent ]

That was legal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by facta non verba on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:32:34 AM EST

Democratic candidates could hold private fund-raisers in Florida, they could not hold public campaign events.

[ Parent ]

: For pity's sake, there was no law (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:35:30 AM EST

involved. The 4-state pledge was not a laws. Nor does the DNC pass laws.
Can we please stop using terms like "illegal" in this debate? Or show me, show me the "law" that said Obama had to take his name off the ballot, or the "law" that said anyone had to sign the pledge.
If so, then it was Obama who broke the law by breaking the conditions of the pledge. That was unethical, yes, but even he did not break a "law."

[ Parent ]

campaigning (none / 0) (#47)
by teachermom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:16:08 AM EST

Didn't Obama purchase advertisements in Florida? Why should a cheater be rewarded?

[ Parent ]

He didn't purchase ads "in Florida" (none / 0) (#55)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:56:53 AM EST

He ran a couple of National Cable Ad buys which he was not able to exclude Florida from.

Seems like a very expensive way of advertising in Florida if that was his aim.

[ Parent ]

Like money mattered? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM EST

And you think he did not know that by buying some national ads that Florida would be included? I bet the guy on his advertising team knew.

[ Parent ]

Of course they knew, they are on the record (none / 0) (#113)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:37:25 AM EST

They asked the cable stations if there was any way to exclude Florida and were told that there was not. They then sought legal advice and advice from the DNC and were told that it would not break the pledge.

[ Parent ]

: Incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:40:36 AM EST

They were given the okay by one person - Carol Fowler, South Carolina party chair, who is now an Obama superdelegate. The DNC never "cleared" the ads. In fact, if you read the DNC's definition of campaigning, it's quite clear that the ads were a violation.

[ Parent

No to Obama's Proposal of 50-50 in Michigan

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

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats