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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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"...


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


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?  


    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.



    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.


    San Francisco, CA

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    *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?


    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.


    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.  

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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).


    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.

    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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".


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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."

    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

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.      


    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...


    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.


    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.

    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?  

    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?


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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."


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#143)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    Link, please (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:38:12 AM EST
    Hello, Tortmaster (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:59:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn wants to limit the meaning of "participate" to "campaigning." Seems to me if the pledge was only about "campaigning" then the additional word "participate" would be unnecessary. So what does "participate" mean when talking about a primary, especially in the light that these pledges were in conjunction with the DNC saying that the primaries would not count because they violated party rules?

    I would venture that "participate" included all parts of the primary, including the awarding of delegates. After all, if one accepts delegates, that's participating in the most important part of the primary.

    Does anyone really think that the intention of the DNC pledge was to allow Clinton to claim delegates from what the DNC said were primaries that didn't count? If you do, then you are only deluding yourselves.


    But he did participate (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:12:02 AM EST
    He chose to be participate on the uncommitted line and he campaigned to have voters chose uncommitted. He participated in every sense of the word. His participation may have been different than Hillary's but that it is still participation nevertheless.

    erm, yeah, good luck with that argument (none / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:48:55 AM EST
    It's an excellent argument, IMO. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    I disagree. (none / 0) (#115)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    Yeah, I got that. (none / 0) (#185)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    A few points: (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:39:19 AM EST
    If the DNC had intended that "not participating" was to mean "not being on the ballot," the DNC would have either gone beyond an optional pledge and included that sanction as part of its decision to strip both states of their delegates, or been explicit in the pledge by stating that, "candidates agree to take whatever steps are necessary to remove themselves from the ballot, unless doing so would require them to withdraw from the race."

    Being in the states to raise funds was not prohibited.  With respect to Obama's national ad buy, the notion that it "couldn't" have been blocked in Florida has been debunked by several commenters here with some expertise in that area.  I tend to regard the advertising ploy as the equivalent of "oops - did I say that out loud?"

    The decision to take his name off the ballot was Obama's and Obama's alone; it is not up to the DNC, the Michigan state party or the Clinton campaign to mitigate the consequences of that decision.  If seated as is, the delegates allocable to the uncommitted votes should be treated as uncommitted, unpledged delegates that can commit to either candidate.

    It is not "tearing the party apart" for Clinton to insist that any solution must have as its highest priority that no citizen's vote is appropriated and assigned to a candidate who didn't earn that vote.  What tears the party apart and turns democracy upside down is arbitrarily subverting the vote.  If the DNC and the state parties cannot honor the commitment to this principle, they should understand that their decision will have exceedingly unpleasant consequences for the party, and the country.

    Finally, this is not about making decisions on the basis of which decision is most likely to maintain one candidate's margin of victory over another, but about the sanctity of the vote.  We have always fought hard against forces on the Republican side which want to control the outcome of elections by manipulating the legislative process, and making concerted efforts to deny the vote to those who are typically Democratic voters; to make a decision in this case that ultimately has the same result will haunt us for years, and significantly undermine our credibility on voting rights issues.

    Doing the right thing may have consequences for this election, but if principles are to have any meaning, all of the parties involved need to take a step back and commit to upholding those principles for the good of the party and the country.


    The pledge (none / 0) (#181)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    If what you say is true, then why the "requirement" to take one's name off the ballot in Michigan, but not in Florida?

    There was no such requirement (none / 0) (#199)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    Did you read the pledge?  Something tells me you did not.

    a little forthrightness from TalkLeft, please (none / 0) (#12)
    by dc2008 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:13:26 AM EST
    I don't agree with the 50/50 solution either, but I think the tone of this post reflects an extreme pro-Hillary bias that I and friends of mine have often noted on this blog.  The Michigan Democratic Party was ruled by the DNC as having violated the rules, with the penalty being that their delegation would not get to vote at the convention.  They could have worked within the rules to begin with, or modified their timetable when there was still more time, but they didn't.  Given the principle that changing the rules in the middle of the game is a bad thing, there are any number of compromises that are reasonable to consider, and this is one of them.  Some people have proposed that the delegates get half votes.  Would that be theft of half of the votes?

    There is a basic reality to this situation that I have not seen Jeralyn recognize, which is that there is a difference -- a BIG difference -- between having a candidate's name on a ballot vs. not having a candidate's name on the ballot and having to organize a special thing like voting uncommitted.  And there is a HUGE difference between a primary or a caucus with a real campaign preceding it, and one that doesn't have a real campaign, especially when one candidate is going in with much greater initial name recognition than the other.

    Again, I don't agree with the 50/50 solution.  But if time runs out and other options don't work, that might be the best gesture that can be made.  I hope that's not how it goes down.  But I certainly don't think it's any less defensible than going with the percentages that were generated in the fundamentally flawed votes already held in Michigan (and Florida), and I frankly think that TalkLeft is not being forthright in refusing to acknowledge how fundamentally flawed those votes were given the circumstances.  Do you want huge numbers of Democratic voters feeling that the election has been stolen from their candidate?  Use the percentages from the original Michigan and Florida votes, you'll be guaranteed to get that.

    Why is Obama proposing a last resort solution? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:39:10 AM EST
    You write:

    Again, I don't agree with the 50/50 solution.  But if time runs out and other options don't work, that might be the best gesture that can be made.

    OK, that's your position, but you are proposing it as a last resort solution. That is not what Obama is proposing -- today. Today, time has NOT run out. Today, other options have NOT been ruled out.

    So your position is unrelated to Jeralyn's post, which is objecting to Obama's proposal to claim 50% of the vote in MI today, without exploring other options, as if no other more sensible and less divisive solutions were possible.


    asdf (none / 0) (#21)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:55:43 AM EST
    They are trying their best to run out the clock though.

    CNN had reported couple of days ago (via The Confluence) that 90 days notice is needed, and DNC needs primaries to conclude by June 10th.  The time is running out fast.  It's not like a primary could be arranged and done in a week's time.


    Dean is wussing out (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:12:14 AM EST
    by saying both candidates have to approve of the solution. What kind of leadership is that? One candidate will always oppose a solution if it advantages his or her opponent.

    The (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:29:45 AM EST
    kind of leadership that refuses to lead. I was a "Deaniac" and an ashamed to see that with the lack of leadership Howard Dean has shown in the DNC he would have made almost as lousy a president as Bush. (Almost. We can assume he would have at least tried to find a solution to end the occupation of Iraq.)

    The Democratic Party is showing once again why they have only been 12 years with a Democrat in the White House in the last 40. Absolutely disgusting!


    One could say (none / 0) (#217)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    Clinton, her supporters and the two state parties ran down the clock by taking the position that the non-sanctioned primaries must count. If they had negotiated immediately after the bogus primaries then perhaps a solution would be reached. Instead, the parties and Clinton attempted to blackmail the DNC into accepting the non-sanctioned primaries.

    The 50/50 split is the last solution for seating a delegation from each state. But, folks, look up at the clock. You ran it down. You have no one to blame but yourselves.


    Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    ...there are more Clinton supporters than Obama supporters here and - personally - I like it that way.

    Trust me on this - you'll have no problems finding an Obama echo chamber out there in the blogosphere.  I can give you plenty of good references and I've got scars to prove it.


    I agree (none / 0) (#162)
    by Deadalus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    I also have enjoyed this website for a long time and only recently created an account to join in on what I believe is a feeding frenzy here.  

    The Michigan/Florida debacle is a terrible situation, but it is patently unfair to blame Obama for it.  He has maintained that he would go along with whatever the DNC wishes to do.  TalkLeft also will not acknowledge that seating the delegation from Michigan is not "fair", as the Senator claims, by any legal standard or ethical consensus.  

    I do not agree with the 50/50 solution, but the delegates there would not greatly alter the state of the race, and this whole thing is a ruse--the super's will decide and the delegate split there would be in the single digits

    At this stage in the race, it would behoove TalkLeft to mention that Barack Obama is ahead in delegates even if you include Florida and the entirely lopsided results from Michigan.

    He's ahead --- WITH THEM.  So holding  a re-vote is just not important, from a pragmatic perspective, except as a gesture of democracy.  That argument, though, is very persuasive, and I wish they would hold a re-vote.  It appears a strong possibility in Michigan now, so I hope TalkLeft will stop saying that Obama is "stealing" the election and focus on the news that a Michigan primary is in the works.

    If and when Barack Obama nixes the Michigan primary solution--then we can hold him accountable, but mixing up bad feelings about the probable nominee and front-runner may cost us come November.


    I think.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:25 AM EST
    We should pressure our state parties also. Fifty state party chairs who fear financial losses and election losses will create more noise than 5,000,000 emails to a guy named Phil.

    Any state with a governor or senator up for reelection will fear any threatened drop in their voters due to shenanigans in the national primary. Any state with significant anti-Democratic ballot initiatives will fear any threatened drop in Democratic voter participation.

    The Democratic Party is about more than one candidate, one office.

    Democracy at the DailyKos (none / 0) (#16)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:29:00 AM EST
    The Michigan compromise
    by kos
    Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:20 PM PDT

    This would be cheaper than spending $30 million on hasty contests.

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

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

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

    Split them all 50/50, and you've got a deal.


    Oh Markos. Clearly expense is more important than the will of the people. I have always thought this guy an idiot. Just because you are a liberal doesn't make you full of common sense or even a democrat. I love the word "hasty." Honestly "hasty." Laughing now. Like we are in a rush to decide something important.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#18)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:44:48 AM EST
    You rock.  Thanks.  Nothing can be added to your post.  

    voting Dem (none / 0) (#23)
    by andrelee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:31:33 AM EST
    It seems very illogical to note that the 50/50 proposition has serious drawbacks because of the effect if might have on HRC, the voters of MI and FL, and that, ultimately in the long run, the voters in MI and FL may feel shafted by the Dems fueling bad feelings which would help McCain in the general election but then posit that if Obama is the nominee that one will/should not vote for him and thus risk McCain as POTUS. Though some may feel this way for this particular reason, or for some other reason just like Obama folks who say 'either Obama or McCain but not Hillary' the effect on the country and it's people is the most important thing to me. It's undoubtedly important to preserve voting rights and fairness, even voting preferences and the appearence of fairness. I think ones response to this situation, and just about anything else that determines ones vote has to be placed in the context of the many days and years down the road that will be driven by whoever the POTUS will be. Obviously there is a better feeling derived from voting FOR someone than AGAINST someone else by default but, hey, that's one of the 'benefits' of being an adult, making stinky decisons for the benefit of others. This site is certainly pro-Hil  but not anti-OB in the slanderous and immature, 'Hil is an evil, monster, sociopathic suckubus' vein familiar to some 'other' Dem blogs. Thanks for having this site.  

    What is trolling? peace.

    You can always count on Obama; (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:39:12 AM EST
    he'll always let you down.

    And of course this isn't the first form of theft he's promoted.  He's a big fan of usury too!

    gosh (none / 0) (#80)
    by VicAjax on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:02:37 AM EST
    if you'd posted this about Hillary, it would have been deleted by now.

    Go figure.


    Surely there are other deadly sins (none / 0) (#126)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:43:25 AM EST
    you can ascribe to Obama as well while you are at it?  

    I won't ask what you are referring to with the usury remark as I don't really want to delve into the fever swamp.


    Obama voted for (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:51 AM EST
    no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates.

    Thus, usury.


    Stone him to death why don't you. (none / 0) (#188)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    Or am I mixing up my biblical references?

    As I understand it he was convinced to vote against it as part of an effort to impose a lower ceiling (i.e. he felt 30% was too high).


    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Deadalus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:04:15 AM EST
    Usury?  The whole country is in favor of usury.  Let's also not forget that Clinton voted for the bankruptcy bill.

    Random smears of either candidate (none / 0) (#189)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    have little to do with the topic of this post.

    Vote count (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thurloe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:42:35 AM EST
    D'oh.  I made an error above.  The popular vote count for Obama does not include Michigan or Florida.  Hillary is +300K in Florida and all of Michigan is +Hillary.  Florida should definitely be counted and drop that number down.

    The proposed compromise does (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:11:02 AM EST
    involve counting Florida (though the pledged delegates would count for 50% as per the DNC's bylaws).  In that scenario you could count the votes from Florida.

    There is no fair scenario that involves counting the Michigan votes from the first contest.


    Clarification? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST

    I agree with you that the Michigan vote as it stands should not be counted - unfair to Obama's supporters. But the 50/50 thing is also unfair - to the voters. Only a revote will be fair.

    But, could you please clarify about Florida - so the current popular vote total would stand as is? If so, that's not bad but still not completely fair on the delegates.

    I can't see any fairness unless both states re-vote. It's not about the candidates, but about the voters.


    Obama and Clinton Mud Wrestle (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mark Woods on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:55:12 AM EST
     While the Fate of the Free World Hangs in the Balance . . .

    In the mean time, George Bush is still trying to see how much EVIL he and his Dark Master Dick Overlord Cheney can create before the American people finally rise up and drive the Bush/Cheney crime families into the sea with pitch forks and torches . . .

    I voted in Florida for Hillary and I NEVER intended for Obama to have 50% of my vote!

    one man, one vote? (none / 0) (#37)
    by wiredick on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:20:14 AM EST
    what a joke.  We hve adopted the politics of third world dictators.  Lets just let a group of elites elect our sainted leaders; elections are expensive.  Why not allow a group of caucus voters decide in nov., the election.  We can then come up with more money for war, rich tax cuts and petroleum explorations.  Smirk wanted to be the dictator, maybe Obama would love continuing the trend.

    You're right. An election with one viable (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:17:11 AM EST
    candidate on the ballot does smack of a third world dictatorship.  But hey,  anything to help Hillary win?

    Thank you JoeA! (none / 0) (#57)
    by barryluda on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:18:05 AM EST
    Like Obama's state senate election? (none / 0) (#132)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    Exacly like it. It's the "Chicago Way" (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    as it is called; see the press there -- articles being picked up even in Europe about the questionable electoral record of a putative future president from Chicago (google obama and chicago way. . . .).

    So you are equating the Presidency (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    to a Chicago State Senate primary?

    I'm not sure how this is relevant? (none / 0) (#43)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:09:04 AM EST
    Markos has shown a committment to Democratic causes and is a partisan Democrat.  He has also said that he will campaign to ensure the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) wins against McCain.

    I've not seen any an posters on the Great Orange Satan saying that they have started getting their news from Fox and are considering sitting on their hands/voting for McCain if Obama wins the nomination.

    Disagree (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:18:28 AM EST
    First, Markos has shown himself to be a partisan Obama supporter, not a partisan Democrat. He regularly swiftboats and smears Clinton and distorts what the campaign says.

    Second, if you haven't read hundreds of accounts of commenters and writers over there swearing they would vote against Clinton in the GE, then you haven't been reading. Yes, Markos has said that he would vote for Clinton if necessary in the GE but what does that really mean when he has directed all of his energy stomping her into the ground, including inciting more racial hatred against her with that unbelievable tabloid crap about darkening Obama's skin and widening his noise?



    So, very recently he has become a partisan (none / 0) (#71)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:51:54 AM EST
    Obama supporter.

    Prior to that are you arguing that Dailykos has not been a partisan Democratic party supporting site?

    Just because he is supporting the other candidate in the primary does not make him less of a democrat.


    Markos goal is to elect Democrats. (none / 0) (#86)
    by lilybart on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:07:02 AM EST
    If you were a reader there you would know this.

    TalkLeft is now HillaryTalk. Jeralyn has chosen a side. So has Markos. Your point?


    Disagree again (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    I am a reader there, although it is increasingly nauseating to do so - it's like Lord of the Flies over there. A mob mentality. A hatemongering site. Etc.

    Unfortunately, Markos is irrational about what he believes - logic never gets in the way of his goals. Furthermore, he uses Republican swiftboating tactics against fellow democrats when it suits his purpose to do so. In addition, he has repeatedly lied about and distorted what Clinton and her campaign has said. Let's see - what else? Did I mention that his blog is now equivalent to a supermarket tabloid after the skin-darkening crap? Did I mention that he's a horrible apologist for sexist slurs?

    I'll stop for now. But I could go on all day. If that's what a democrat stands for, I no longer wish to be one.


    oh there is a big difference (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    Markos supports Obama, as do all the other Front Pagers.  The majority of people who post daily are Obama supporters.  They are vitriolic, confrontational, foul-mouthed, and not interested in hearing an opposing view.  Sure Kos wants to elect Dems--but it is how he is going about it that some of us have a problem with.  By any means necessary doesn't work for me.  I want to elect Dems but I'm not going to sacrifice my principles to get it done.  IMO Kos doesn't have principles, read Crashing the Gates, he wants a Dem machine built in the style of the GOP machine that was so successful from the early 90's to 2006.  That is what I see on dKos now...a propaganda machine that proffers innuendo as fact.  If they are willing to make a fellow Dem into the female KKK Grand Wizard then how far will they go with McCain?  I don't like McCain but I won't agree to using anything but cold, hard facts against him.

    Talkleft is none of those things.  BTD supports Obama.  Jeralyn is not as interested in propping up Hillary as she is in making sure this primary process remains free and fair and that all votes are counted.  Don't equate the majority of Talkleft's posters support for Hillary as Talkleft administrators supporting Hillary.

    The posters like it here because it is not dKos atmosphere.  Everyone here is trying to make their arguments respectfully as opposed to trying to force their views on someone with the dull thud of a sledgehammer.  Starting fights and cursing and name calling are not tolerated.

    Sure Kos has a bigger site to monitor--wouldn't be able to enforce same standards--but he is going out of his way to foster anti-Hillary speak.  No one in mainstream media (save KO) and most voters don't think Hillary is a racist--that isn't stopping Kos from keeping the idea alive.  We don't agree with Obama on his opposition to getting the delegates from MI and FL.  Other than that there isn't a whole lot of argument going on against Obama.

    Most of us aren't anti-Obama, we are pro-Hillary.  We see a double standard being applied to how both candidates are treated by the media and we try to point out the hypocrisy.  But I haven't seen one post on this site that calls Obama "a g*d^& mother-effin cheater/racist/bi*ch" which I can see on dKos by clicking on any recommended diary and any FP post that deals with the Hillary or Obama.  I haven't seen one post where someone manufactures stories about voter fraud or voter intimidation--which I saw on dKos.  

    Everyone can overstate a position from time to time, make a mistake, get too personal--I haven't seen one person start launching f-bombs if someone corrects them or asks them to tone it down.  I'm not saying Talkleft is the be all and end all (just might be) but as a refugee from Kos I can say with certainty that I would much rather have a civil debate here with Obama supporters than have a shouting match on dKos.  

    At least those are differences I see.


    No offense... (none / 0) (#183)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    ... to Jeralyn, but this statement is simply untrue:
    Jeralyn is not as interested in propping up Hillary as she is in making sure this primary process remains free and fair and that all votes are counted.
    Jeralyn has been constantly propping up Hillary.

    And that is okay - it is her site.  As much as it drives me crazy sometimes, I have gotten to a point where I am okay with it.  

    Jeralyn has a right to be biased.  And she clearly has been.  

    What Jeralyn, and BTD, do better than other biased sites is limit some of the vitriol in the comments, and that is why I keep coming back here.


    pt taken (none / 0) (#214)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    but I haven't seen Jeralyn make one comment stating she is Hillary or nothing.

    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    Jeralyn doesn't allow racist or sexist smears. DKos allows all manner of vile, disgusting personal attacks only on Senator Clinton. Here, we keep it civil. Seems obvious to everyone but you.

    Talkleft Hillary talk? (none / 0) (#196)
    by motorman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    I hope so. I came here because this site was mentioned on another blog as ONE that is not Hillary hate all the time 24/7.  I could vote for either but I am repelled by the acrimony against HRC supporters on most other sites. It's worse than the Neocons.  I am a liberal and have a natural tendency to defend whatever dog is getting kicked the most. HRC isn't even very liberal for me but that's the way it is.  Thanks TalkLeft for being here

    Whose to say that this isn't also a negotiating (none / 0) (#50)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:24:29 AM EST

    What if the final agreement is along the lines of

    Florida -  seated as is but with a 50% penalty,  i.e. each delegate received a half a vote.  All super delegates count fully.

    Michigan - Hillary gets 55% of the delegates, Obama 45% and again they are seated with half a vote each and all superdelegates count fully.

    I could live with that. (none / 0) (#66)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:42:46 AM EST
    It would be in line with the DNC automatic sanctions which were known and expected when they moved their dates.

    It's an imperfect solution, but I do think (none / 0) (#74)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    it might be the "least bad" option.

    Thanks, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:44:45 AM EST
    I am so upset about this. I wrote to McNamara. But, also, I think we should all be writing to the Clinton campaign demanding that they not capitulate to this?

    My Letter to the DNC (none / 0) (#62)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:31:52 AM EST
    Here's my letter to the DNC:

    Dear Phil McNamara,

    In support of re-votes in Florida and Michigan, I am writing to express my concern about the status of the Florida and Michigan delegations.  

    My concerns regarding this issue have been growing throughout the winter as everywhere I looked the possible votes from Florida and Michigan were completely disregarded.  At first, I argued against a wide-spread belief that because "Rules are Rules" the two states wouldn't be seated at all.  Can you imagine that, I'd ask?  The commentators would look over the convention floor and talk about how HISTORIC this convention is -- NOT because of our two candidates -- but because for the first time ever two states are missing from the convention floor.

    It's shocking:  There are people in this country who are prepared to keep the Florida and Michigan delegates off the floor in support of the DNC Rules!

    Are we seriously considering disenfranchising the voters of those states?  I can't tell from public reports of compromises that include:

       1. The audacious idea of splitting the Michigan delegation in half for Senators Clinton and Obama
       2. Punishing the Florida delegation by cutting their delegation in half.

    Governor Dean might have said, we can do better than that.  What I want to know is, why aren't we?

    As Democrats in the oldest democracy on the planet, are we compromising voter rights for rules and process?  Are we going to nominate a candidate at a convention tainted by second-class delegations?  For what else could the delegations of Florida and Michigan be if they don't represent voters in officially sanctioned elections?

    Last week, James Carville announced that he had donors committed to contributing half the cost of new primaries in Florida and Michigan.  This week I'm hearing talk of "simply half's" dividing the Michigan delegation and cutting the Florida delegation. This is unacceptable.

    The Democratic party is better than these shenanigans indicate.  We can hold primaries in those two states, we must.

    Even in Kansas, people are talking, Mr. McNamara -- and it doesn't sound good.  Please  ask Governor Dean to speak for us.  Ask him to get primaries on the schedule for Florida and Michigan.  In this year when every vote counts, let's count every vote.

    Thank you.

    I'm sick of this.  I can't vote for a Republican -- I never have.  But I live in one of the reddest states, so I don't know why I should taint my soul with an upsetting vote.  We've taken some satisfaction in the years since 2000 in the fact that Gore won the popular vote.  Well, I'm going to contribute to Senator Obama's popular vote if he continues to negotiate with voter's rights.

    General Election Question (none / 0) (#68)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:48:14 AM EST
    Does any one know if you can arbitrarily write in a candidate that is not on the ballot in every state?    If there is anybody know the rules?

    an official with the DNC (none / 0) (#72)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM EST
    has stated on his website that "they all agreed to the rules".

    I emailed him and wanted to know if by "they all" he meant the candidates or just the Party Chairs.

    His reply:

    And the candidates in the sense that they didn't have t run if they didn't want to.  And they agreed not to run in MI and FL.

    That's a DNC official who is conflating the Rules with the Pledge and justifying it

    I feel for Obama (none / 0) (#73)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:53:13 AM EST
    if he becomes the nominee.  I think the Republicans are going to swift boat him very easily.  I heard on the radio that his pastor Jeramigh Wright made some very terrible racial remarks yesterday.  I think the republicans are going to milk it for all it's worth.

    to contact is Phil McNamara. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:00:27 AM EST
    I never ever thought I would actually be considering voting for Ralph Nader.
    but it is happening.
    this is outrageous.

    Michigan broke the rules. (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilybart on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:01:55 AM EST
    Michigan knew that holding an early primary meant their delegation would not be seated.

    THAT is the issue here.
    Hillary is trying to change the rules to suit her.

    This blog needs to be renamed, HillaryTalk!

    and how about (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:04:48 AM EST
    the Obama states that "broke the rules"
    would be happy taking those delegates away from Obama.
    thought not.

    it would be (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:02:38 AM EST
    one thing to give him the uncommitted votes.
    stupid and unfair but possibly worth it to shut them up this is taking the proverbial mile when offered the inch.
    on the other hand after watching MSNBC this morning I think he has much bigger problems.

    Obama & Clinton & Robert Burns (none / 0) (#82)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:04:02 AM EST
    I am asking sincerely, if Obama were making the same arguments that Hillary is making, and it was he who won the Michigan Primary, would everybody on both sides be making the opposing argument about what "participate" means?

    Burns wrote

    "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion"

    And if Obama supporters say something Hillary has to do or they won't vote for her, would everyone be praising them?

    I Think That Counting Votes Accurately (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:14:50 AM EST
    should go beyond which candidate you support. The best way to resolve this is to have primaries in MI and FL in June and count all the votes no matter who they benefit. If new primaries were held, there is a chance that Obama could do better and I would be OK with that. What I'm not OK with is not counting all the votes or giving Obama votes that Clinton actually won.

    p. s. (none / 0) (#84)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:05:44 AM EST
    I always click on the Memeorandum links to Talk Left Stories, even though I check Talk Left anyway. Does clicking on Memeorandum links help Talk Left get more Memeorandum links? I asked this is another post, and it was not answered, so forgive the redundancy....

    Reasonable Obama supporters can agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:06:26 AM EST
    That the 50/50 split would be undemocratic.  Can reasonable Clinton supporters get behind a letter like this?:

    Dear Senator Clinton,

    At the time of the Michigan and Florida "primaries", there was widespread agreement that the votes would not count toward the election of convention delegates.  You yourself said in New Hampshire that the Michigan primary would not "count for anything."  But now it seems you are going back on your word and attempting to seat the Michigan delegates.

    After eight years of George W. Bush, we need a President who will keep her word.

    We will vote for you in November if you win the primary fair and square.  Please stop trying to steal votes.

    No, I would not get behind it. (none / 0) (#102)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:30:31 AM EST
    After dealing with 'reasonable Obama supporters' at other sites I have found that none of the Obama supporters are very reasonable. So, do you oppose a 50/50 split for your candidate and would you send the same letter to OHB?

    The truth of the matter is: We can reasonably agree that HRC supporters want the votes counted as is because she is the winner in those two states. We can also reasonable agree that OHB supporters do not want them counted because he did not win in those states.

    BUT, we both can reasonably agree that if we do not count the votes in these two important states, then we will most likely lose these states in the General Election. So if OHB has nothing to fear because he is sure he is going to win, then let the votes stand as is.


    you would certainly hope (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    we could agree on all those thing.
    I see no evidence.

    I clearly indicated that I oppose the 50/50 split (none / 0) (#147)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    And you clearly indicated that a candidate who breaks their word is a-ok with you.  Telling.

    Right. (none / 0) (#168)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    After dealing with 'reasonable Obama supporters' at other sites I have found that none of the Obama supporters are very reasonable.
    This is a ridiculous assertion, and you know it.  

    And the very fact that you believe this shows that you have an inability to be reasonable.


    Get behind this balderdash? (none / 0) (#121)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    Absolutely not! It isn't up to Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama if the people in Michigan or Florida are to be disenfranchised. Allowing citizens to vote and then to count that vote is NOT stealing votes.

    This is about the voters getting to have their say. Anything else is just more campaign and partisan rhetoric.


    A revote is the only solution (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:45:11 AM EST
    JJE is more reasonable on this than anyone else.

    He agrees that revotes are the solution.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#153)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Unfortunately my hopes are growing dim as the campaigns appear to be engaged in some sort of brinksmanship.

    I think there's still hope for Michigan. (none / 0) (#174)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    But I don't see Florida doing anything. And I can't honestly blame either campaign for that. If Debbie and Bill can't see eye to eye on a solution...there's not much anyone outside the state can do.

    Don't get me wrong (none / 0) (#104)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:30:51 AM EST
    The republicans will come after Hilary too and try to swift boat her also, but we know pretty much all the skeletons in Hilary's closet.  They been hashed over many times.  There isn't that much we do not know about Hilary and even with all that ammunition against her she and bill have survived it all. Bill had a 65 % approval rating after he left despite everything that happened.  They been through the battles and know how to fight back.  I could be wrong, but I just don't think Obama is strong enough to fight back.  Sometimes you got to really fight back and there is nothing wrong with that.  If you keep saying will I don't want to fight back because then I will look like the Clinton's, or it ruins my pristine image of how I am running my campaign,  chances are then you are going to loose.

    Strong enough? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Deadalus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:09 AM EST
    I think you have very little information to back up that claim and only time will tell.  We do know that Hillary is not palatable to a larger chunk of the population than Obama, based on consistent unfavorability ratings.  Her preferred method of "fighting back" has not really turned out well for her in this election, for whatever reason, it has turned off voters.

    I like that Obama takes a calm, level-headed approach and doesn't play the spin war with the tenacity that Clinton exhibits.  I think it speaks well of his character.


    I agree that the proposal is a nonstarter (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM EST
    I disagree that the first Michigan contest was meaningful.

    A revote is the only solution.

    do you think (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:38:02 AM EST
    any agreement is possible based on giving him some or all of the non committed votes.
    just gasping for solutions.

    Not sure I follow your point (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    But I do know that a revote is the solution.

    Anything else is not worth even considering.


    well (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:48:01 AM EST
    I have heard talk about giving Hillary the votes she actually got and giving him the non committed votes.
    this does not sound that fair to me but I was just wondering what those here think about that or giving him any portion of the non committed votes.
    I admit it is a silly idea but we are getting into silly territory and the clock is ticking.

    revote (none / 0) (#129)
    by deminma on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:44:36 AM EST
    What do you think should happen if the revote does not happen?   ie  Obama and clinton  gum up the works  -  I put clinton in this as well as she will not accept caucuses because she does not know how to compete in that venue.

    If there is no revote (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:45:43 AM EST
    It does not matter what they do.

    I know nothing about local pols in Michigan... (none / 0) (#140)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    Are we looking at the same kind of intra-party infighting that Florida suffers from? Or is there a meaningful chance of a revote getting off the ground?

    You need to read this site (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    Check out the post on the MI revote near-agreement.

    Clinton's broken promises (none / 0) (#124)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

    Which election do you think she was talking about?

    When she pledged not to participate in a primary that didn't count according herself and the DNC, what part of participating didn't she understand? Or was she merely lying?

    She didn't know the election (none / 0) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:06:32 AM EST
    would be so close.

    Now that it is, in order to get a clear perception of what the voters actually want, we need to include these folks.

    It's the reality, not the Obama spin, we are addressing here.

    Did you also object to recounting Florida when it was so close?


    The poster is pointing out some hypocrisy (none / 0) (#193)
    by Deadalus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    in camp Clinton.  

    I am for a re-vote, but what this quote illustrates is the hypocrisy of saying "It's clear the votes won't count" and then months later, when you need the votes, saying "The result was fair."

    The result was not fair in Michigan, so to argue that the delegation should be seated there is simply ludicrous.  A re-vote is the best solution, however, it is unlikely to change the delegate math very much.  So I'd be wary of anyone who got too riled up about it.


    There's plenty of hypocrisy all around (none / 0) (#209)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    the Clinton camp hasn't cornered that market.  If you feel otherwise, you need to pay a little more attention to your candidate.

    That is a terrible arguement (none / 0) (#223)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    Do you realize you are saying, now that she knows she needs votes and delegates from these states she gets to change her tune??
    That is Hillary spin.

    Why do you think (none / 0) (#222)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    your definition of participating supercedes that of the DNC's? Don't you think that if they thought she broke the pledge, they would have said so? Imposed some type of sanction? Not removing a name from a ballot is not participating. Taking no action does not mean taking another action.

    since she didn't participate, (none / 0) (#225)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    in either the FL or MI primaries, please explain how she lied about anything?

    i'm also curious as to why IA, VT, NH and SC were "special", with respect to the pledge? that they were specifically excluded makes me wonder what this whole deal was really all about, as opposed to the official party line.

    the DNC created this mess, they can uncreate it. they can retroactively retract the rule regarding primary/caucus dates (it isn't a law, it's the rule of a private group), have re-votes in both FL & MI, or accept the FL results as-is (everyone was arguably on a level playing field there) and just do a re-vote in MI. what they can't do is nothing. nothing is not a viable option.

    I was never a "Deaniac", he always struck me as more "sound and fury, signifying nothing." then substance, but that's just me. his present failure of leadership does appear to justify my already prevailing sentiments though.

    none of the aforementioned scenarios is going to please everyone. oh well, that's life. one thing i've learned over the years is that if everyone is happy with my decision, than i've missed something important.

    i would urge the "accept the original FL results and have a re-vote in MI" option, and let the chips fall where they may. getting one revote is surely far easier than trying to swing two of them, and time is running out.


    Hillary has (none / 0) (#125)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:43:18 AM EST
    no skeletons in her closet. They have all been exposed repeatedly by 15 years of right wing talk radio, and once again thanks to Obama supporters. There's nothing new under the sun.

    As for her tax returns, absolutely no one cares about those. No one. Have you looked at Obama's yet? Of course you haven't.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#138)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:50:59 AM EST
    Hillary is virtually immunised in the primary from any such attacks from Obama.  He knows that the democratic base in particular will have a very low tolerance threshold for any attacks that harken back to the VRWC and Republican attacks on Hillary.  Hence the Obama campaign is reduced to making very oblique remarks about Hillary being "polarising".

    Equally the Republicans are not attacking Hillary,  they are attacking Obama just now.  a) because they think he is more likely to be the nominee.  b) because they want to either weaken him if possible,  or try to swing the election to Hillary who they perceive (correctly in my opinion) to be the weaker GE candidate.

    If Hillary is the nominee then in the GE then the Republicans turn their focus onto her. I would be very surprised if they cannot come up with/manufacture some skeletons in short order.  In fact I'm sure they have some lined up ready for the eventuality.  

    I just do not buy the idea that Obama has loads of Skeletons in his closet ready to come out in the GE whereas Hillary is purer than the driven snow and any skeletons have long ago been exposed.  That presupposes that everything has been frozen in amber since the end of the Bill's presidency, and they haven't.  


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#144)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:56:06 AM EST
    I never said a word about whether Obama has any skeletons in his closet. Please try to stay on point.

    The OP obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase 'skeletons in the closet'. That phrase refers to negatives that have not yet been exposed. Such things simply do not exist any more with Hillary Clinton, all innuendo to the contrary aside.


    Ok, but I am arguing that (none / 0) (#149)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:58:45 AM EST
    Obama is  certainly not going after Clinton on the same issues that the Republicans will,  and it's not at all clear that all Clinton's skeletons have been exposed.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    they are reduced to blathering about contributions to the Clinton Library.

    Among other things (none / 0) (#165)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:26 AM EST
    However I'm not sure that you would be their target audience.

    But this logic (none / 0) (#164)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:25 AM EST
    applies equally to both candidates.

    I'm not saying it doesn't (none / 0) (#182)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    I'm just trying to tackle the idea that Hillary as a candidate has uncapped positive potential and is immune from Republican attacks.

    true enough (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:58:57 AM EST
    no one in the country has cleaner closets than Hillary

    Trust me on this (none / 0) (#133)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    No one in Michigan is stupid enough to believe that if the delegates are arbitrarily split 50/50, that's the same as their state "counting."

    You've Convinced Me (none / 0) (#141)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:52:57 AM EST
    I'm voting for Nader, again.

    may I take this opportunity (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM EST
    to apologize to you and other Nader voter who I have verbally abused in the past.
    I could be right behind you.

    Me too (none / 0) (#167)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    I disagree with Obama on so many things and I don't like or trust him but something else occurred to me while watching his preacher on YouTube.

    I am terrified of his faith based initiatives.  


    IMHO (none / 0) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    that whole episode is more about judgment than anything else.

    Not rewarding calculated rulebreaking (none / 0) (#152)
    by thefncrow on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:59:28 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but this talk is ridiculous.

    Florida and Michigan tried to jump the line, and did so expecting sanctions for their behavior.  They figured they'd lose half their delegates, but that what they'd gain in importance from moving up their contest would outweigh the punishment they expected to receive.  If this were a criminal, who broke the law blatantly in front of a police officer, saying "Well, I know I'll get 30 days in jail, but, man, that was TOTALLY worth it", how would you expect a judge to react to that, especially given that 30 days is a standard sentence but not the maximum allowed punishment for the crime?

    Sanctions are supposed to be in place so that they dissuade people from violating the rules.  If the sanctions handed out are not sufficient to do that, then the sanctions need to be increased.

    That's not that I'm saying I'm a fan of the incredible criminal sentence enhancements that are ongoing throughout legislatures across the nation, but that's not quite comparable, because most people who commit crimes expect not to get caught, and don't consider the sentence.  Florida and Michigan, on the other hand, knew that they'd be caught and thought they knew what would happen to them if they broke the rules by holding a contest before 2/5.  They tried to game the system.

    Florida and Michigan thought they'd be more important by holding their primaries before they were allowed, and thought that the importance they'd gain from having early contests would be worth losing half their delegates.  The DNC, then, needed to come up with a solution whereby Michigan and Florida did not gain in importance by scheduling their date outside of the allowable period.  So long as the MI/FL primaries were worth even a single delegate, they would have candidates coming in and campaigning in the state.  So, in order to strip MI/FL of that importance, the thing they so desperately hoped to gain by gaming the system, you need to take all of their delegates, to make sure that everyone understands that any nominating contest held outside of the DNC rules is illegitimate.

    If Florida and Michigan would like to now hold legitimate primary contests under the DNC rules, I'm all for seating the delegates that result from those contests.

    If Florida or Michigan do not hold legitimate primary contests under the DNC rules, then we're left with just two options: let them stay home and watch on TV, or give them an honorary delegation of some sort.  The latter can be accomplished either by seating the delegates from the illegitimate contests without the ability to vote in the contest, which I'm not sure can be done, or by assigning their delegates 50/50 to ensure that they cannot influence the race one way or the other.  If they refuse to hold legitimate primary contests, then they cannot be allowed to interfere with the results from the rest of the states who did.

    If an honorary delegation is not acceptable to them either, then they can stay at home and watch the convention on TV with the knowledge that their state made the decision that kept them out of the convention.

    I think that would be what they call (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:23 AM EST
    throwing the baby out with the bathwater

    hmm... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:01:20 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I obviously want to see Obama win.

    With that said, I don't like the 50-50 split.  It simply doesn't make sense.

    But as someone mentioned above, it really is all about negotiating right now.  These are both candidates who want to win.  And they will negotiate for their best position possible with the mess that the DNC created.

    I am also pretty disgusted with the continued attacks on Obama, even though Obama has done little/nothing wrong, and instead has gone along with what the DNC said/decided.  It has been Clinton who has wanted to change the rules, not Obama.

    You simply cannot change the rules midstream.  You absolutely cannot just seat the delegates as if these elections were meaningful, especially in Florida.  And if anyone, including Jeralyn, wants to assert that Michigan was a meaningful election than they are blinded by their bias for their chosen candidate.  

    50/50 (none / 0) (#163)
    by demfromphilly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:21 AM EST
    Obama's actions during this Florida-Michigan fiasco removes any legitimacy from the "Clinton will do anything to get the nomination - Democratic Party be damned" narrative.  The result  from the proposed 50-50 delegate split  would be the alienation of 6 in 10 Dem voters in Florida and 50% of those in Michigan,  more than enough to hand those electoral votes to the Repugs. Obama's actions also leave me to wonder how a disciple of Rev Wright who preaches about the legacy, pain and the injustice of  the 3/5 rule could ever seek to reduce the value of an American and their vote to 1/2.  Must have missed that sermon too.

    How do you get Obama supporters to agree to this? (none / 0) (#166)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    If the goal is to win in November, not just put forth a primary candidacy, we're going to need to get supporters of both candidates on board with the process, otherwise the winner will be wiped out in November.  What is the argument for people who don't support Clinton who see an election that they were told wouldn't count for the primary suddenly counting?  How will they not feel like they were robbed if this solution is passed?

    it is my impression (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    that many, not all, but many Obama supporters will feel robbed if Hillary wins. period.
    no matter what the circumstances of that win are.
    I am starting to wonder why we should worry.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#194)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:13:23 AM EST
    Many Obama supporters will feel robbed if Obama won by all usual metrics (delegate count, states won, popular vote) and Clinton finds a way of winning the nomination besides that.  If Clinton had won Iowa and NH and gone on a roll, people would have accepted that just fine.  If she wins the rest of the states from here on in, most people would accept that.  It's just when rules get redefined so that elections that we were told wouldn't count suddenly do or a new metric for states that count (that coincidentally happen to be states where Clinton has better demographics) is presented, that people get frustrated.

    I appreciate that is how you feel (none / 0) (#202)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    my point is that it is my impression that is far from universal among Obama supporters.
    I could point you to sites where I would guess 90% of the commentors are far far from your take.

    We're in the heat of a primary campaign (none / 0) (#216)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:23:37 AM EST
    People are riled right now.  If their candidate starts losing elections though, they'll come to terms with it in a few months.

    The problem is that a convention fueled election would both be far more contentious (and thus would require more time to heal) and would occur MUCH later in the process.  Suddenly counting MI and FL and giving the election to Clinton in late August would infuriate people in a way that Obama losing elections in NC, OR, IN, MT, and SD wouldn't.  


    I'm starting to think this (none / 0) (#201)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:16:46 AM EST
    Since everyone is going to ensure that Hillary is not the nominee even if she gets the popular vote (ie; blogs, media, DNC, etc) than she should say okay, I will cut you a deal. Give me the majority leader job and I will step aside. At least when the election debacle is over, we can reclaim our party and we will have Hillary at the gates on the judicial appointments.

    I mean seriously, they are not going to let her win no matter if she has the popular vote. Let them ride to defeat on Idaho and Kansas. This is Chicago politics through and through. Give them Obama and let them suffer the consequences. Perhaps we will then get a real democratic party that includes the Greens - and a whole lot more pissed off women and Latinos.

    Obama is going to get smoked in the election. Hillary should set herself up of 2012.


    I'm fairly certain (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    that nearly ALL Obama supporters, as well as more than a few undecided Independents, would view Hillary getting a bigger delegate win in Michigan, both in percentage and net delegates, than she has received in any other state, including her home states of Arkansas and New York, as completely bogus.

    There is simply no way you can justify giving Clinton a +80 delegate swing for Michigan.  That is more delegates than she won in California, New York, and Arkansas COMBINED!


    We shouldn't (none / 0) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    Either will feel robbed with the other.  The damage is already done.  That's why I think the Dems need to choose someone else at the convention.

    Appeal to their sense of fairness, if (none / 0) (#226)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    they have one. Do they want their guy elected or "selected," with an asterix after his name? Do they want him to win now only to lose in November because he denied FL and MI voters their say? Are we Democrats who believe in voting rights, or are we Republicans who believe that it's OK to cheat to win?

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#178)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    ...or did you miss the petition of Obama supporters who refuse to vote for Clinton under any circumstances.  Not because of any unfair electioneering but because they just don't like her.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#190)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    ... polls have shown that a larger percentage of Clinton supporters won't for Obama than Obama supporters for Clinton.

    I think the poll... (none / 0) (#195)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:13:52 AM EST
    ...said something like they wouldn't be 'satisfied'... not that they had pledged they wouldn't vote for the other candidate.

    But fair enough - the sentiment cuts both ways.


    ...she was also... (none / 0) (#184)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    ...the one eloquently explaining her Obama endorsement on Bill Maher's show... her daughter told her she'd never speak to her again if she didn't support Obama.  Enough said.

    In the absence of a primary held within... (none / 0) (#203)
    by tbetz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    ... the DNC early-primary-related rules, what makes sense to me is a more generous and gentle interpretation of those rules, instead of the harsh interpretation currently being applied.

    I mean a 55/45/50 split -- that is, a 55/45 split applied to a delegation reduced in size by 50%, as that is the minimum penalty provided for in the DNC early primary rules relating to violations thereof.

    And that 22.5% resulting from halving the 45% should be seated as uncommitted delegates, not Obama delegates.

    But without a new primary or caucus, there's no way that the whole delegation should be seated.

    Michigan Democratic leaders knew they were violating the rules when they scheduled their abomination -- they need to get heat from their constituents for having done this.

    I don't see a problem with applying the same approach to Florida, too, and for the same reasons.

    If Florida Democrats can't get it together to have a primary within the rules, te DNC should generously use the results of their abomonation's vote, but halve the size of the delegation.

    By the way, the Detroit news article you cited... (none / 0) (#218)
    by tbetz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:24:46 AM EST
    ... states "Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated," but doesn't directly cite or quote him or anyone on his national campaign staff who has said this, speaking for the campaign.

    Sloppy reporting, and not uncommon for that newspaper.  The only people I can find who have actually advocated this are Hunter and Tupac, Michigan state campaign chairs.  I can't find anyone from the national campaign who has actually said this.

    So who has actually said this, speaking for the national Obama campaign?

    This life long dem will sit out the vote (none / 0) (#220)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    if votes are stolen or votes are not counted in some fair way. I won't vote for a republican. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I've never come across one I could stand. But though I've never done this before, I can see myself not voting. And for me, this is a really big thing. If the "nominee" and the party have stolen votes or not counted them in some reasonable way, I will not vote in November. Period.

    I helped put in Nancy, and Barbara and Diane while in CA, and I helped put in Webb now that I'm in VA. I feel very proud of that. It will break my heart if I have to sit this out. Please democratic party, don't break my heart.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    We're over 200, comments now closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Maybe some who voted for Clinton (none / 0) (#228)
    by tomangell on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:21 AM EST
    would have voted for Obama if he left himself on the ballot like she did.