Clinton Campaign Conference Call: FL/MI? Not A Hot Topic

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

This afternoon, the Clinton campaign offered up chief campaign strategist Mark Penn and Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer to "discuss" the Rezko issue - demanding "Obama answer all of the questions" plus various and sundry attacks by Clinton and Obama on each other. This conference call raised questions for me, about the Clinton campaign.

Instead of offering any news or positions on the Florida/Michigan situation in their opening statements, a situation which is urgent now, the Clinton campaign gave the same old same old on Rezko. We have heard it all before. If you care about Rezko (and not only do I not, I am sick of hearing about it), then whoopee. But I would have thought the Clinton campaign would rather have discussed the work it is doing to insure that the will of the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan is counted. My mistake.

More . . .

Apparently, the Clinton campaign is not overly concerned about the Florida/Michigan situation, not overly concerned about the impasse over a Florida revote. Unconcerned by this:

Florida Democrats got a stern warning Friday from the co-chairman of a group that will determine whether the state gets a say in the presidential race: Hold a re-vote, or risk not getting seated at the party convention to pick a nominee. "It's the responsibility of the state Democratic Party to come up with a [re-vote] proposal that complies with the rules and has the support and the planning that's needed within the state," James Roosevelt, who runs the Democratic National Committee's credentials committee, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. . . . A re-vote "seems to be moving forward in Michigan; it seems to be a little bit stalled in Florida," said Roosevelt, a former official in Bill Clinton's administration appointed to his party post by DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "If they can do it in Michigan, I don't see why they couldn't do it in Florida.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Clinton campaign seems uninterested in the Florida/Michigan issue.

Adam Smith of the St. Pete Times asked the Clinton campaign about the Florida situation, Phil Singer talks about "one person, one vote" and that here is a "solemn obligation to insure that the votes that have been cast be counted but if that is not possible new primaries should be held." This squishy and unclear message is precisely the problem with the Clinton campaign message on Michigan/Florida. Singer then pointed the finger at the Obama campaign. I point the finger at the Clinton campaign for NOT FIGHTING for revotes in Florida. They need to stop this silly game playing and get out in front of this issue.

A Detroit News reporter asked for a reaction to the proposed Michigan plan. Clinton spokesman Singer is noncommittal, says "Michigan voters need to be empowered." Weak tea.

Tom Edsall and Andrea Mitchell press on the Clinton tax returns. Apparently, to the DC Media and the Clinton campaign, silly "issues" like Rezko and tax returns matter more than anything else. Who cares about the voters of Florida and Michigan? The Clinton campaign seems to be of this world. The Obama campaign's footdragging is what I would expect, revotes hurt them. Why the Clinton campaign seems uninterested is impossible for me to understand.

< The Casual Smear | Drugs + Pregnancy = Prison in Alabama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was also on the conference call (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    and I thought their position of Florida was clear, particularly on the issue of only awarding 1/2 the delegates as a possible solution: It violates the rule of one person, one vote. In order to make sure that every person gets a vote, you either have to count the votes from the first primary as is, or you have to hold a new primary.

    I have more of a problem with reducing the votes to award only half than I do with holding a new primary. To only award 1/2 disenfranchises half the voters in Florida.

    On Rezko, their point was the lack of transparency by a candidate who has made that the hallmark of his campaign. Obama keeps releasing new Rexko details in drips and drabs but still won't release the documents or email communications between him and Rezko regarding the house deal.  

    Also, there's the issue of Obama on Jan. 23 telling Good Morning America,

    Well, my relationship is [that Tony Rezko] was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems....Barack Obama on CBS "Early Show" Jan. 23

    Nobody had any indications that [Rezko] was engaging in wrongdoing....Barack Obama on ABC's  "Good Morning America" Jan. 23

    Yesterday in the Chicago interviews, he admitted knowing Rezko was under investigaton, so that's a discrepancy. Why won't he release the documents and e-mails?

    Their position was clear (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan are very far down in the lost of priorities for them.

    If you believe that the current delegations will be seated, well bully for you.

    They won't be. If you want full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations, if you want "one person one vote" to me something here besides being an empty platitude, you better fight for a revote.


    they made it clear (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    they are fine with a revote. They've said so for weeks. They say it's Obama who has not aggressively advocated for this and I think they are right. All he does is say he'll accept what the DNC decides. He   isn't pushing for a revote because he won't win there. He's hoping for the 50/50 or 1/2 delegate seating which would benefit him but disenfranchise half or more of Florida voters.

    Being "fine" with the revote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    is not the issue.

    FIGHTING for the revote is the issue.

    I guess you do not agree with me there will be no full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations as is.

    You might get a half seating of the FL delegation and a 50/50 of the MI delegation.

    I see the view that you hold as being unrealistic, to say the least, and if the Clinton campaign is going to hold to the view that they will "accept" revotes, as opposed to adopting the view they will FIGHT for revotes, then they will get nothing but half of the FL delegates at best and a 50/50 in Michigan.

    That is a loss for Clinton on an issue that she should win, not just on delegate on popular vote, but in the minds of all voters.

    Clinton fights for your votes! should be the narrative they are trying to spread. Clinton is "fine" with you getting your votes is what we are hearing - what she really cares about is some delegate advantage.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    I was attacked no less than three times today by Obama supporters about Whitewater. And Rezko is irrelevant?  It is in Federal Court right now.  Not 15 years ago. He is trying to make this campaign about judgement.  Is it not correct to look at his? She has already agreed to Michigan and Florida is yet to come.  It isn't her call. She doesn't get to say what happens. The DNC and the state Dems make those decisions. The people themselves have already spoken by voting.  It is his supporters that are making it an issue to begin with. I believe it is Al Sharpton going to Florida and making legal issues of the actual Primary that she beat the Republican candidate by over 100,000 votes. So what exactly is it that she is supposed to be doing about FL and MI? She needs to defend herself on what Barack has made an issue of.  Judgement.  His is showing very poorly. It is all over the news right now. When he was bringing up NAFTA was that timely or was it a political tactic? That's what politics are.  He tried connecting her with something so why then should he not be connected to his actions? What should be being talked about is all the pundits saying she was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan. So were Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich.  Barack and John Edwards encouraged people to vote as a protest because they knew they didn't stand a chance. We should be screaming that on her behalf and on behalf of the people who voted in both states. She said from the beginning they should count. Every time she mentions either she gets accused of making a desperate attempt to do anything to win. Tony Rezko is a huge issue. He "is" corruption in politics as we know it. If anybody is connected to him they need to be exposed.

    I think they believe (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    that they can threaten the DNC into seating all of the delegates.

    Losing strategy, if you ask me.


    Let's suppose they did (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    Clinton is not going to pass Obama in the pledged delegates.

    Without FL and MI, she will not pass him in the popular vote.

    Without wins widely accepted as legitimate in FL and MI, her "big state" narrative is undermined.

    So the plan is to feed into the Mark Schmitt narrative that Clinton's path to victory is by "stealing the nomination?"

    Just an idiotic plan.


    Yup (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    If the DNC seated the MI and FL (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    delegates based on the initial primaries, why wouldn't the popular vote also count?

    Obama was not on the ballot in MI (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST
    there was no campaign in either state.

    Sure you could argue they should count, but you could argue they should not.

    When you are tryng to legitimize your claim to the nomination, FL and MI are useless UNLESS there is a revote.


    Seems to me it is perfectly (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    acceptable to seat the FL delegates selected in the FL primary in Jan.  Perhaps in MI all the pieces will fit together to hold a second primary.  Perhaps not.  If no, MI Dem. party should petition the credentials committe to seat the delegates from primary already held and work with DNC credentials committee to allocate those delegates or have them plead to be "uncommitted" until first vote at convention.  

    Why (none / 0) (#91)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    do people keep saying there was "no campaign" in FL?  Don't you read?  There certainly was campaigning and Obama started it.  The amount of money he spent on cable ads is documented and and it was waaaaay more than Hil spent.  I bet if he'd won in FL, we'd be listening to a whole different dialogue.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    I got into an argument back in January with an Obama supporter on MyDD who was outraged that some Clinton-supporting union was passing out literature before the Florida primary.  "My union is UNITE-HERE, we support Obama, and we would never do anything sleazy like that!"

    I convincingly won that argument by linking to actual pictures of Obama fliers distributed by UNITE-HERE in Florida.  He was rather embarrassed.

    Yes, there was campaigning.  And some people don't seem to understand that Florida is not New Hampshire, and that even if the candidates had been there it's not like they would have shaken every hand in the state.


    Randi Rhoades was smearing (none / 0) (#125)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    Clinton on AARadio yesterday saying she was dishonest because she agreed she would not compete in the Michigan contest.

    Well, if thats the case, why did they include her?
    Michigan should not have put her name on the list.

    I'm so disappointed in RR. I guess it must be those Republicans who bought the station who are pushing their Hillary bashing agenda.

    I wish this would end soon. Our common enemy is McCain, lets not loose site of the goal.


    Fla and Mich (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    Obama removed his own name from the ballot. Edwards also because tactically they knew she had a huge lead. That's called dirty politics. Neither,however removed their names from Florida. Remember the "protest" votes they tried to garner in Michigan? Neither took their name off the ballot in Florida because they had the audacity of hope.  Well, they were mistaken.  The people came out in force and voted for Hillary.  By a landslide. The candidates only pledged not to campaign.  They only started saying it didn't count when they didn't win. This argument is really crap.  Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich were on the ballot in Michigan.  Did the DNC only tell Obama and Edwards the votes didn't count.  In an article in the Tampa newspaper Obama said he would seat the delegates. That was in September.  He then ran across the street and answered reporter's questions violating the no campaigning rule.  He bought "national" ads that played on local cable TV in Florida. If people have the right to vote and they don't yet know who he is or what he stands for then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they are that detached this far into such a public battle then they are just stupid. They keep saying "now she wants to change the rules".  They keep forgetting to say that it's perfectly okay with him to change the rules as long as he comes out in favor.  I am sure he would love a caucus in Michigan and would back the people's voice if that was offered. The whole mail in thing is just another irreputable stand on his part given he penned a bill supporting it. His side came out with the story that the "red phone" girl in the commercial supports him.  That's interesting.  I didn't know 13 year olds could vote. Or 17 year olds that were able to in caucuses. This whole thing smells really bad. The momentum he got from all these issues helped get him to where he is.  Momentum means quite a bit when press coverage is what most of us get in the way of information. They tried very hard not to cover Florida and Michigan but guess what?  We all saw the numbers they refused to talk about rolling across the bottom of the screen.  As the MSM called it a beauty contest we all saw her bang them all and beat the leading Republican by 100,000 votes.  She only beat Obama by 250,000 or 300,000 votes. Her vote counts alone were more than Iowa, South Carolina, New Hapmshire, and Nevada combined.  But they don't matter or count. If he won he would be sitting on Space Mountain screaming foul. I want a revote wherever there was a caucus.  When did mosh pit politics and the disenfranchisement of older voters become the trend?  I would not have been able to caucus myself if that was all we had where I live. I have to work.  I don't have 4 or 5 hours to stand in line. If it weren't for caucusing he would be in the toilet votewise.  There are many people who would have turned out for her to "Vote".  Isn't that what we have the right to do? Vote?  There will be no caucusing in November.  There will be an election with election age people including older voters who can't stand in line for 4 hours or people who don't have half a day of work they can take off just to have a voice.  His momentum is make believe.  Sure he has supporters.  Sure he is an enigma.  But more people vote for the American Idol. So he isn't quite the Rock Star he is credited with being.

    Uh, no primary or caucus (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    in this entire process has respected "one person, one vote."

    I do not mind the buzz phrase (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    I mind the lack of any concrete FIGHT for the buzz phrase.

    Maybe it will take (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    a Chicago vote buying scandal for the Clinton camp to talk about this.



    I on't see how reducing the number of delegates (none / 0) (#59)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    disenfranchises half of FL.  The ratio of voters to delegates is already all over the map and very arbitrary.  In fact this disparity is what gives credence to the argument that absent a clear and convincing lead in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will be needed to decide the contest.

    I agree with BTD that focusing on Rezko is silly.  I would prefer to have Clinton turn to the economy and McCain and away from tactical issues.


    The economy would have made sense (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    I half expected that.

    yup, Hillary is talking about gas prices, (none / 0) (#126)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    but I haven't heard much play about it by MS blogs :).

    I think Hillary should leave the fold and talk about the kitchen table issues.

    I want to hear what she's going to propose in her first year. I want to hear her sound like FDR and say jobs and re-building the infrastructure. I want to find out what we're going to look forward to.

    I want her to do this in the first 100 days. Of course, deal with Iraq pull-out.


    If I Were Clinton, The Main Reason I Would Not (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    be too enthusiastic about a revote is that I would fear Republican contamination of the vote. The Obama campaign has launched an aggressive effort in Michigan to have Republicans and Independents register as Democrats prior to any new primary in that state. I'll see if I can find the article on this again so I can post the link.

    I think they are doing the right thing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    I think they are working behnd the scenes. The NYT article at seems to suggest that they are pretty much pulling all the stop with their fund-raisers and stuff. Plus making a big deal out of that during a potentialy candidacy ending news-cycle for Obama - given the pastor and the Rezko stories - would be the height of stpidity for the Clinton campaign.

    they flatly denied (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    on the call that they had asked any donors to request refunds or not contribute if Florida votes aren't counted and they pointed out, accurately, that the Times article doesn't say they are behind it.

    The fundraiser stuff (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    is promulgated by Clinton, was a TERRIBLE move - she is fighting for "fat cats" is what it says, not for voters.

    I could not imagine a worse story for Clinton on this.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#28)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    Didnt sound so bad to me. I mean using leverage to getting votes counted - there really are worse things in the world.

    Yeah. I'd call it "Leading." (none / 0) (#96)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    I agree. (none / 0) (#112)
    by corn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    It didn't reflect poorly on Clinton.  It simply rang true - if I were a DNC contributor in Florida I would be doing the same thing.

    I think they were waiting ... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    for a gap in the coverage of other issues.

    With negative Obama stories filling the airwaves, they probably don't want to step on that.

    But I agree with BTD, they're burning daylight on this one and should get out front soon. But I think there's still time.  I'm not in panic mode yet.

    Though if they let another week go by ...

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign never did anything to try to disenfranchise these voters.  Hillary's okay with seating the delegates she won and the delegates Obama won.  No matter what is floated, Obama's people hedge and try to force a situation that will guarantee him a win.  With all the things that are stacked against Clinton, I imagine her campaign is just about tired of having to grovel around to please the DNC, the DLC, the media, the Obama camp, and always she comes up on the short end.  

    Well, maybe she isn't sick of it, but I definitely am.

    How depressing. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    This is such a winner for Hillary, but instead they want to focus on Rezco.  

    How Much More Do You Want (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    Her campaign has issued a statement that they want the original ones seated or a revote. (See Maggie Williams letter.) Operatives from her campaign have agreed to assist with private fundraising so the burden does not fall on the state and/or Florida dems to finance it. She even - for reasons I can't fathom - allowed Bill Nelson to put forth a plan that would halve the value of the votes (but not give any to Obama).

    In contrast, Obama has done the following. Put forth the laughable notion that he gets half the votes without having won them. Threaten a DOJ lawsuit/investigation into the legitimacy of a mail-in-vote. Stall and rely on his supporters in the DNC to prevent anything from happening so he doesn't stand the embarrassment of losing twice.)

    Who deserves to have the heat continued to be placed on them? I would say him. (Though I thankfully acknowledge that you have done so in your other posts.

    Would I love to see her lead on it? Sure. But I suspect that she wants the press to stay focused on him this weekend. (By the way, I disagree that Rezko is not an issue. Much like Bill's tryst with Monica, it's not the "money" (sex) it's the lying about the money. And don't get me started on the Wright stuff.)

    Now having said the above, I hope the Clinton campaign pays attention to what you are saying. It burns me no end that Penn is making calls to anyone much less journalists. I also WILL NEVER FORGET GORE V BUSH.

    But in the scheme of things I believe his behavior merits more and continuing attention.

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    I knew where this was going.

    Its not their job to give obama his second chances.

    and thanks jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    for providing another view of the call.

    Sympathetic, but (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    I'm sympathetic to the argument that Hillary should be fighting; I haven't seen a principle I don't think Dems should be fighting for.

    That said, from the campaign perspective, Obama seems to be digging his own grave on disenfranchising two states just fine without any help from anybody else; maybe this is one time that the rule "When your opponent's drowning, throw 'em an anvil" doesn't apply, and a light touch is needed.

    Maybe letting the funders make the running on this is the smart thing to do.

    We'll see...

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    Dwelling on a REZKO "scandal" which is of less significance than Whitewater (people went to jail for that)

    Maybe if they spend 40+ million investigating Rezko as they did investigating Whitewater, there will be more indictments but they are actually having a trial right now if you hadn't heard.

    Not sure what Samantha Power has to do with any of this but to your Samantha Power, I say, Jeremiah Wright.

    The sad truth is that there are some less than exemplary people associated with Barack...specifically those he calls friends and uncles.

    Given the complexities of (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    getting required approval of re-vote by MI Legislature, and Obama's unwillingness to advocate re-votes anywhere, perhaps Clinton campaign sees the handwriting on the wall:  no re-votes.  

    Which doesn't explain why Clinton campaign chooses to lead with Rezko.  HRC campaign should leave this to the press to figure out and report and the press seems to be doing so more and more.  

    I see (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    so your theory is Clinton is NOT a fighter.

    Let me ask you this, the "handwriting is on the wall" that Clinton is not likely to be the nominee. Do you recommend she drop out?


    Ha. No. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    My current theory is the MI and FL Dem. parties should (but in the case of FL may not) petition the DNC for the current delegates to be seated; the petition should address the specific criteria in the rules. The DNC should then grant the petitions and seat the delegates.  HRC should forcefully push both the DNC and the FL and MI Dem. parties to do so.  

    this will happen at the Convention? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    Not a good plan at all.

    I had read (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    that the Credentials Committee meets in July, prior to the convention.  I could be wrong.

    I do not think Clinton can survive a scenario where she is well behind in pledged delegates and trailing in the popular vote with the long-shot hope of taking the lead IF a ruling goes in her favor regarding FL/MI.  That's not good enough.  She needs the revotes.


    Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    Yes I am sure a Credential Committee hearing in July will determine the nominee.



    Hmm (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    I think we agree, then.

    No need to wait until the convention. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    Fraid so (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    To determine who will be on the Credentials Committee. It does not exist now.

    Back to the drawing board. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    I think you wrong on this. Clinton may very (none / 0) (#29)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    well be working behind the scenes on the Florida/Michigan thing, but there's no benefit to her in talking about it. 1) She would just catch more heat about her "ruthlessness" and 2) She would change the subject that is all over the media and take the heat off Obama with regard to the Rezko problem. Unlike you, I don't see this as a small deal. I think he has problems with Rezko that have barely surfaced.   If Rezko isn't dealt with now, it will become Obama's Whitewater in the general or worse.

    Also, if you are discussing Hillary's strategy failures, then how could focusing on Obama's possible Achilles' Heel be a flawed strategy?   If he gets a lot of heat on this and on the Rev. Wright thing, this can only be a good thing for her, especially if it dissuades Superdelegates from switching or going to him.

    Sometimes I just can't grasp your reasoning.


    On that "behind the scenes" point (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Grey on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Mark Halperin reports this from the media call:

    On Saturday media call, Clinton advisers suggested they would only go for a "1 person, 1 vote" plan where the current results are counted or there is a new vote entirely.

    Also said they are not going to negotiate it in the press "as the Obama campaign insists on doing."

    I can't being to speculate on whether working "behind the scenes" might be more effective, but there is a lot to be said for at least trying to box Obama into having to explain why he does not want to either count the votes or make it so that there is a re-vote.  That would be awful PR for Obama, I think, so why not push that angle, too?


    Her ruthlessness (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    in fighting for the voters of Florida and Michigan is sort of the storyline she should want.

    "I will fight for you" has worked in the past.


    ignoring that she has already (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    won those states...perhaps that makes sense.

    Considering that she is fighting to have those elections validated and the delegates seated...the implication is fairly clear...that she is fighting FOR them and Obama is fighting AGAINST them.

    Not too hard to figure out the who is fighting for them at all.


    Yeah. Well maybe she should use those words, (none / 0) (#49)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    but she's already said that in other words, repeatedly.
    I agree that sometimes, with certain candidates, you sit there watching them and thinking "why can't they phrase it this way instead of the stupid way they are phrasing it?" I felt that way with John Kerry every time he opened his mouth. But that's different from "not leading "  -- not to mention the fact that, you are criticizing her in your next breath for "leading" on Rezko.

    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#106)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    Besides the fact that I think the current votes should be counted. There is no reason for her to do more than she has. I don't understand why she must constantly prove herself while Obama coasts. He is getting negative press right now, why should she change the narrative and give them a reason to attack her, she has made her views on the FL/MI vote clear, there is nothing else she should do.

    Which battles to choose (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    So your position is that fighting for MI/FL revotes is NOT a fight Clinton should choose?

    Indeed. MY view is EXACTLY the opposite. The picked the Rezko fight today. That is one they should not have chosen.


    I think they may be saying (none / 0) (#47)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM EST
    that Clinton sees this as a battle that is fighting for itself effectively.

    Why push a car that's already rolling downhill?


    Then she is myopic (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    Florida is a disaster right now.

    I agree that she (none / 0) (#81)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    should be fighting for the revote. I think this would put her back in it... with the popular vote.

    Tiem is running out. She has 6 weeks before PA. She should be FL pushing for the revote now.

    FL is stuck in the "Pols are Pols" quick sand.

    I feel ....
    Then DNC soesn't care about the votes and will just let is paly out. It is appearent that Donna favors Sen Obama, so just as happy to let Fl delegates not be seated. Pols are Pols.

    The Obama campaign has no advanttage... Pols are Pols.

    The Clinton campaign has Pen.. that is blind to the advantage.... Pols are Pols.  


    Could it be (none / 0) (#2)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    That the sat afternoon conference call, specially in light of the negative news cycle, is being pushed with the less "newsworthy" items?

    The clock is ticking on MI/FL (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    There should be no off days for FL/MI.

    You think they needed a conference call on Rezko?


    yes, I think they did (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    need to address Rezko since Obama himself made it such an issue by holding meetigs about it with two Chicago newspapers.

    Mark Penn says Obama needs to be more forthcoming.

    Stop the presses!! I could not disagree with you more. I found the call ridiculous and infuriating.


    I got the following: (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    From my notes on the call: We still don't have the information about Obam's and Rezko's communications on the house deal, including how did they come to close the transaction together? They are calling calls for disclosure of all communications and e-mails regarding transactions. They said that Obama's interviews yesterday just raises more questions about his judgment and shows a pattern of inconsistency, such as his January statements to the Early Show and Good Morning America that he had no idea Rezko was suspected of wrong doing.

    Nothing new in any of that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    You could have gotten that from the previous 10 Rezko calls.

    I saw no point to the call for the Clinton campaign.

    Heck, it gave the reporters a chance to pivot and ask about the tax returns again. Where the Clinton answers are weak.


    their answers aren't weak (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    they said they will release all post-White House tax returns on or about April 15, as they've said for weeks now.

    They also pointed out that Obama has released only one tax return. Where are his others?

    I was reading somewhere last night that in his Senate campaign, when discussing that the other candidates were millionaires, he told supporters that before his book deal, he used to do his own tax returns, they were so simple. I can't find the article now. Maybe that's why he's not releasing them?


    Yes,I read that he has only released his 2006 tax (none / 0) (#52)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM EST
    returns and none of the ones before that, including the ones covering the infamous house deal.  I don't know if that is true or not, however. Anyone else know?

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    That is an incredibly weak answer. I do not care about tax returns, but the Clintons have all their tax returns from the previous years available NOW.

    There is no legitimate excuse for the delay in releasing those tax returns.


    So you don't care about tax returns, if they (none / 0) (#70)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    are Obama's but you do care about them if they are Hillary's?
    And my post is weak?

    I do not care either way (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    Jeralyn said Clinton's answer was not weak. IT is imo.

    I do not care if we see either's tax returns.


    On new Rezko info (none / 0) (#97)
    by Grey on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    I know everyone last night was watching Obama on Keith to hear about...that other matter, but Keith asked him about the new reports on Rezko and asked Obama why he had waited this long to release the new information.  Obama denied the information was new even though the piece in the Chicago Tribune yesterday made it very clear that the information Obama was giving out was entirely new and contradicted what the campaign had previously said about earlier donations.

    Any other anchor would have caught the obvious lie; Keith was too busy trying to rehabilitate Obama...on that other matter, but I caught it and the video and the Tribune articles are both out there.

    Someone should make a point of this.


    Who decides who gets to ask a question (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    on these conference calls?  I envision BTD figurately waving his hand--ask me, ask me?  And then asking HRC's spokespersons why isn't HRC demading re-votes in MI and FL and calling out those who resist such re-votes?

    the way it works (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    is they make a summary statement and then go into detail. Then they open it up to questions. You push a button on your phone if you have one and the operator unmutes you so you can ask it. Today, there were questions by Jeff Toobin, Andrea Mitchell, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, Susan Page of USA Today and others. Big Tent Democrat did not ask any questions. Neither did I.

    Given BTD seems to be entirely (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    focused on MI/FL revoting and the campaigns' positions re same, I'm disappointed he didn't ask a question and/or give a quick speech on this call.  Yes, I know he is a tepid Obama supporter and probably doesn't want to help HRC's campaign, but still.

    I tried to (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    I was not called upon. Like everything about the Clinton campaign, it is DC centric.

    BTW, did Toobin ask about Spitzer, (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    his old law school classmate?

    Well, it' s no more infuriating than you (none / 0) (#38)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    continually saying that Hillary needs to lead on Florida and Michigan without any specific suggestions as to where she is currently failing on that. Not "leading" is no less of a vague generalization than "Not being forthcoming."  

    Do you REALLY need a suggestion? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    Here is just one - Hillary Clinton can hold a national press conference in which she demands that the DNC, FL and MI, the FL Gov and legislature and the
    MI Gov and legislature and the candidates find a way to do the will of the people of Florida.

    She could say while she believes the existing delegations should be seated, she understands that there is no consensus for that and in a gesture of compromise for the sake of the people of Florida and Michigan, she will relinquish her claim to those delegates IN EXCHANGE FOR an agreement by all parties to revotes on June 7 in Florida and Michigan.

    She would then offer to help raise half of the $50 million dollars needed to hold these primaries and challenges Obama to do the same.

    She would then say that the people of Florida and Michigan are too important to the country, the Democratic Party and to her to stand by while 20 million Americans are disenfranchised. She will NOT stand for it and she challenges ALL Democrats and ALL Michiganders and Floridians to do what is right, not what is in their selfish best interests.

    That is her challenge today to Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Jennifer Granholm, Charlie Crist, etc.

    Did I REALLY need to spell this out?


    If she does that, she will own the issue. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    This could have an upside, as you say, but it could also have a serious downside.  1) People aren't fools and they know that Hillary benefits from seating the delegates or having a revote more than Obama does. Thus, her statements that she is fighting for the people of Florida and Michigan will be ridiculed as self-interest by Obama and the MSM; 2) Obama then can pretend as he's been doing to be above the fray and continue to mouth platitudes about how he is concerned about this issue too but he is willing to abide by the RULES and whatever the DNC figures out is okay with him. Thus, she's a grasping you know what and he's a heroic selfless figure. He's already doing this to her disadvantage. I cannot see how she could win by emphasizing that issue. I doubt sincerely that this means that she doesn't care about it. But her surrogates need to take on this issue for her.  Anyway, if you ask me, it is Howard Dean who isn't leading on this. He's the one who has created the whole mess by his intransigence and his lack of solutions.

    In addition, she benefits much more by keeping the heat and attention on Obama.  His problems surfacing before the Texas and Ohio votes were beneficial for her and kept her campaign alive.

    If I advising her, I'd say do exactly what you are doing. I agree with Jeralyn on this.


    Agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    And I think for Clinton to push any harder than she has on this will be a No-Win for her.  The MSM attacks her for the least little provacation as it is, and even if she does as BTD suggests, rather than my belief that the delegates won in FL should be the ones appointed, she will be trashed.  The MSM and Obama will NOT say she is leading by pushing for a re-vote - WHEN have they EVER treated her positive positions as such???  WHY does BTD think they will start NOW???  No, MSM will attack her ruthlessly, Obama will trash her even more in his speeches, go on Keith or whomever and say she is violating the Pledge (she isn't) and not following the rules (he didn't), blah, blah, blah.  Why do I think this?  Because they have already done it when she FIRST started talking abt the FL/MI delegates.

    She and her surrogates are making it crystal clear they want the voices of FL and MI heard, and the ball is in OBAMA'S court now.


    Owning the issue (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    of enfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida seems like a positive thing to me.

    You seem to miss the point - she will be RELINQUISHING to the existing results - SACRIFICING for the people of Michigan and Florida in order to have a NEW election.

    But somehow you think this is spun against her? I am agog.


    Well. We disagree. My "agogness" has no (none / 0) (#75)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    bounds either.

    Heh (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    Man, if you think being FOR ENFRANCHISEMENT can be spun against Clinton, then I have no idea how you expect her to win.

    It's already being spun against her. Just look at (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    some of the posts below on your own website.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    You did need to spell it out.

    If you made a post like this, it would probably get quoted and discussed all over the blogosphere.

    Many people have trouble imagining things any other way than how they are.  Heck, if the Clinton campaign is a bunch of idiots on this, why should we readers be any better?


    Once you get past believing that (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    "politicians are smart and have good strategy," all sorts of other things begin to make sense.

    The Clinton campaing knows (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    what it COULD do, their idiocy is of a different strain.

    Issues become as important (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    as candidates make them in campaigns.

    Clinton has said virtually nothing herself. It is at best a minor issue for her.

    The CANDIDATE, not through press releases and surrogates, needs to lead on this.


    Yes. You have said that. How many times now? (none / 0) (#72)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    Shades of Iraq funding (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    the answer is that she needs to agitate loudly for revotes.

    Honestly, no (none / 0) (#20)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    I have personally not been impressed by their choice of themes to push from what little I have seen (obviously you are much more in tune with their daily themes than I).

    I was just wondering if they don't want to feed a new theme into the media, considering the story is so bad for Obama right now.

    I understand you point though, it is important, time is running out, and its beyond a political question for revotes. But the phone call is pure politics.


    One-two punch? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:38:24 PM EST
    When your opponent is just trying to recover from one punch, you let them have it with another.

    Obama now has two  - or is it three? - different 'scandals' to handle:

    1. MI + FL
    2. Rezco
    3. Wright

    Hillary has proven to be quite a good juggler when it comes to these 'scandals'. Let's see how good Obama's hand-eye coordination is.

    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    I think time is of the essence on Florida/Michigan.

    Other states (none / 0) (#3)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    Is it possible that the reason both Obama and Clinton haven't really put any effort into the issue is because they fear voter reaction in other upcoming states?

    How do people outside of Florida and Michigan and outside of the blogosphere see this or do they see it at all as an issue?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    Why would other states react negatively to Michigan and Florida voting?

    Its just a question (none / 0) (#37)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    To be clear, I'm not saying they are or aren't.

    Someone posted a poll yesterday and in it 15% of Florida Dem voters thought the punishment should stand. I find that disturbing, but it made me wonder if outside of Florida is that number much higher.


    I am surprised it is only 15% (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    Demonstrates that Obama may have even less support than you might think in Florida.

    The Clinton revote campaign in FL (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    almost writes itself.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#89)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    However, maybe some Obama voters actually feel that they might come out better in a revote.

    I don't trust anyone Dean appoints (none / 0) (#13)
    by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    Is it possible that there are currently negotiations going on to which we are not a party and shouldn't be in case the Clinton campaign inadvertently tips its hand?  
    As for the local DNC person issuing demands, it's a bluff.  There is no way they are going to march into Denver with this issue unsettled.  There is also no particular reason why Florida should spend the money for another primary when there was nothing wrong with the first one.  In fact, there is a good argument to be made that revoting would disenfranchise more voters than letting the delegate count stand as it is now.  
    Time and logistics are not on the side of Florida's voters even if they agreed to a redo three days ago.  So, why not just legalize the first primary?  I still haven't heard a good argument why this shouldn't be done.  I've heard some very self-serving arguments from Obama's point of view but if I were a Floridian, I would remain unconvinced.

    Allow Me! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Harley on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    Hop over to TAPPED, the group blog at the American Prospect, where Mark Schmitt not only cites your confusion, but clears it right up.  See, the thing is?  The reason the Clinton campaign isn't pushing this, as is usually the case, is self-interest.

    But it's actually easy to understand. What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign's count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.

    The Clintons are currently engaged in the political equivalent of the dubious Hack-a-Shaq basketball strategy.  They're going to foul and foul often -- Mark Penn usually does the honors in this regard, but I'm sure we'll be entertained by others along the way -- and hope Obama misses his free throws.  Which is to say, they will do everything possible to destroy his viability in the general election so that the Supers will overturn the now insurmountable leads he has in both pledged delegates and popular vote.  (They'll need help with the match-up number polling, if only for evidentiary reasons.)  That's all they got.  Re-votes in Florida and Michigan add too much uncertainty to an already dicey strategy.  Hence their current stance.  The idea that they care about 'every vote counted' is just for the suckers.

    But c'mon.  Not even Sinbad is falling for that.

    Obama allies push for deal. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    That's the headline on the front page of todays St. Petersburg Times, upper right, above the fold. Compromise is in the works.

    Meanwhile, Florida contributors to the democratic campaigns are threatening to demand their monies back if the Florida vote of January 29 isn't counted as is.

    Money talks!

    Also noted on the SPT front page, FYI, Rezko is still a big deal to Floridians, as it is to the Chicago Tribune readers today.

    But the pastor flap is bigger (see page 6A). Most talk around town is that people choose their churches because of the pastor and his message, not in spite of.

    The whisper is, the Rezko-Pastor issue is in play as a factor in solving Florida primary. The latter taking the 2 formers out of the spotlight and headlines.

    So, that's the up-to-the-minute down here.

    Oh, yeah. Sunny. 94º.


    What (none / 0) (#83)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    deal are they pushing for?  A soon-to-be Floridian wants to know.

    Harley (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    Allow me to direct you to my response to Mark Schmitt's post.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Harley on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    I'd suggest Schmitt is right in this, but hey, we disagree. I would also suggest, however gently, that the 'will do anything to win' stereotype is in fact closer to a conveniently ignored -- for some -- truth.  And one that is displayed on an almost daily basis by both the actions of Senator Clinton and her campaign.

    For me? It's the little things.  Like every time she numbers Florida and MIchigan among her primary victories.  I understand that you may not share that opinion.  To which I can only reply...

    Just.  Watch.


    I think you ignore that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    is exactly the same.

    This notion that pols are anything but, well, pols, is so funny to me.


    just a sip (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    of the Kool Aid and you can transcend the politics as usual. It's called buy-in.

    What is this transcendent crap anyway?

    How dumb does someone have to be to buy in?


    Cynicism is a Self-Fulfilling Prophesy (none / 0) (#64)
    by Harley on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    Also a good way to put oneself above and beyond the tricky stuff.  'Belief' comes to mind, among other things.  And the notion that 'everybody does it' is to blindly accept that same excuse from those that, you know, do.

    Like a lotta Dems, I'm done making excuses for folks who campaign like Republicans against fellow Democrats.  YMMV.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    Say the person who accused Hillary of "being willing to say anything  to get elected."

    I wonder at your railing at Obama though - why are you accusing him of campaigning like a Republican against a fellow Democrat?

    I know he accused Clinton of dishonesty, lying of willing to say anything, etc., but Republicans will do much worse.


    You know the answer (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    Attacks on Hillary are OK because they're true.

    Wow, the Old Turnaround (none / 0) (#119)
    by Harley on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:31:34 PM EST
    It's like talking to Macallan.  :)

    We are what we pretend to be, so I'd be careful what you pretend.  In the 1960 primaries, this places you somewhere in the vicinity of LBJ's lap, and making many of the same arguments.

    Hey.  Everybody has their reasons.


    Come now Harl (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    You asked for it.

    How is old Mac these days BTW?


    Yeah, I totally agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    about those Harry and Louise ads.

    Of course (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    Obama would never do anything that is just self-interest because he's the "new" kind of politician.

    Query: since this is a blog post, not (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    subject to the NYT style book for newspaper articles, how about including in the post when the author of the post was "on" the conference call?  

    Aha (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    Per Jeralyn's post, she let her surrogates talk about Rezko in the conference call so she could stay above the fray and talk about revotes herself.

    So...she wasn't committing quite as much of a travesty after all, was she.

    I think the correct argument is LEGITIMACY (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    To me, the most salient point to be made about FL and MI is about the legitimacy of the election, and this affects both candidates. And the only way to make things legitimate in the end is a re-vote.

    If Obama gets the nomination without MI and FL revotes, he will be tainted in the eyes of many due to the appearance of potentially stealing those states from Clinton.

    If Clinton somehow gets the nomination without MI and FL revotes, she will be tainted in the eyes of many due to the appearance of stealing the election as well.

    In the end, this election needs to appear legitimate, especially due to how close things are in the race and how high emotions are running. The only way that happens is with re-votes, no?

    Indeed (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    I have written just that.

    I was on the call, too. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Susie from Philly on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    And I don't remember it that way. One of the Clinton advisers - Mark Penn, I think - said the Clinton campaign wasn't going to negotiate the Florida/Michigan primary situation "in public," even though, he said, that was what the Obama camp seemed intent on doing.

    If the Clintonites want the Obamanians ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    ... to come clear on Rezko, then I wish to point out that Hillary Clinton's brother-in-law is a convicted cocaine offender and drunk driver, as well as a thespian, and that Hillary Clinton's husband gave her brother-in-law a pardon for no good reason except that he was Hillary Clinton's brother-in-law!

    How come the Clinton campaign isn't talking about that!

    And I haven't even brought up yet the issue of Hillary Clinton's own brother!

    We don't get to choose (none / 0) (#128)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    our relatives. We do, however, get to choose our friends.

    Federal Court (none / 0) (#130)
    by Eddie55 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:46:08 AM EST
    I understand there will be a decision handed down soon by a federal court as to whether the DNC has a right to deny Florida's delegates.
    I've seen no news about it on the blogs.
    Got it from WJXT in Jacksonville, FL.
    It would be a great boon to Hillary if the court decided they must be seated.