Hillary Backs Michigan Revote Plan

The AP reports that Hillary Clinton supports the proposed Michigan re-vote plan.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Saturday said she supported a plan being developed by Michigan Democrats to hold a new primary in June.

As to both Michigan and Florida,

"I feel really strongly about it," Clinton said. "The 2.5 million people (in Michigan and Florida) who voted deserve to be counted. If it were my preference, we'd count their votes but if not, then they should have the opportunity to have a full-fledged primary waged for them and revote."

Where's Obama on this? Hedging.

Spokesman Tommy Vietor Saturday said the campaign was open to a "fair and practical" resolution of the conflict...."We will evaluate the details of any new proposed election carefully as well as any efforts to come to a fair seating of the delegates from Michigan."

Hillary also address the "big state" issue and electability today: [More...]

"I don't think anyone doubts that a Democrat has to have a number of the big states anchored in order to put together the electoral votes needed to win," Clinton said. "I think it is significant that I won Ohio, that I won Florida, I've won the big states that serve as anchors on the electoral map. And I also think it's significant because those states represents a much broader cross section of the voters we're going to need to win in the fall."
When asked about Rezko (unlike her campaign advisors today who called a conference call about it), she refused to discuss it.
< Oops | Cable News Ratings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, to add a dumb little comment (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    the stance Obama's campaign is taking on this reminds me of the stance he's taken during many of the debates.  "I'm happy to have this debate" as a way of...warding off the debate.  Nice.

    So Clinton is go in MI.  The DNC is go...if Obama says yes.  That's the situation right now isn't it?  

    Exactly when will we take an Obama answer for a "yes"?

    Don't hold your breath (none / 0) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    " ... evaluate the details of any new proposed election carefully as well as any efforts to come to a fair seating of the delegates from Michigan."

    Examine that statement carefully for slithering room.

    Obama would really rather not ("new politics" and all) have this happen.

    I don't understand why candidates must approve this.

    The candidates should have no say in the matter.

    If the DNC can tell the people in two large states to go piss up a rope, then it should clear up the mess it made and tell the candidates to stfu.

    Unless someone's trying to hold onto a position if one of the candidates ends up as President with the power to decide the content of the DNC.


    ball, meet Obama's court (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    does that make sense? Well, you know what I mean :)

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    is this a strong enough stand for you?  I agree that she needed to come out sooner and stronger, but this satisfies me.  Maybe Clinton was waiting to make sure she wasn't the only one who was a proponent of the recount so it didn't look one-sided?

    Obama's internals must be really bad if he's not jumping on this.  Or maybe he feels like giving in in MI means giving in in FL, because of course if a full primary is acceptable in one, then it must be acceptable in another.

    Interesting Obama comments (none / 0) (#13)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    Obama told a group of contributors that a 10 point loss in Pennsylvania is really a victory.

    His campaign is in PA right now trying to get independents and Republicans to re-register as Democrats so they can vote in the closed primary.

    Without the same-day registrations and open primaries and the votes of independents and Republicans Obama would have lost Iowa, Missouri, etc. and we wouldn't be reading posts and making comments right now about the primaries.

    His margin of loss in places like New Hampshire, California, etc. would have been much greater.


    "that I won Florida" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    Cue the braying masses:
    "She did not win Florida, not enough people showed up despite massive turnout."

    I've said this before: Unless Obama can prove that the people who stayed home were significantly his supporters, then the Florida primary results should stand. If he wants to overturn vote results, HE, not Hillary, has to prove that enough people stayed home to change the outcome of the primary vote. He can't.

    Based on the same statistics theory that polls are based on, it's fairly easy to see that the same makeup of voters stayed home as came to vote. Except instead of a sampling of thousands of voters, we have a sampling of HUNDREDS of thousands of voters. Based on this, we can come to the conclusion that Hillary would have won by a similar amount whether everyone came to vote or not.

    Michigan, however, has a couple of wrinkles:

    Candidates VOLUNTARILY took their names off the ballot, and encouraged people to vote uncommitted. They should be held responsible for that behavior - they took a risk, and they should know that you don't always win a risk.

    Michigan is a muddled mess. There is no choice but for a revote. But for Florida, the answer is clear.

    But who said politics made sense?

    My Only Concern About Revotes In MI And Fl (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    has to due with Republicans being able to contaminate the vote. Obama's organization actively pursues registering Republicans in states so that they can participate in his "Democrats For A Day" program.

    Rs will vote. (none / 0) (#14)
    by jsj20002 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    Republicans will vote in the Michigan do-over primary.  They have no reason not to.  Whether this benefits Hilary or Barack cannot be determined.  Limbaugh Rs want their man to run against Hilary. Moderate Rs (we still have them in Michigan) are disgusted by the war and want to vote for Barack.

    This is an argument (none / 0) (#5)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    that Hillary needs to continue making forcefully: the big states do represent a more accurate cross-section of the electorate, and her strong performance in those states speaks to her ability to run an equally strong campaign in the General Election.

    When I wrote to my state superdelegates asking them to support Hillary (something everyone should be doing), this was my main argument. I think it's one that cannot be overlooked: the Democratic Party needs a nominee that can appeal to a vastly diverse electorate. Despite all the claims of her "unelectability," she has carried these states.

    I think that speaks volumes.

    Good for Clinton (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    Now to step up the pressure.

    Pretty sure she is reading Talk Left. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:53:35 PM EST
    Get your Tutti-Frutti ice cream (none / 0) (#8)
    by mm on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    ...the campaign was open to a "fair and practical" resolution of the conflict...."We will evaluate the details of any new proposed election carefully as well as any efforts to come to a fair seating of the delegates from Michigan."

    Really, this is turning into a Marx Brothers routine by Sen. Obama.

    Regarding Rezko (none / 0) (#9)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    Hey, my wife and I were married by a judge who got in trouble for getting his wife's parking tickets blown away. Big news all over the Twin Cities. I guess I just don't have the judgment necessary to be President.

    This judge also blocked the MLB contraction plan and thus kept the Twins in Minneapolis. This guy just never stops with the dastardly acts. Now we are stuck building this gift to rich baseball owners, this new stadium, just like the people in Texas got stuck by George W. Bush and friends, losing their property for rich baseball owners. I must really, really, really have bad judgment.

    I grew up in New Jersey. There's organized crime and political corruption endemic there. I remember once, the Mob dumped one of their corpses on the wrong side of the road, so it ended up in my township instead of the one next door where the targeted mobsters lived. I must have really poor judgment.

    In fact, I grew up exactly where the anthrax killer got all those names and zip codes for the phony return address on the anthrax letter that then got stuck into a mailbox in nearby Princeton. I kid you not, that's where I grew up. What was I thinking? I must have really poor judgment.

    Your judgment is fine (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    but your aptitude for analogies is not.