home

Clinton To Press For Revotes In MI/FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:19:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Now she wants to fight for revotes:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hopes of ending the primaries with game-changing victories from new contests in Florida and Michigan grew dim on Tuesday as Florida officially scuttled plans for a new vote and Michigan lawmakers appeared far from a deal.

In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates.

“We will go and make the case for a revote,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign has resisted a new contest, saying that Michigan Democrats are divided, that a revote would not make much difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton camp was trying to change the rules to suit itself.

(Emphasis supplied.) I hope this ends once and for all the silly theory that it was Clinton who was resisting revotes. The Clinton Uncertainty Theory propagated by Mark Schmitt and adopted by pro-Obama bloggers should be officially dead now. BTW, Clinton was too slow on this. She needed to do this last week.

< Star Witness Testifies in Rezko Trial | Supreme Court Reverses Conviction Based on Prosecutor's Exclusion of Blacks from Jury >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton To Press For Revotes In MI/FL | 181 comments (181 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree that she needed (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    to do it; not sure last week was the best week considering it would've taken press away from Wright.

    At any rate, I'm glad to see her fighting for this.  It makes a difference in a state with a dem governor.  She could use MI to shoehorn FL as well.

    Though, being honest, she hasn't been as active on this issue as I would have liked.  I still contend there are things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.  Clinton is having to fight a war on several fronts: the super d's, the press, Obama's spin  machine and the voters.

    I think this is the part that makes me (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    want to spit nails (my emphasis):
    In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates

    Love that "desperation" narrative, as opposed to the one that should be on people's minds - the right of the people to be heard...

    We know that in the eyes of the media, Hillary is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, but it seems to me the best question to be asked by her, and by her spokespeople is:

    "What is Senator Obama afraid of?"  

    Or perhaps this version:

    "Maybe Senator Obama would like to fill the voters in on how, if he gets the nomination and wins the presidency, he will have any credibility on voting rights if millions of voters are disenfranchised in the Florida and Michigan primaries with his passive cooperation."

    Or maybe:

    "If Senator Obama will not fight for your right to have your vote counted, how can we count on him to fight for anything else?"

    Oh, wait - I know: after the re-vote dies a final death, Obama can give an invitation-only speech, to be carried live on every cable network, in which he lectures us on the need for every citizen's vote to count.

    Yeah, that's the ticket...


    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, this is the week to do it ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    as I said last week, it's a timing thing.

    [ Parent ]
    too late (none / 0) (#113)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    The michigam legislature goes on a two week break on Friday.  With all of the disagreement it is not going to happen.  She waited too long before realizing that the initial vote would not count.

    [ Parent ]
    I give Clinton more credit than that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    She didn't wait too long because she didn't know it wouldn't count. If, as Robot suggests, it was a timing issue, then it was quite a deliberate choice, made with full knowledge of the ramifications.

    [ Parent ]
    ramifications (none / 0) (#122)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    well,  unless there is some other unknown play in this game, she miscalculated badly.

    As BTD has said and I agree with,  she will not have a narrative that she has the "will of the voters",  all the parameters are out of reach without legitimate data from FLA and MI .  The Supers are not going to choose otherwise.    

    [ Parent ]

    What about Obama's role in running out the clock? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    That's what he and his supporters are doing and have been doing.

    [ Parent ]
    But she was seen by VOTERS to be working for them. (none / 0) (#180)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    she looks a little tired today (none / 0) (#164)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    so I hope she takes a little time off.

    But gotta hand it to her, she's a fighter!

    you go girl!

    [ Parent ]

    Ill served by surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    Once again, if she wants anything done, she has to do it herself. I'm sure somewhere in history there has been a candidate who got less help from his/her surrogates, but damned if I can recall one.

    And another thing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    I'll add that she gets so scorched in the press, especially the liberal talk radio, by fighting for this that I don't blame her for trying to do it more behind the scenes. It is one of the best examples of Clinton Rules - anything she does to get these votes counted, or to get revotes, is portrayed as breaking the rules, or changing them mid-game, Clintonian ruthlessness, etc.  You have all heard it.

    It is only appreciated by those of us in MI and FL.

    Agree, this IS the right time (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    there is a specific proposal in the legislature to support; the parties/individuals throwing monkey wrenches in any of the proposed solutions are finally identified; and it is clear to everyone what Obama's true position and intentions are. That there is a pattern of saying one thing and doing another. The Obama camp no longer has the option of pitching both ways, as BTD has shown in several posts.

    It may not change anything in Michigan, but it certainly affects perception of Obama coming on the heels of the Wright factor, negatively.  This could help with the actual votes in the remaining states and the Super delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    She's seizing the moment (none / 0) (#166)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    good for her. Obama major speaks today too?

    whats up with that? Like he wants to hog the airwaves, well just one, MSNBC will be there for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so ... many of us non-MI or FL Dems appreciate (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    this too.

    [ Parent ]
    attacks by the liberals yak radio is getting (none / 0) (#165)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    on my nerves. I'm not happpy with Randi Rhoads in particular.

    [ Parent ]
    she just needs to be perceived (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    as being on the side of counting the votes. that's really all she can do. her campaign by itself cannot make a revote happen. so if they go all in to make it happen, they risk looking like "losers" in a state they "won" when the revote does not occur. at which point, the obama camapaign spins the lack of a revote as "a victory" over hillary.

    it is amazing to me, as a democrat, how deftly and easily obama has managed to encourage the idea that votes should be neither encouraged nor counted.

    and kathy is right: let the wright thing roll on. it will sink obama. he cannot recover from that. he cannot be president now. i wish it were different. the only question is, can the dems wake up in time so that he is not on the ge ticket.

    hillary's "revote" plan is ultimately (and only) an attempt to salvage MI for the ge.

    but can she beat the DNC?

    The Height of Arrogance (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    Mr. Obama's campaign has resisted a new contest, saying that Michigan Democrats are divided, that a revote would not make much difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton camp was trying to change the rules to suit itself.

    It's not up to Obama to decide whether a MI re-vote would change the overall delegate count.  It's for the voters to decide that. And if a re-vote won't make much difference in the overall delegate count, why is he so reluctant to let it happen?  

    The Roolz were designed to be changed at the discretion of the DNC.  I don't understand why Clinton's campaign has not challenged the perception that she is trying to do something the rules don't allow.  The rules don't exist to completely disenfranchise voters -- they exist to penalize state parties who ran primaries out of the preferred order.  In the end, the preferred order was maintained, and the state parties still got penalized.  But even if you let those penalties stand, what possible moral or political justification is there for disenfranchising voters?  Especially for a "grassroots, 50 state strategy" candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't thinkit will happen (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    Republicans and Obama supporters are controlling the process right now, in both Florida and Michigan. The Obama supporters don't want the re-votes because they'll weaken Obama's electoral victory, and the last think the Republicans want is anything to happen that will give Clinton a shot at the nomination. I believe that the right-wing knows that their best shot at the Presidency right now is that Obama wins in spite of being tarnished by Wright.

    By the way - I know it's off topic, but I finally watched some of the videos. I've focused on the fallout, not the video's themselves. I was sympathetic to Wright's anger, since I can understand why a black man, especially one of his generation, would be angry at the nation. I get angry at the nation, too. But what he said is really hateful. The one about Clinton made me cry. The man has no empathy. He said the Clinton never knew what it was like to be called a "nxxxxr", but he cannot seem to fathom the pain of being called a "bxxxh*. He said that she has never had to work twice as hard to be accepted, and she has never had deal with simply being dismissed. He has no clue about the challenges women of Clinton's generation faced if they chose to not stay home and be wives. I don't think Obama's speech will resolve this. The video's are still out there. His supporters are portraying the speech as the best thing since MLK's "I have a Dream", but no speech can counter those video clips. Obama's supporters think he can counter these video's with powerful words - but they seem to forget that Wright had powerful words, too. "Just Words" will make a lovely commercial title, and I'm betting that there are a dozen 527's out there putting the commercial's together.

    your comment is OT - mine is too (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    but I just HAD to post this great anonymous comment on Obama's speech...

    >>>Barack Obama needed to create a positive story and as usual used a speech, his greatest strength. Who would trash a speech on race relations? So this morning we wake to almost unanimous adulation for the speech.

    The NYTimes brought up an interesting point about this speech. Barack Obama is asking us to take Rev Wright's fiery rhetoric and to put it in context with his entire life, to put it in perspective. We are not supposed to judge the man based on these "few" anti-American speeches. Overall, Obama says, Rev Wright is a good man. Yet when it comes to his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, we are supposed to focus on one thing: her "bad" judgment on Iraq. We are to ignore the context of her life, or the bigger perspective. It seems as if he's guilty of doing the same thing people may already have done with Rev Wright. This is politics as usual, nothing new, nothing fresh. Just politics.


    [ Parent ]

    If only Ferraro would had stayed a little longer (none / 0) (#57)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    it would have been hard for him to sympathies with Rev Wright while calling for Ferraro to quit on racial grounds!

    What an irony...

    He is the adjudicator for racial conflicts.. if he says this is ok.. well then ok.. if he says this is not.. then who the hell are we to say anything.?

    [ Parent ]

    Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    Could we have an open thread?  I would also like to participate in OT topic.  

    [ Parent ]
    To paraphase ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    another famous Democrat, Senator Obama, "you're not the final authority on this."

    [ Parent ]
    Who the heck (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    OK this keeps getting quoted and I can't find it. I vaguely remember it, but can't come up with the name.  Give it up....

    [ Parent ]
    Barbara Boxer? (none / 0) (#145)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    She said something very similar to the utterly odious James Inhofe when he kept trying to cut off Al Gore at a hearing on global warming.

    [ Parent ]
    Here is a link (none / 0) (#148)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    The hearts of both Clinton-haters and Obama-bashers can be warmed by this exchange.

    [ Parent ]
    Al Gore ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST
    in a phone call to George Bush on the night of the 2000 election said, "Your younger brother is not the ultimate authority on this."

    [ Parent ]
    So you're comparing a cowardly vote... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    ...to start a malevolent war of aggression with some two-bit preacher yapping?  

    I'm not a partisan of either candidate, but Hillary's Iraq vote is, in a word, incomparable.

    You know why?

    Because WAR is incomparable.

    The vote she cast to enable Bush in his murderous misadventure cannot be rationalized or its wretchedness lessened.  All who voted as she did disgraced themselves and the nation.  

    The only thing Wright disgraces, if he does, is himself.

    [ Parent ]

    just a sec. here. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    Hillary voted for war, but was sold on it because GWB said we'd soon be out(not 5 years later) and did you forget that famous photo op on the USS Lincoln when the president was tethered in full flight suit, Mission Accomplished or something to that effect?

    Tell the whole story, Hillary voted for the war, but also said she did so believing that the president was being truthful and he wasn't. The premise for war was based on LIES. Even so,she didn't give him unconditional authority,because she expected him to use
    it as a LAST RESORT. She wanted him to try diplomacy. Important distinction.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad Argument (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    Tell the whole story, Hillary voted for the war, but also said she did so believing that the president was being truthful and he wasn't.

    Anyone that trusted Bush has zero judgement in my book. She is too smart and experienced to believe anything Bush says and so I do not believe her justification for the vote. IMO, she voted yes, not for Bush, but to satisfy some of her vengeful and warmongering constituents.

    [ Parent ]

    check out diaries during 2005-06 (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    asking senators to vote against war funding and to support redeployment bills.
    Obama kept voting with Republicans to fund a war he "opposed."


    [ Parent ]
    Wright anti-American? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    Josey:

    Could you give the full quote where Wright's anti-American. The one where he says that America shouldn't act like God? Is that anti-American to you?

    Nice to see that the invented "race issue" of Wright was more important than Clinton actually coming out for revotes last week (until now that it's too late). It shows me that Clinton supporters believe that repeatedly raising race and racial divisions helps their candidate. In a strange way, that admission may one day help you to self-understanding, maybe.

    She cannot win. She can only destroy.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't think (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    "God D*** America" isn't anti-American?

    [ Parent ]
    the man was a marine (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    I got bashed for bashing McCain the other day citing his service.
    maybe you should consider that when he came home he could not stay in most hotels or use the same water fountain as us.
    the man is provocative for a living. maybe cut some slack.
     

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#117)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    I don't care if the man won the Medal of Honor.  That doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has to like what he says.  I can still think he spews hate and divisiveness and I can still can use Obama's association with him as one of the reasons I won't vote for Obama.

    I honor his service, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the man.

    [ Parent ]

    You Do Not Know The Man (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    But why let that stop you from jumping on the bandwagon. Many base their opinion about people on soundbites, you are not alone.

     

    [ Parent ]

    My point was (none / 0) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    you cannot excuse Wright's comments just because he was a Marine. And this is about Obama - he has shown poor judgment (you know, that thing he keeps he says is superior to HRC's) in who associates himself with.  First there was a 17 year relationship with Rezko, whom he says he never knew any of the allegations against (which is incredulous, since it's been in the Chicago papers for at least of couple of years now).  Now he says he never heard Wright say any of those things (well, then he said he DID hear him say them).

    His whole campaign is based on the claim that he has  the best judgment of all the candidates and should be elected POTUS. When one claims the moral high ground, the harder you fall back to earth (to mix a metaphor). I say assessing his "judgment" is fair game.

    [ Parent ]

    fine (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    there is a difference in all the things you said and saying an ex-marine is anti american.
    I know some marines.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    I would guess that if anything Rev. Wright's problem is that he cares too much about America. Besides, I thought that the GOP owned the empty phrase anti-american, as a method of sliming those who favor dissent over lockstep mentality.

    Could it be that some commenters here are GOP HRC supporters?

    [ Parent ]

    I know some (none / 0) (#156)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    Marines too, and most of them would not like a "Preacher" saying "G*d Damn America." The ones I know are angered that any marine would say that. They wear their patriotism tattooed on their hearts.

    They may frequently damn an administration or a president, and  most residents of the Pentagon,  but they love their country and don't like anyone, anywhere talking down the United States.

    [ Parent ]

    I cut him a lot of slack (none / 0) (#135)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    I found most of what he said, while a bit overheated, to be either true or at least arguable, and merely critical rather than anti-American.

    God D*** America is, to me, anti-American.

    [ Parent ]

    I am glad to hear you say that (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    I have not seem many willing to do anything but bash the guy for a lot of stuff that seems pretty obvious to me. if completely foolhardy in the middle of a political campaign.
    the phrase you mention. meh.
    its open to debate if one admittedly anti american statement makes a person anti american of if you need to look at the totality of their life and contributions to america.
    sall Im sayin.


    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#159)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    I don't think Wright IS anti-American, I just think he has said some offensive, and in a few cases, anti-American things. I have a fairly high tolerance level for that kind of speech. (My then 16 year old daughter and I once had a flag burning ceremony at home -- with a miniature flag -- just to show her that we could.) I had heard that Wright was a "black liberationist" minister months ago, without hearing any specifics, and it didn't bother me.  He's somewhat more over the top than I had imagined, but for the most part he did not cross the line for me.

    The issue for me is primarily political: whether Obama's affiliation with Wright is inconsistent with his post-partisan message, whether he's answered questions about the affiliation honestly, and whether it makes hypocritical some of what I consider to be gender-insensitive statements on his part, as well as certain unfair accusations against the Clinton campaign on racial issues.  

    The issue for others, however, will be much more fundamental, and how Obama handles this will be critical to whether he can be a successful GE candidate.  That may not be fair, but its the way it is.   I thought his speech yesterday was pretty good, although I would have been happier if he hadn't equated Gerry Ferraro with Rev. Wright, and if he'd spent some time talking about gender as well.  Hillary's never been called the n-word, its true, but she's been called the b-word many, many times.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    opinions opinions opinions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    arent they grea?  its her opinion he is anti american.  its your opinion Hillary cant win.
    its my opinion you are both wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    For what it's worth (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Grey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    The DNC says that Michigan's re-vote plan is A-OK.  Here is the memo.

    I'd add that a re-vote in FL and MI benefits all parties, not just Sen. Clinton, because I think the legitimacy of the process and of the nominee is at stake.  All 50 states should count, and be counted, before the convention and not after.

    So, (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    Doesn't that mean Obama should go with it? He said whatever the DNC decided.....

    [ Parent ]
    It should mean that (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Grey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    But Sen. Obama has said a lot of things...

    [ Parent ]
    No one has been more self-contradictory (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    on Michigan and Florida than Clinton (and Ickes).

    Big Tent is right that Clinton is too late in finally coming forward to push for a revote. She and the state parties who pushed the non-recognized primaries have played chicken with the DNC. Bad move. Maybe Michigan can squeeze a do-over in, but Florida is over. Those who believe that Clinton will be able to bully the DNC to change the rules after the fact are dreaming. There will have to be some kind of negotiation, some kind of accommodation. Michigan may come to that too.

    The delay in negotiating between January and now falls squarely in the lap of Clinton and the state Democratic leaders.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    I am always amused by these bold "this is how it's gonna be" pronouncements.  I sure hope someone informs the DNC that a blog commentor has spoken.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#127)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    with all these crazy predictions about certain people being "toast" in the general because of the scary scary GOP 527s.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    It seems to me that the existence of only one recent poll in MI, which shows a tie, sort of has a distorting effect on the narrative.  I wish someone else would poll the state.

    Obama still stalling (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    story here

    stalling how (none / 0) (#66)
    by philly48 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    how is he stalling? There were rules set forth and in place/ Please tell me now that she is losing why should these votes count now?

    [ Parent ]
    Please tell me which rule (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    prohibits a revote, which is the subject of this post.

    [ Parent ]
    And that's why waiting until the last second was (none / 0) (#71)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    a huge mistake.

    If she had been pushing for this for months, it would have happened.  When you push for it the day before the vote has to happen, it's a little less likely.

    [ Parent ]

    Nah (none / 0) (#75)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    if she had pushed for months, the media would have attacked her even more ruthlessly.  Now, they've got too much going on, and Obama's teflon is not so shiny anymore.

    And you can't ignore the polls.

    Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

    If Zogby is admitting it, it's gotta be bad.

    [ Parent ]

    She's still down in that poll (none / 0) (#106)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    How can she still be behind Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Because the media (none / 0) (#137)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    says the speech worked.

    [ Parent ]
    I am keeping an eye on the polls... (none / 0) (#118)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    ...and I'm going to see what they're like next week.  If Obama's speech stopped the movement away from him and moved people back towards him, then I don't know what's left out there that can prevent this.   If he continues to bleed percentage points, then I'm going to start worrying.

    I suspect the former will be the case, especially because he's back up in the Rasmussen tracking poll today, but just because I want it to be over doesn't mean that it will anymore than my hopes that the Whitewater stupidity would fall off of everyone's radar.

    [ Parent ]

    Here we go (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    So Clinton is against disenfranchising two big critical states and Obama is for disenfranchising them. At least Hillary is covering herself should she be the nominee. If Obama wins the nom without MI and FL, and being on record as saying they shouldn't have a voice, I don't see how he wins either state in the general.

    Maybe he doesn't care (none / 0) (#110)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    because polling shows that he will lose FL in the GE anyway. Where it gets touchy is that polls have him winning MI by a slim margin over McCain. I'm not sure how the revote issue factored into those polls, but if he winds up losing MI, that's 17 EV and enough to swing the GE to McCain.

    All of my numbers are from the SUSA electoral map poll conducted a few weeks ago...I'm not saying they are still current, but my point is that at the time that poll came out, a lot of Obama supporters were selling the fact that FL does not have to be part of the Obama equation in November.

    (Not that I necessarily agree)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm very disappointed with Conyers (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    "While a redo would be an excellent way to solve it, there's a little problem of about $12 million," Mr. Conyers said. "I also question the legality of someone raising private money to conduct a public election."

    I have always believed him to be a fighter for voter enfranchisement.  And if private money is an issue, does that not put caucuses that the DNC pays for into question too?  

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    This is a political party candidate selection process.  There is nothing wrong with having contributors to that party pay for it.

    [ Parent ]
    Lizza article on Obama's IL career points out his (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    willingness to use any means to gain power. Supposedly it's something he learned from his Saul Alinsky school of community organizing when he first went to Chicago.

    This article is from March '07 and covers the arc of his Chicago years.  He is idealistic, according to Lizza, but has learned that power is the only thing which permits change.

    Lizza notes that Obama's political team is a traditional and very experienced in Chicago machine style--the press treats Obama as a politician unwilling to use strongarm tactics, but it is the Clintons who may not have the stomach for the types of attacks Obama and team use.

    He is willing to cut people out, use people, seduce people, work with people he disapproves of in order to achieve his goal of achieving power. Power is what permits change.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/bobamasunlikelypoliticaledu.html

    Found this link from commenter UpstateNewYork at The Confluence, riverdaughter's blog. Longish, but well-worth the read. Supports much of what has been written about Obama's political climb.

    http://www.riverdaughter.wordpress.com

    Oh,yes--On Topic bcz it goes to Obama's (none / 0) (#101)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    willingness to use tactics others might find worrisome or even wrong.

    Such as not counting votes, coming from a transcendent, new-style politician.

    But, it's not the voters or the votes--it's the winning the power.

    Is that the new-style politics? Actually, for Bush it was--say anything to get elected, do anything to win an "election," where votes do not have to be counted. Getting the power, then using it as if it were a huge manadate to do whatever BushCo wanted. Maybe not such new politics!

    Hopefully, Obama is not another Bush type!

    Yesterday's speech seemed to begin to lay out what he would do with that power--but is it just more leverage to gain power? Is it what he will really do? What do we get with Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, blatantly off-topic (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    The topic here is Michigan revotes, not how Obama is  eeeeeeeevil.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems like the Same Thing (none / 0) (#150)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    put urls in html format (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    or they skew the site and your comments with them risk being deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegates Can Be Seated Right Now - Legally! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by wacowheels on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    Please note this wonderfully succinct summation of the rules, posted by Jon Winkleman on myDD:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956

    A strict interpretation of the rules says Hillary would get half of her delegates and Obama would get no delegates from MI or FL. No revotes, no redos, just applying current rules.

    If the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee does nothing at all this would be the interpretation of the rules. These committees have to actually exercise their power to change the strict interpretation of the rules. And they have almost unlimited power to do so! And there is the rub - how can anyone claim that someone is trying to change the rules when the rules are extremely fluid in the first place!

    If anything - it is in Hillary's best interest to do nothing and to allow the strict interpretation of the rules.

    Great (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    Now Clinton has to do Dean's job too.

    If I was Barack Obama and cared about what my candidacy meant to black people, I'd be fighting for revotes too.

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    has run his campaign on being grassroots and building a coalition where every voice counts and every person is a part of it.

    He cannot run on that platform and ignore millions of voters in two states no matter what the rules are.

    Rules may be rules but perception is everything.

    he can and will (none / 0) (#177)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    because he is a a regular ole hypocritical pol - nothing more. people making him out to something more than that are setting themselves up for some big-time disappointment.

    [ Parent ]
    Misdirected (2.60 / 5) (#13)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    I understand most people want their candidate to win. But changing the rules after the fact doesn't add to the legitimacy of the contest.  I understand the anger of voters in MI and FL but their anger should be directed at their elected officials who put them in this position to begin with.  To change the rules at this juncture would send the wrong message for future elections.  FL and MI can still vote in the general election they will just be like the other states in a normal election cycle, "they won't have much of a say in how the candidate is chosen in the primary.  Coming from a smaller state that normally has no say in the process I have no sympathy for the voters in these two states.  

    kto (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    could you please cite the rule that Clinton is trying to change and provide a link, please?

    [ Parent ]
    reply (none / 0) (#29)
    by kto on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    I was referring to the punishments about moving the primary up within the DNC.

    [ Parent ]
    Then your comment is off topic (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    Shall I delete it for you?

    This is about revotes.

    [ Parent ]

    A revote does not change the rules (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    It adheres to them.

    I am amazed that some Obama supporters are so intent on NOT winning Florida and Michigan in November.

    Your telling falsehoods here. Falsehoods long debunked at Talk Left.

    Please avoid doing this any more at this site.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep say buy buy to MI and FL (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    The Republicans will blast ads across both states talking about how the Democrats disenfranchised the people from their voice in the primary process. It will call into question of Obama's legitamacy as the nominee if he gets the nomination. I don't see much chance of Democrats winning either state if this doesn't get resolved. Obama supporters saying this is no big deal are really living in a fantasy world.

    [ Parent ]
    The way to avoid this is the 50% penalty (none / 0) (#96)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    the delegates should be seated based on the vote, but with the same 50% penalty that was given by the Republican's to take away that issue.  The tricky thing is what to do about the uncommitted MI delegates.  Do those all go to Obama?  

    [ Parent ]
    no because that violates (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    the one person one vote rule and disenfranchises half the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    What you don't seem to understand is... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    ...some Obama supporters don't believe a screwed up primary means MI & FL are lost.  Some of us believe the FL & MI delegates will be at the convention in August.  What exactly has got you so panicked about losing FL & MI?  Do you think voters care more about a screwed up primary or $3.50/gal gas?  I really don't understand the panic.


    [ Parent ]
    Um (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    Yes, people really do care about their votes not counting.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    I don't know how huge an issue it actually is. I consider it to be more of an opportunity to gripe, an all-American pastime.

    Even this early, the polling I've seen says 25% in FL might not vote for the Dem in the general. I don't see that attitude lasting until November. YMMV.

    [ Parent ]

    Right now polling indicates (none / 0) (#134)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    a close election. A lot less than 25% of Dem votes swung FL to Bush (almost) in the 2000 election. A change of less than 1% would have swung WI to Bush in 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    The people standing behind Clinton (none / 0) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:09 AM EST
    right now are holding up signs saying count my vote.  I have no idea how big the crowd is but she is saying it is within the rules to count the votes.

    CNN question... does Obama mean what he says?

    [ Parent ]

    does Obama mean what he says (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    I have no doubt we will eventually get "what he really meant" either way.

    [ Parent ]
    Enough to vote for McCain? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    If I were a MI or FL resident I would be angry with the state party for screwing the primary up. I wouldn't vote for McCain in November because of it however.  That is what some Clinton supporters are suggesting and I think it is a highly dubious theory.  

    [ Parent ]
    Dubious theory? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    The polling agrees with this theory regardless of what your gut or personal predilections might tell you. That is the reality.

    [ Parent ]
    Polling in March is not reality November is (none / 0) (#91)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    and just as Clinton backers argued that polls showing her behind are meaningless at this stage (which i agree with) so are these.  There is anger now but once it is a question of McCain v. Obama or Clinton I think those numbers will change.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    The number may change. It may shrink somewhat in spite of the fact that I'm sure they'll be many reminders of all of this during the general election campaign. And that is fine.

    But I think some will hold firm. I know I will. I've said since last summer that no primary vote would mean no general election vote from me. And my decision isn't based on anger.


    [ Parent ]

    It is March 19, 2008 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    Any polls taken seven months before the GE are pretty close to useless.  Do you really think people will hold a grudge for seven months?  Do you really think FL & MI won't have their delegates seated at the convention?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and yes (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    Yes, voters will remember.

    Yes, I don't think MI and FLA's votes will be counted in determining the nomination. "Seating" their delegations is not a matter of letting them sit in the convention hall.  It's about letting those delegates be chosen in a manner that is consistent with the will of the people in those states.

    [ Parent ]

    Which should I believe? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    A poll 7 months out or your contention that your personal predilictions are representative of the voters of two entire states? I'll go with the former, thanks.

    Do I believe these polls are representative of the numbers in November? No. I have no doubt that many of these voters will hold their nose and vote for the Dem candidate, but if even a few percent decide they can't back the Dem nominee, that is bad.

    And we aren't even talking about moderates / independents yet. I know it might come as a shock, but moderates that may have been previously leaning Dem this year do not have any loyalty to the party.

    [ Parent ]

    And... (none / 0) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    I saw a poll a few weeks ago (so take it FWIW) that showed HRC was preferred overwhelmingly by moderates (as opposed to independents), so I think that would factor into those either abstaining or jumping ship if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    So.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    And we aren't even talking about moderates / independents yet. I know it might come as a shock, but moderates that may have been previously leaning Dem this year do not have any loyalty to the party.

    They have no loyalty to the party yet they care so deeply about what happens in the party's primary and a party's convention that they won't vote for that party in November.  I have a hard time believing that.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    It is PRECISELY because they have no particular loyalty to the party that they are inclined to say "that party doesn't even care about my vote, I'm not going to support them."

    You seem to have trouble grasping that not everyone perceives the difference betweeen Republicans and Democrats in the same stark ideological terms that you do.

    [ Parent ]

    So your belief is that non-Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    have no principles, that none of them care about the wholesale disenfranchisement of their state? Is it that hard to believe that some of these moderates, after being disgusted by the bungling of the Bush administration, might think twice about voting for a Democratic nominee after witnessing the bungling of the Democratic party?

    The only dubious theory being circulated is the one that suggests this mess will not effect any of the Dem and Independent voters of these states.  If the GOP picks up a mere 3% because of this, that will be a huge handicap.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#146)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    Non-Democrats certainly have principles.  I just refuse to believe they will care more about a primary vote that got screwed up than than they will about gas prices, a credit crisis, a housing slump, bombing Iran, a horrible Iraq policy, abortion rights, illegal immigration, inflation, NAFTA, etc., etc., etc.  

    Is it that hard to believe that some of these moderates, after being disgusted by the bungling of the Bush administration, might think twice about voting for a Democratic nominee after witnessing the bungling of the Democratic party?

    Yes. I would much rather have a screwed up primary than a war with Iran.  

    The only dubious theory being circulated is the one that suggests this mess will not effect any of the Dem and Independent voters of these states.  If the GOP picks up a mere 3% because of this, that will be a huge handicap.

    So our victory in November will be even sweeter because we overcame this huge handicap.  I guess I have more faith in the Democratic Party than you do.   Even if I didn't I certainly wouldn't be panicking about this.  At this point in time no solution is going to make everyone happy.  Someone is going to be pissed off about what happens in MI or FL.  I have faith that the Dems' policies will win over the voters in November.  

    [ Parent ]

    If Moderates / Independents shared your (none / 0) (#155)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    views, they would probably be identifying as Democrats. But they don't share your views and your views are not representative of these voters.

    [ Parent ]
    But your views are? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    They will care more about primary votes than gas prices in November because you say so?  I can't argue with that.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, I don't argue that they will care more (none / 0) (#161)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    about disenfranchisement than gas prices (though some may), but that they may decide McCain is the best person to handle these issues after seeing the way this Florida / Michigan thing has been handled.

    Only a small percentage of people need take this position for it to influence the election. You are betting that 100% of Dems and Independents agree with you.  I am not.

    [ Parent ]

    100% ? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    I am sure a non-material number of voters will either stay home or vote for McCain in the GE as a direct result of the primary snafu.  My position is there will not be enough of them to sway the election one way or the other.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm hearing some split ticket talk. (none / 0) (#157)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Some will vote McC and all dem down ticket. Some will just not vote in the prez, but vote dem for the rest. They would rather see a veto proof dem majority with new leadership that would actually fight for change than Obama and the bluedogs calling the shots, Kennedy and Durbin notwithstanding. Just anecdotal, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    if Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    a lot of democrats are going to be voting for McCain in states with perfectly legal primaries.
    I hear from them every day.  McCain is less scary to many blue collar democrats than Obama.
    that is a fact.


    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Not all voters cast their vote for the same reasons you do.  This sort of thing does make a difference and the polls back it up.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think... (none / 0) (#67)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    they are suggesting voting for McCain - just not voting for POTUS if Obama is the nominee and working for candidates down-ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    actually (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    the ones I am talking about mean exactly that.
    voting for McCain. no ifs ands or butts.

    [ Parent ]
    Does Obama really want to bet (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    the election on that?

    Florida cost Al Gore the election in 2000 -- and he WON it. But it was so close it could be stolen. You want to risk a total of 44 electoral votes?  Why fight for them with a handicap?  It takes a lot of small Western states to make up 44 electoral votes.

    If Obama is really so sure that re-votes in MI and FLA won't change the ultimate result, he should let them happen. It enhances his statute, his legitimacy, it fosters reconciliation and party unity. Isn't that what he's supposed to be all about?

    [ Parent ]

    Is it Obama betting? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Consistently people here presume Obama is somehow the puppetmaster here. The DNC is the party that declared the two primaries to be in violation of their rules and thus uncounted. Why pin it on Obama when it was the Clinton campaign that until now has fought against do-overs?

    We know there will a Florida delegation seated at the convention, just not based on the January primary. There may actually be a do-over in Michigan.

    If, in fact, Florida Dems can't get beyond the fact that their January primary was declared void beforehand, an