home

DNC Approves MI Revote Plan; Obama Is The Obstacle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

No excuse left for Barack Obama and his ardent supporters. Once so outraged by so called attempted "disenfranchisement" by Hillary Clinton, prove that their concern for the voters was false, as they either cheer or stand silent to Barack Obama's attempts to stop the revote in Michigan. The DNC has given the the thumbs up to the MI revote plan:

We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan.

No more excuses Barack Obama. No more excuses Obama supporters who claimed a love for voters rights. Your hypocrisy is revealed. As they love to say, this is a question of what type of Democratic Party we will be - one that aims to enfranchise voters or disenfranchise them.

< Supreme Court Reverses Conviction Based on Prosecutor's Exclusion of Blacks from Jury | Gallup National Tracker: Clinton 49 - Obama 42 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DNC Approves MI Revote Plan; Obama Is The Obstacle | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Unbelievable. (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    Barack Obama 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.

    I think this hurts him in the GE in a way we may not even be able to measure.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    This may hurt him in the later primaries down the road.  A majority of voters nationwide want these two states seated.

    And if he's the nominee, can't you see the ads?  And  he certainly won't have the high ground to say that Democrats are better than Republicans and that you should trust him more than McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    It's another example of cognitive dissonance between how he presents himself as a unifying figure and what his campaign is actually doing. There has been a lot of this in his campaign but up until now, surprisingly little notice taken of it in the MSM.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow - I got rated a 1 for this comment?! (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
     I think this is flagrant ratings abuse. Certainly out of character for this site.

    [ Parent ]
    Consider the source. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    And I think you'll find that it isn't "the site", it's just one lone commenter - whom I do not agree with, just FYI.

    [ Parent ]
    It is Truth08 (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    He / She has been going through the thread rating everything he / she does not agree with a "1"

    Truth08

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I got hit with a 1 (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    as well.  Simply for repeating what certain opponents of the re-vote have said.

    [ Parent ]
    Someone's giving out 1's (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    for opinions they don't like or questions they don't like.  I think it's pretty cute, boy that 1 ruined my day.  I'm so fragile.  It was just brutal ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I have undone all truth 08's ratings (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    if he persists, he will be banned and have all his comments erased.

    [ Parent ]
    I also just banned Truth 08 (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    it's obvious he came here yesterday -- probably in response to a suggestion at another site that Obama supporters register here and at My DD and try to dominate the conversation. Even if that's wrong, he would know it's a violation of ratings at every site to rate a comment based on point of view.

    [ Parent ]
    Would it be such a bad thing to get rid of the (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    rating system altogether?

    I refuse to use it as it too often, imo, becomes a very petty device.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't have to rate. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    IMO, 1s are used mostly as flags to the admins on this site.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    The ratings are not administered. Email to TL, or complaint in the comments, is how abuse gets flagged.

    Mostly it is used as an extra way of agreeing or disagreeing with someone. In the beginning I rated two or three posts as 1 but realized that it is better to ignore offensive posts, so I stopped 1 rating.

    The 1's have increased dramatically in the last two or three months. And it is a fact that most of the 1's have been generated by HRC supporters against BHO supporters. Not that they are any worse than BHO supporters but that there are many many more HRC supporters that BHO supporters here.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm an equal opportunity critic. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    A lousy comment is a lousy comment, no matter who posts it or what their bias is.  

    If people abuse ratings, I'm sure the admins will deal with it.  They seem to be fairly prompt, so I usually don't worry about abusive commenters or raters.

    It seems that not all that many commenters here do much rating.  

    [ Parent ]

    Rating 1s (1.00 / 3) (#104)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    Seem to be the norm here in the last two months. You will find that the 1's have been mostly reserved for Obama supporters or anyone that criticizes a HRC cultist.

    [ Parent ]
    okay, one of the things I like about this site (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    is that you don't get terms like "cultist" thrown around.

    Or much.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    It is due to the effect of near homogeneity.

    [ Parent ]
    Er, well... (none / 0) (#133)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    It sure doesn't work that way on other blogs with a "majority" opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Cognitive Dissonance. (4.33 / 3) (#39)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    That it!

    [ Parent ]
    About Rules (none / 0) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    Rules are not sacred, principles are.

        - FDR

    If Obama blocks re-votes in Michigan and Florida he would appear to be a nominee with an asterisk.

    Many people throughout the country would perceive that he became the nominee based on a lawyerly technicality.

    And that's poison.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to think how this will look in history (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:20:57 PM EST
    textbooks.  (It's the way I think.:-)  

    Imagine our grandkids reading about that asterisk, as you put it so well.  Imagine the explanation, and in the context of the 2000 election in a preceding paragraph of the history textbook, that the party was punishing two states for having primary elections a couple of weeks "too soon."

    Now, your grandkid comes to you, since you're so old that you actually were alive in '08, and asks about this -- about what law or whatever it was meant that a party could punish voters, set dates of elections, etc. . . . and in so doing, screw up an election.  And in so doing, maybe keep us at war in Iraq even then, when your grandkid will be only a few years away from having to serve there, too.

    We will not look like a wise generation.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    blocking (none / 0) (#155)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    Obama does not govern in Michigan.  The governor of Michigan and the legislature decide whether to have a revote.  It is their responsibility to pass a law that will pass judicial muster.  

    [ Parent ]
    I assume the Obama campaign will (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    object because of the danger that Republicans are free to turn the election for Hillary.
    Republican cheating must be prevented; Democratic cheating is fine, of course, as long as it is in the service of electing Obama.

    Actually (4.00 / 2) (#46)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    One of the Obama lawyer's objections is that people who voted in the GOP primary will be unable to vote for this one.  So you have it exactly backwards.

    [ Parent ]
    And that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    is even more inane.

    They chose to vote in the republican primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (4.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    I never said it was a good argument, just that MarkL's theory of Obama villiany is contradicted by the facts.

    [ Parent ]
    I welcome correction on the facts. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    You should feel the same.
    FL turnout not depressed
    You can put that talking point to bed now, and delete the op-ed link from your bookmarks.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn made a similar argument (3.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    And I responded that the proper basis of comparison is to other states in the same primary year, not other states in primaries with different candidates 18 years ago.  The author has a bunch of "may haves" but the evidence I provided is the best reference point we have.  

    I don't expect you to deal with any of this on the merits, as our previous exchanges have disabused me of any such hopes, but I would request that you pay closer attention, and maybe stay on topic as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the proper way of analyzing the issue (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    is to use the statistic YOU prefer, according to Comparing how apples and oranges grow, insteading of comparing how apples grow in the same place at different times, is ludicrous.
    Turnout in FL was up, both in absolute numbers, and as s relative percentage of total vote---as compared to 4 and 8 years ago, not just 18.

    As I said before, if your assertion is correct, there will be more than one way of crunching numbers to validate it. Find someone who has done an actual statistical analysis, and you should post it. What you're presented is worthless.

    [ Parent ]

    I gave reasoned arguments (3.00 / 1) (#99)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    for why my statistics are preferable.  Namely more relevant variables are held constant in one year than from year to year.  You don't bother to refute that, you just demand more evidence.  Complying with such demands from someone who will simply demand more is a fool's game.  This is still off-topic, by the way.

    [ Parent ]
    That is gibberish (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    Comparing results in different states with different demographics means you have no way of knowing how sensitive voting is to various changes.
    Also, your sample size is 3, which is pretty sad.
    I asked before, and I'll ask again: do you know ANYTHING about statistics, mathematically speaking?
    What you presented is NOT a statistical argument, it  is a comparison of raw numbers.
    This is very tedious, and I broke my promise not to waste time with you. I thought you were amenable to reasoned discourse and evidence. In this case, I was wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh huh (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    But according to you it's reasonable to assume Florida demographics are the same now as they were in 1980.  Neither data set is perfect.  Mine is better.

    I'm glad you're done with me, because it appears our opinions of the other's susceptibility to reasoned argument in evidence are reciprocal.

    [ Parent ]

    My susceptibility to your reiteration of (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    your OPINION on this matter is low; reasoned arguments, which you  sometimes provide in other contexts, are welcome.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a nice set of numbers: (none / 0) (#156)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM EST
    As I expected, REPUBLICAN turnout in FL was exceptionally high. Democratic turnout, as a percentage of total registered Dems, was comparable to that of other states THIS YEAR.
    Facts are wonderful things

    [ Parent ]
    Btw, if you want to discuss issues on the merits (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    I am all for it.  Bring on the actual statistics, with the assumptions, the data, the confidence intervals.

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone seen the proposal? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    who'll be on the ballot? Gravel?


    Keep your eyes on November, Frodo. Don't use The Ring.
    Well (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST
    there might be some DNC rule about running in a Democratic primary after you've endorsed a third-party candidate for the office, but who knows!

    [ Parent ]
    He only endorsed for the Green nomination, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    not the General.


    Keep your eyes on November, Frodo. Don't use The Ring.
    [ Parent ]
    Oh! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    I didn't realize.  The reporting had been very unclear.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? He will only be a disaster for the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    Democratic party, since his chances of winning in the fall are nil.

    dare I say it: (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    Perhaps for the best? Sorry, it had to be said.

    [ Parent ]
    Foolish of you (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    I assume you are speaking from anger. If not, then why are you a Democrat?

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, Obama is unqualified. It doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    what party he is in.
    Bush has been a disaster primarily because he was completely unfit for office on day 1, as well as supremely arrogant.
    No amount of native intelligence can substitute for the experience Obama lacks.
    You have said before that favoring Obama is going for a roll of the dice, in terms of the election; it is also true of his potential Presidency, as well.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is qualified but Obama is not? (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    Ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's competence is a separate question. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    Democrats should not nominate an unqualified candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    This is OT though.. you can delete. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    About the primary, it seems to me that Obama will suffer a political defeat if the primary is held at all. If he loses the primary on top of that, won't some people be angry over all the fuss to validate the previous result?

    [ Parent ]
    I would say yes to that question. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    Though not my first choice.

    [ Parent ]
    On Qualifications - Yes McCain is qualified. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MMW on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    He may not be the best for the job, but he is qualified. It may not be what we want to hear, but it is the truth. McCain has also been more bipartisan than Obama or Clinton. Bipatisanship is what Obama is running on. When you look at the records of both as far as crossing the aisle, who do you think comes out on top?

    [ Parent ]
    Bipartisanship (none / 0) (#110)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    Actually I suspect an unbiased study will show that only McCain's rhetoric has been bipartisan relative to Clinton/Obama.

    Anyway most of the above discussion is off-track because of Kleiman's sophistry in framing HRC's comment.

    [ Parent ]

    I object to his candidacy primarily (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    because I feel he does not have the qualifications, the experience, to be President.
    The rest of it? It's too bad that he has so much political talent and so  little judgment.

    [ Parent ]
    A blog commenter has spoken! (none / 0) (#42)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    may as well stop the election now.  I stole that line from Steve M but it is equally apt here.

    [ Parent ]
    Time for an Obama speech (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    "Why voting rights are essential to a democracy"

    To be delivered to an invitation-only crowd (people whose votes actually counted) and carried live by all the cable outlets, as soon as all re-votes are officially dead.

    The end justifies the means? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    Isn't that the sort of philosophy that bought us Iraq?

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    It would be interesting to find out if the Michigan League of Women Voters is planning on taking a position on this plan. Voting rights and voter enfranchisement are paramount principles of the LWV.

    Disappointed in Obama (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    this is bad on the merits and bad politics as well.

    Has (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    Obama voiced opposition to the MI revote?  If so, I'm really disappointed in him.  This is terrible politics and it absolutely clashes with his overall message.  
    I think you can make a case that FLA has to accept some responsibility if they are not allowed to have their delegates seated...but MI actually got its house in order.  If the plan is feasible and within the rules, we HAVE to do it.  We really do.  


    [ Parent ]
    There is an insane post at TPM (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    claiming that a revote in MI will have little impact. HELLO?? The delegates will be seated if there is a revote. Is TPM advocating Luke Esser style counting, where you stop when your candidate is ahead? Unbelievable.

    Have a 5 for (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    "Luke Esser style counting!"  (Sometimes known as 'Dino Rossi style counting')....

    [ Parent ]
    Some people also say (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    that not having a re-vote and not seating the delegates as is will have no impact on the GE, because the MI and FLA voters will have forgotten about their disenfranchisement by November, and if they haven't, they will blame their local and state and Congressional representatives rather than Obama.

    So either Obama loses the 44 electoral votes in those states, or the Democrats get swept out of office at the local, state and Congressional levels in those states.

    Excellent.

    [ Parent ]

    NPR (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Iphie on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    just had a brief (very brief) clip of Clinton in Detroit -- she was saying that to not count the votes of 2.5 million people in FL and MI is unAmerican. The notable point about this was that NPR specifically mentioned that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot in MI.

    It seems to me that the issue of voluntary removal of names from the ballot doesn't normally get mentioned, so maybe this indicates some sort of shift in the media narrative.

    (Yeah, I kind of do always look for the silver lining.)

    It has been a pattern (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    of the Obama campaign to block and question every attempt for a re-vote in FL&MI. the reason is simple. They were losing there then and they will lose now.  It is shameful tactic and imho the DNC should punish this unacceptable attitude by
    recognizing and seating the FL Jan. vote and in MI they should give Clnton hers and Obama the gift of all the "uncommitted".  Jeralyn has argued this very well in the past but now, more than ever, in light of Obama's undemocratic behavior this seems more than  fair.

    Obama camp criticizes Michigan do-over primary plan
    Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

    Light at the end of Florida's dark tunnel? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:18:50 PM EST
    The plan offered by the lawmakers would provide for 100% seating of Florida's delegates. The compromise solution calls for 50% of the delegates to be awarded based upon the results of the January 29th Florida Presidential Primary vote. The other 50% of delegates could be allocated according to any of several formulas floated like popular vote, delegate count .. etc

    "This plan gives us a light at the end of a very dark tunnel," said Geller.  

    "Democrats face an unprecedented opportunity to lead this nation," Ring said. "However, in order to do so, it's incumbent upon the campaigns to quickly resolve the uncertainty surrounding the Florida delegation."
    No excuse for bashing Obama (2.00 / 5) (#63)
    by truth08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    I can't believe the distorted views about what's really happening. Or, how people forget "history" that is only a month or two old. So it's worth saying again -- Mich and Florida already voted.

    Is it Obama's fault the dem leaders in Mich and Florida acted out of -- for lack of a better word -- stupidity by deliberately breaking the rules? They're the ones who disenfranchised their own voters. They sent a message that says "rules don't matter, especially if breaking them may work to our advantage". Now that it didn't work, Obama becomes the scapegoat. First it was the Dem national party. So now they blame Obama. So who is holding the decision makers accountable -- the very ones who caused their own votes' demise?

    Imagine all the money that has to be spent. We're not talking about money spent to "give people a voice". We're talking about money spent to change the rules, just to save face. Imagine what greater good that money could be used for. But hey, whatever works for Clinton's advantage, who's own campaign finances were blundered to the point she had to pay it money from her own pocket just to keep it alive. (And people want her to lead the nation?)

    And by the way, why is Florida being mentioned when bashing Obama about this fiasco, when they decided for themselves a revote wasn't going to happen. So, no excuse for Obama bashing.

    The rules allow the FL and MI delegations (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    to be seated, as is. That is the simplest, cheapest solution, and it involves no cheating or undemocratic action---just count the votes.


    [ Parent ]
    Truthout, the usual way of expressing (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    disagreement on TL is to post a comment.
    Giving 1's to every Hillary supporter is not acceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    At this point (none / 0) (#97)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    more than ever I couldn't agree more. That is indeed the most fair solution.

    Obama needs be able to win despite this for legitimacy. That would be a strength for him in GE not a weakness. And if he doesn't win because of this then... well that would a troublesome sign for the GE anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Please, do me a favor. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Never become a Gore supporter.

    Please.

    [ Parent ]

    Never (2.00 / 2) (#74)
    by truth08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    make comments personal. Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    The rules permit re-votes (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    as the DNC's letter on MI demonstrates.  The rules also permit seating the delegations as is. The rules always permitted primaries to be held earlier than Feb. 4 if the state party could not prevent the primary from being moved up.  That standard has a lot of flexibility in it. The reason the FLA and MI primaries were "disallowed" was because they usurped the inviolable primacy of NH, IA, SC and NEV -- except that NH, IA, SC and NEV moved up their primaries even more, so that they still came first. The DNC permitted that. Once they did, any reason for disallowing the FLA and MI delegations en toto -- a sanction that went beyond the rules --no longer existed.  The only remaining reason for imposing such a harsh penalty was ego.

    Whoever's fault it was, it was assuredly not the fault of ordinary FLA and MI voters.  They are the ones being disenfranchised.  The suggestion that they should blame their state parties and not the DNC is not helpful.  They will blame everyone. And their anger will endanger both Obama's prospects in the general, and our ability to capture a greater majority in Congress.

    It is in Obama's interest to let either a re-vote or seating as is -- more, frankly, than it is in Clinton's. But the only interest that really matters is the integrity of the process.  It is the interests of the Democratic voters of FLA and MI that matter here, not the candidates' interests.

    [ Parent ]

    Hooboy.... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    'the integrity of the process.'  That's a good one!

    We Democrats talk a good game but too often it is 'just more empty words.'  

    Obama's people seem to be perfecting the 'take your eye off the ball' technique in 'let's play process!'

    Gawd save the Democrats from people who spend their lives on By-Laws Committees.

    [ Parent ]

    No, what is (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    his fault is he sitting on his hands and doing absolutely nothing constructive to help resove this issue. The reason of why he is doing that is clear.
    But his attitute on this; his lack of active advocacy (not "words") for the people of FL & MI to is not that of a "leader".

    [ Parent ]
    DNC erred, but NOT the Voters. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    I am glad you specified that the error was on the part of the partyy leaders. so penalize the rules committee members: replace them.  Do not take it on the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Obama has a case when it comes to FLA.  He destroys that case if he doesn't help facilitate a MI revote.  MI did what Dean asked of them.  Yes, they broke the rules with full knowledge of the consequences.  Yes, the original vote was invalid for many reasons.  Yes, it is bad politically, morally, and ethically to act as an obstacle to a MI revote.  This isn't Obama bashing, it's just reality.  I support Obama.  I think he's a better GE candidate and would make a better President than Hillary.  That does not change the fact that, were he to oppose or stand in the way of a revote, he would be behaving reprehensibly.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about history (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    You seem to be missing the fact that the Florida primary was pushed onto complaining Democrats by the Republican controlled legislature.

    A solution to the dilemna is to re-vote.  If Obama stands in the way, as it certainly appears, then he SHOULD be castigated.

    [ Parent ]

    If the votes counted in MI and FL (none / 0) (#117)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    Hillary would be in a great position.

    So by saying that neither of the states should be included is really not a democratic way to win an election.

    So Obama gets his way, neither count, he wins. But did he "really"?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama bashing my a$$ (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    Being the roadblock to voters being able to vote in a democracy IS NOT BEING A MAN OF PRINCIPLE, IT IS BEING A THIEF AND SORT OF DICTATORISH!  If he doesn't want the original vote to count then fine, revote........it is easy and the states that are supposedly being held accountable for breaking the rules while others aren't did not get to impact the race as early primary states.

    [ Parent ]
    Too Late... (none / 0) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    This is a dead donkey!!

    There goes the voters rights... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    It will not go to a vote in the Senate.. barring some other last minute miracle ... it is dead as a doornail.

    There goes the voters rights... So much for the democracy!

    [ Parent ]

    MEMO: Obama's Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    3/19/2008 10:10:26 AM

    On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be "fine" with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

    So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again. It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words. As yesterday's headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear, Senator Obama is the lone standout: "Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say."



    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM EST


    Hypocrisy rules the day. (none / 0) (#3)
    by ajain on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    Ben Smith just reported that the re-vote plan is officially dead.

    50 - 2 = 48 (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    I propose that we call this the "Obama 48-State Strategy."

    [ Parent ]
    48 states (none / 0) (#62)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    were good enough for FDR - should be good enough for Clinton supporters.

    What's the problem?

    [ Parent ]

    Can we give up (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    Alaska and Hawaii and get Florida and Michigan?

    [ Parent ]
    Hey! (none / 0) (#121)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    I'm a Hawaii voter.  :o)

    [ Parent ]
    This is a joke, right? n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Some a-list bloggers don't think it is (none / 0) (#93)
    by badger on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Democracy? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    Dissing the  people of FL & MI? That does sound democratic to you?
     

    [ Parent ]
    That report (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM EST
    is from Obama Michigan Co-Chair Tupac Hunter who has been fighting his butt off for Obama to kill the revote.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    so you believe we still have a chance?

    [ Parent ]
    I have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    I do know the story confirm my post - Obama is thebbiggest obstacle to a Mi revote.

    [ Parent ]
    Now to get the MI legislature on board. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    It doesn't look good, but there's still time.

    Clinton's trip to Detroit (none / 0) (#5)
    by Iphie on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    Maybe this development and Clinton's trip to Detroit will begin to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Obama campaign. He doesn't need more bad press, and giving the impression that he is interested in seeing voters disenfranchised would seem like pretty bad press to me.

    He's getting all the press (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    for giving a speech on Iraq on the 5th anniversary.

    [ Parent ]
    Top of the hour story at 2 p.m. on NPR (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    was the Michigan controversy.  They specifically reported that Clinton had called for a revote and that the DNC had approved the plan, but that Obama supporters in the MI legislature were fighting it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I was previously unaware (none / 0) (#8)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    that Carl Levin supports Obama.  This post has enlightened me.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    Carl Levin is NOT the obstacle. If you knew anything about this you would know the MI Plan is Carl Evin's plan as well.

    I know it is hard to accept that Barack Obama is the biggest obstacle to having the people of Michigan vote, but there it is.

    [ Parent ]

    My mistake (none / 0) (#32)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    I misread this post on the politico.  I was aware of Levin's plan and assumed he had reversed himself based on that misreading.

    [ Parent ]
    See Also (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by The Maven on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    this op-ed piece in today's New York Times Sen. Levin co-authored with Debbie Dingell, in which they point out that neither of them have endorsed a candidate yet.

    [ Parent ]
    This isn't a zero sum game (none / 0) (#23)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    If the only thing you care about is getting a revote in MI then you are being naive.  MI had a chance to do this right and they blew it.  Obama bears no responsibility for MI's failure.  

    Because of that failure, Obama is now in a position where he has to choose between what is best for the Dems as a whole and what is best for the Dems in Michigan.  Either way he chooses the one who benefits the most is Hillary Clinton.  

    He bears ALL the responsibiiltiy (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    for stopping the revote.

    Which is what I wrote.

    If you are comfortable with defending that, then that is on you.

    I do not know if you were one of the outrageous lying hypcritical Obama supporters who smeared Hillary Clinton with false "disenfranchisement" charges, so I can not tell if you a a despicable hypocrite as well.

    Two I can name are Kid Oakland and There Is No Spoon. They are bad jokes - the both of them.

    Tell them I said so.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my! (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    I promised myself that I would not participate at this site anymore last week, but only read and lurk to gain news. But, BTD, you are simply spectacular and make me laugh so much all the time - had to say so!

    [ Parent ]
    Please don't forget DemocraticLuntz (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    BTD. He claimed the constitution was threatened because Clinton was supposedly objecting to out of state voters in Iowa.

    [ Parent ]
    yes. (none / 0) (#138)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    One diariest who wrote very civil diary about out-of-state students voting in Iowa, was called a racist (along with any one of us who tried to discuss this calmly), and had 55 TR's in his tip jar.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I 'm tempted to cut'n'paste this. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    But I won't.

    I do agree with you.  I don't know what causes that kind of blindness.  Is it the pursuit of some higher ideal?  Is it being caught up in an ideological mania?

    I don't know what causes it, but I do know that I don't like it.

    [ Parent ]

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    It's ego and winning at all costs.  Bluntly, that's all.

    The more they are proven wrong, the more they dig to rationalize their denials.

    [ Parent ]

    Deliver your own messages thank you. (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    If you think the most important thing for the Party right now is getting a revote in MI then you are looking at the race through a keyhole.  MI had its chance and blew it.  As a result, the MI voters aren't being disenfranchised.  Keeping this race going on until June isn't gong to help anyone except Hillary Clinton.  

    Please stop pretending Obama and his supporters are despicable because they don't share your black or white views about the MI primary.  There are more issues to consider than whether or not MI voters have two chances to vote in the primary.  

    [ Parent ]

    Unsubstantiated premise: (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    why is the contested primary bad for Dems?
    That's not clear at all.
    McCain is barely a blip in the news these days, which I think is great.

    [ Parent ]
    I support Obama (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    but I fail to see what is gained by not re-voting.

    [ Parent ]
    The race continues (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    That is what is bad for Obama.  The longer this goes on the more negative Clinton has to get in order to win it.  If there is a new "big state" primary Clinton will claim she has to stay in the race until these people have their say.  If she does that she is going to continue to bash Obama with her kitchen sick attack policy.  As a result, Obama loses support in the GE.  

    A revote would actually improve his numbers.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, but Bush V. Gore reasons (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    do not impress me. There is no fundamental principle which says Obama's candidacy must not be harmed.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no such principle (3.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    As I said, a revote in MI is a good thing for Clinton and her supporters.  That is the main reason they are asking for one.  The idea that this argument is about whether or not we are disenfranchising the poor voters in MI is a specious one IMO.  I am sure there are some naive souls who truly believe this is about voters rights but the grown ups among us know this argument is about which side benefits most from a revote.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    So you support counting the votes when (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    it helps Obama, but not otherwise?!
    Counting the votes is the RIGHT thing to do. It also helps Hillary, which is why Obama opposes it.

    [ Parent ]
    How about new primaries in caucus states? (none / 0) (#151)
    by lily15 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    Because caucus votes aren't democratic at all..yet they help Obama.  If Democrats want to count the votes of Democrats, they need do over primaries in caucus states as well.  The truth is that Obama doesn't want primaries for any state...because he does not want to count ALL the votes of Democrats...and he doesn't like the idea of of secret ballot.  He also doesn't like the idea of a Democratic only primary.  All of this proves that Obama is a total hypocrite in everything he does.

    [ Parent ]
    I certainly agree with you (4.50 / 2) (#77)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    that most of the push for a revote is out of naked pro-Clinton interest.  There is little doubt about that.  But I also think that people should be able to vote in a meaningful primary unless there is a compelling reason not to.

    The compelling reason you provide is that a re-do gives Clinton more opportunity to hurt Obama's chances in the general.  But I think you are mistaken in thinking that there is any reasonable likelihood that Clinton will drop out.  Barring something highly improbable such as a 15-point loss in PA, Clinton is going to the convention no matter what.  She is going to try to convince the superdelegates that Obama is unelectable, or worse, regardless of what happens in Florida, Michigan, or any other state.  Given that she'll be hurting him in the GE under any circumstances, there is little to be gained from not re-doing those states.

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama likewise is trying to damage (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    Hillary and paint her as unelectable in the fall.
    That's politics.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#91)
    by Blue Neponset on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    If Clinton is hellbent on going to the convention as a candidate for the nomination then it would be better for Obama if he had a revote in MI & FL.  

    My guess is that won't happen but I thought Clinton would drop out after losing 11 primaries in a row.    Maybe your Clinton barometer is better than mine.  We will find out soon enough.  

    [ Parent ]

    Kid Oakland (none / 0) (#92)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    Shouldn't you see what he has to say about this first?

    AFAIK he has no track record of not being stand-up.

    [ Parent ]

    I just checked. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    I didn't find any recent opinion on the MI revote.

    [ Parent ]
    red rover, red rover... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    Two I can name are Kid Oakland and There Is No Spoon. They are bad jokes - the both of them.
    <