Obama Is The Obstacle To A MI Revote

By Big Tent Democrat

As reported by the Detroit News:

Clinton turns up heat for do-over
But new primary looks unlikely with Obama camp balking and time short.

Despite a quick visit from Hillary Clinton to make the case and pressure from other top Democrats, supporters of Barack Obama appeared no closer Wednesday to accepting plans for a do-over Democratic primary.

Supporters of the June 3 revote -- including a four-member committee of top Michigan Democrats that hatched the plan -- held out hope that the state Legislature would act on a bill to hold the new primary. But with time running short, the Obama campaign, which has little to gain and much potential for loss in a new vote, piled on the legal objections, and it remained unclear Wednesday night whether the proposal would even get an up-or-down vote in the Legislature.

More . . .

Ken Brock, chief of staff for Senate Democratic Leader Mark Schauer of Battle Creek, said it's up to Obama and Clinton to reach a deal.

(Emphasis supplied.) On the issue of Obama's objection that voters who voted in the Michigan Republican primary are excluded, the Detroit Free Press reports:

On Tuesday, Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer called the proposed legislation “a legally viable process for an early June presidential primary.” “None of the legal objections to this legislation have any merit, and in my opinion, this legislation satisfies all DNC and legal requirements,” he said.

He also noted that the provision that voters affirm they did not take part in the Jan. 15 Republican primary “is required by the DNC and must be part of the legislation.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Maybe Obama should ask Howard Dean to change the rules. And finally, from a Detriot News columnist:

The premise in the Obama camp seems to be that Clinton needs the votes, and that Obama can do without them -- or might do better by engineering a smoke-filled room decision about delegates than risking another election. But that reluctance also speaks to Obama's failure to win other big states against Clinton. The problem is that avoiding a real contest in Michigan makes the candidate look anxious and timid, rather than confident.

. . . The Obama campaign may wish to avoid another contest in Michigan's tricky waters -- and another election that will be imperfect but more inclusive than any alternative. Clinton may be hungrier for votes but she's also on the right side here. Substituting a smoke-filled room and a jerry-rigged delegation is even less of a solution than trying to put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall.

< Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him? | Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not: Obama Objects To DNC Rule In MI Revote Controversy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for scanning Detroit press (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    on this, BTD, across a couple of papers that don't always agree.  Telling that they do on this.

    I really want MI & FL (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM EST
    To have a noncontroversial solution to their dilemnas.

    I'd also like to see Bush and Cheney impeached.

    And for my third wish, I'd like a pony.

    Who's got the magic lamp?

    I have already named (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    my pony 'disenfranchised' (dizzy for short) as hope and change are alreay taken.

    I am deleting a comment (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    filled with falsehoods on the meaning of the four state pledge.

    We will not rehash a subject we explored thoroughly.

    The DNC says a revote is in conformance with the existing rules. That is the bottom line.

    Obama's objections (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    are valid.  It is unfair to disqualify voters who voted in the Republican primary.  

    That said, Obama is obviously not pushing a counter-proposal, so his objections to the current proposal fall flat.  I hope he changes his mind.

    You mean (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    it is unfair for Kossacks that thought there would be no repercussions by voting in the Republican primary.  

    And anyone that voted in that primary made their choice about which Party to vote for and they don't get twofers.


    They chose to vote in the Republican primary (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    Because they didn't have a choice to vote in a meaningful Democratic primary.  This isn't just Kossacks, it's anyone who wanted their vote to count in January.

    Why are we to be sympathetic (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    to any Dem who votes for a Republican?  

    Because they were gaming the system?  That is supposed to be a good thing, being "GOP for a Day"?


    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM EST
    I remember reading that and thinking "Well, that's republican" Back in the day...when I actually went on DK.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    they had a choice! Their choice was to vote uncommitted. It was Obama's choice and his gaming the system to take his name OFF the ballot. Just because a bunch of Kossacks followed their great leader and thought it'd mean nothing and didn't look ahead does NOT mean their votes would otherwise not have counted.

    Obama is chicken.


    Again (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    You and OBAMA want to CHANGE THE RULES!

    2 Corinthians 3:6 (none / 0) (#22)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    Half right (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    "They chose" is completely correct. "Because" - you have no idea why they chose to vote in the GOP primary, unless you have super-duper mind-reading abilities. You can speculate, you could even run a survey, but you'll never know "because" with any certainty..

    "Because" is not part of the election or vote-counting process.

    Try to stick to actual facts.


    So the result whereby (none / 0) (#39)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    those who did choose to vote in the GOP primary had their votes counted, while those who chose to vote in the Dem primary instead are now completely disenfranchised, seems fair to you?

    What? The ones (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    that chose to vote in the Dem primary would get to vote again. They're only trying to stop the votes of people that voted in the REPUBLICAN one. Sounds perfectly fair to me. Maybe not Markos and the gang...but fair.

    Yes I agree with you (none / 0) (#57)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    I'm responding to people who think that it's so unfair to stop people who voted in the GOP primary from voting in a new Dem primary that the solution is to hold no new primary and thus disenfranchise everyone who voted in the previous Dem primary.

    So you are advocating for the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    changing the rules?

    For the record, I imagine Clinton would not object to everyone being able to vote again.

    But let's stress this fact again ONE MORE TIME -



    Oh, he wants the Dem voters back (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    The Dem voters who thought it was cool to vote for Mitt just to try and upset the Republican apple cart? Those voters? I think it is nice that Michigan is willing to give him all of the N/A voted that were for the 'other' candidates. That is a gift in itself. Except for withholding contributions to the DNC until they seat the delegates, I do not believe I have been vocal enough to the DNC. Maybe I need to start sending my e-mails. Donna will not listen, she has her own agenda, but Howard might. So today is as good a time as any to start. If Obama was the likely winner of Michigan, I am sure the DNC would be hearing from all those blog people.

    He wants an excuse (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    I suggest he petition the DNC to change the rules.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    It is not unfair.  They voted and their votes were counted - for the Republicans.  Can't vote in two different primaries. End.of.story.

    AND (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:08:55 AM EST
    those votes COUNTED in the Republican election. Romney won. It wasn't remotely illegitimate. They can't now go "Oh well now if Obama had not taken his name off the ballot, I would've voted for him" is not an option. Too bad. You voted for the Republican.

    So...people should have their votes... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    ...count twice? The people who voted in the Republican primary had their votes counted. The entire purpose of this election is to count the votes that were NOT counted. I don't see how it is unfair to disqualify those who already voted.

    The suggestion that Dems who didn't think their votes would count went and voted to mess up the Republican Party is a bit misleading. There were ads being run by Obama supporters telling people who wanted to vote for him to go and vote Democratic, but to vote "uncommitted" so that they (the Obama supporters) could try to get those delegates seated in support of Obama in the general election.  That means that they had every incentive to NOT vote in the Republican election.


    And their votes DID count... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    ...in the Republican primary. To me this is the lamest argument of all.

    but, but i'm special! i voted there but i (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    really feel this way. naw, you game the system and vote as a republican, that's tough. live with it.

    I'm happy to provide an outlet for your (none / 0) (#21)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    frustration, people, but you really ought to read the second paragraph of my post.  

    I was assured (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    repeatedly by Obama supporters that Obama wasn't really trying to stop a revote, because he said he'd go along with whatever the DNC decided.

    I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.


    I hate to say (none / 0) (#37)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    you appear to be right, but you appear to be right.

    This is disingenuous of you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    The objection you support is an objection to the existing DNC rules.

    So do be leive "rules are rules" or not?

    Heck, if we can change the rules, let's change the one that requires all contest be completed by June 10. Give Florida and Michigan two more weeks to work this out.


    I only "support" the objection (none / 0) (#41)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:02 AM EST
    in the sense that I think it's a valid argument.  I do not think it's enough reason to torpedo the revote.  

    I have said repeatedly that I support a revote.


    It is only valid (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    if you do not accept that the "rules are rules."

    There is no rule requiring revotes (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    So I don't see where Obama is breaking or advocating changes in the rules.

    His argument is that given the rules, a revote is unfair.

    I agree, but support a revote anyway because it is the lesser of two evils.


    Here's the second paragraph (none / 0) (#43)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    of my original comment:

    That said, Obama is obviously not pushing a counter-proposal, so his objections to the current proposal fall flat.  I hope he changes his mind.

    That is a nonsequitor (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:17 AM EST
    You seem to have trouble with nuance (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    I'm surprised you're supporting Obama. :)

    there is no nuance in disenfranchising (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    voters for short term politican gain. it is purely a bad self promotoing decison.

    The objection is BS. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST

    It is unfair to disqualify voters who voted in the Republican primary.

    B as in bee, S as in ess.  There is no way to tell who voted in the Republican primary. There is no way to tell who voted in the Republican primary.

    Any objection on that basis is nothing but obstructionism.


    You can underline and capitalize it too (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    But voters would be required to sign a document that they didn't vote in the Republican primary.  I suppose they could commit fraud, but that hardly makes this a non-issue.

    If (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST

    As it is unenforceable, it is meaningless.  Guilty of fraud in how you voted in a secret ballot!  LOL.

    Is the Rep. MI (none / 0) (#60)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST
     delegation at issue ?

    Were the voters that participated in the Mi Rep. primary counted and its delegates decided?
    If yes, how many times should a person's vote be counted?

    Obama's objection seems, imo,  without merit: people who thought their vote wouldn't be counted could have voted (a) uncommitteed (remember Obama took his name from the ballot on his own; it was a calculated political move (b) for Clinton (c) stay home
    (d) participate in the Rep. primary

    What to do was their choice. They were hardly force by circumstances to choose (d).


    This becomes an argument for seating the (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:43:23 AM EST
    delegation as is, since no election will occur.

    I am (none / 0) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM EST
    not surprised that Obama does not want a re-vote. However, it's lose-lose for him. It makes him look chicken.

    What's the MI deadline again? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM EST

    Some say today (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    I assume early next week if people will stay to vote it in.

    Today (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    The Michigan Leg goes on a 2 week break and when they come back, there wouldn't be enough time to implement before the DNC's June 10 deadline.

    You have to believe that (none / 0) (#6)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    the Obama campaign is all the more desperate to avoid an election in MI at this juncture because of the potential of the Wright issue to do him great damage in a state like MI.

    I very much doubt that in a re-do the contest would be anything like a close one.

    And yet, all of the TV coverage (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    I've seen - admittedly my local news, so I doubt they even know what they're reading off the teleprompter - is framing this as Hillary "needing" these votes - and nothing about denying the people their voice.

    We were outraged when we learned that the Bush administration was employing tactics and implementing policies to suppress the vote and that Republican legislatures were enacting bills that would have the effect of making it harder for people to vote - why aren't more people outraged about this, and why aren't they wondering why Obama - who wants to be seen as the champion of the people - isn't leading on this issue?

    My blood has turned to sludge it has been boiling so hard over this.

    Ya know, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    this is what I don't get:  "Clinton needs those votes" to win.

    Okay, well, every candidate needs votes to win.  That's why we vote-to decide the winner.  The primaries are held to decide this.  MI and FL will hold primaries.  If Clinton wins these primaries, and takes the popular vote lead, and wins...how is that wrong?

    And the obverse, of course, does not paint Obama in a good light, because, basically, by trying to block the vote he is admitting that if MI and FL revote, Clinton will win the nomination.


    Yesterday (none / 0) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    the narrative changed.  CNN allowed talking heads on that said the rules allow a re-vote.  CNN and Fox had people on saying soft money was appropriate for a state vote.  It was clearly not in Obama's favor.  At least they have presented both sides.  They may say that Clinton needs the votes for the primaries, but someone (besides a couple of opinion pieces) will say Obama needs them for the GE.

    Why do only 2 of the 3 Dems running (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    get a voice in the process?

    Does Gravel object to a revote? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    I dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    Ben Smith says... (none / 0) (#20)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    "Ding-Dong, Do-Over Primary Is Dead
    "Time of death for the do-over Michigan primary? Call it at about 11 a.m. today."

    A Lansing insider IMs to explain the latest development:

    The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four [as Carl Levin and others pushing a re-vote are called], and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren't there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn't involve those four, the governor and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

    So much for legitimacy... (none / 0) (#24)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM EST
    Well done!

    Never mind... (none / 0) (#42)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM EST
    This was yesterday's post.  Dang watch was not set correctly.

    Gov. Granholm is getting a pass (none / 0) (#23)
    by DNN on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:57 AM EST
    on the fact that she is the one truly at fault for this situation.  As a Michigan resident who has been closely following this race, I am indifferent about the revote.  

    The rules were known from the very beginning, and now that the outcome is unpleasant, it seems unfair to be looking at the candidates and pointing fingers in either direction.  (She's backtracking; he's blocking, etc.)

    What's being lost in this conversation is the fact that we Michigan voters were thrown under the bus months ago by our Governor, and the result was entirely predictable.

    1jane (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    Your off topic comment was deleted.

    AndraLee (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    Please keep your comments in topic. I have deleted your off topic comments.

    BTD is there any fairly easy way to (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    change the June 10th deadline for the DNC and wouldnt that solve a few of these issues??

    yep (none / 0) (#53)
    by environmentally blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    And I've never seen a candidate, like Obama, jump and change sides on an issue so fast.  

    Now they are complaining Hillary is accepting a reVote.  Before they complained she wanted votes that weren't sanctioned.  Governor Dean has been asking them to hold another, 2nd vote, since before their first Primary took place and now Obama sayd "oh no, we can't have another vote for the citizens, it might embarrass the Party"  WHAT, I got news for this FRAUD, that isn't what's embarrassing the Democrats.