home

Obama in His Own Words on Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22:56 AM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As Big Tent Democrat wrote below, Obama is the obstacle to the Michigan re-vote.

Ten of Hillary Clinton's individual donors have pledged $12 million for a revote.

Barack Obama tells CNN:

In a CNN interview, the Illinois senator recalled Clinton's statement last fall that Michigan's primary was "not going to count for anything."

"Then, as soon as she got into trouble politically, and it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having [Michigan and Florida] count, suddenly she's extraordinarily concerned with the voters there," Obama told CNN. "I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics."

His spokesman says: [More...]

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the group's offer showed that Clinton was "willing to do absolutely anything to get elected."

"This letter from some of Clinton's biggest campaign contributors eliminates any pretense that Clinton's efforts in Michigan are about anything other than an attempt to bankroll an election in which they appear more than happy to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters," he said.

Barack Obama could care less about disenfranchising voters. That's his goal for Michigan and Florida and more than 2 million of the states' voters. Now, that's politics. And hardly the politics of hope or change.

< Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not: Obama Objects To DNC Rule In MI Revote Controversy | Study: What Immigrant Crime Wave? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama in His Own Words on Michigan | 202 comments (202 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It is awfully cynical of him to say (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:45 AM EST
    that SHE is engaging in politics when he is violating his pledge to do whatever the DNC decides is within the rules.

    What Obama fails to realize is that ultimately what matters is not which candidate is benefitted most by a re-vote; what matters is that the VOTERS are benefitted by a re-vote.

    And he also fails to realize that not agreeing to a re-vote is not only politics, its bad politics.

    Some might say (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:10 AM EST
    he is willing to do anything to win, including disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    yup (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    How does Mr. Unity deal with that narrative?

    [ Parent ]
    I want to find out (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    I certainly will be pressing this issue.

    And Kid Oakland's acquiescence to this is noted.

    [ Parent ]

    and TINS is screaming for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    to get out of the race yesterday.

    Oh the webs we weave. . .

    [ Parent ]

    Imagine (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    where we would be now if Hillary dropped out in light of the Polling data from earlier threads.  

    [ Parent ]
    60-40 for McCain. (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They are frothing today (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    over this bit by Obama.

    And throwing the Michigan voters under the bus, but that part doesn't seem to bother them at all.  They blame it on the Michigan legislature.

    So it's all Hillary's fault except when it is the Mi Leg's fault, and of course, it is never, ever Obama's fault.

    [ Parent ]

    What magical powers does Obama have (none / 0) (#201)
    by Knocienz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    That requires Michigan to hold off on a new primary? They can just schedule one and go with it.

    I doubt the DNC would dare refusing to seat a new vote at this stage.

    [ Parent ]

    The people who were the silliest droolers (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    6-12 months ago are all frontpagers now---every day.
    TINS is a prime example.

    [ Parent ]
    Not an FPer (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    but still prominent--and quite shrill.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, i meant to say they were (none / 0) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    regulars on the Wreck list.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong diary premise. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    Today's is:

    Super Delegates - You can end this "gruesome process" now!

    (Yes, the "gruesome process" is an exact quote.)

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    She's not that far behind in delegates for that call to be made...not even close.

    [ Parent ]
    Even if Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    got all the super delegates to go his way--all of them--he still could not win the number needed for the nomination.  Neither, of course, could Clinton.

    We need the coming elections to decide who wins the nom.  FL and MI are an integral part of that.

    Obama knows this.  He also knows that MI and FL are going to be terrible for him.  This is the only reason he is pushing against the revote.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah yes, I remember that well... (none / 0) (#44)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    The "casual poetry" of the ("respectful," "inclusive") Obama campaign now includes disenfranching the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    All falsehoods from the biggest dissembler in the blogosphere, Kid Oakland.

    [ Parent ]
    But I remember the one (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    where he asked the question - "what Democratic Party will we be?" One that looks to exclude the voters?

    He is the living embodiment of the Obama Rules. He is a phony.

    [ Parent ]

    Anything to win the primary (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    He doesn't seem to be worrying too much about the general election. He should be in Michigan showing that he cares about their votes, not doing interviews attacking Clinton for wanting to win an election.

    You'd think that Clinton was trying to cheat, not just to have all the votes counted.

    [ Parent ]

    I see a rout in November (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    Obama losing MI, OH, PA, FL = lost election.  And with this pastor disaster, I can see him losing WI, MN, VA, MO, IA...lots of states that aren't hard blue and more secular than most.

    Like someone said yesterday, it isn't about Barry's skin tone, it's about "God d*** America" and about preaching "chickens coming home to roost" the Sunday after 9/11.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama as nominee (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    also puts MASS in play in a big was according to SUSA today. He is currently tied with McCain 47-47.

    Yikes...

    Hillary is ahead of McCain by 13 in MASS in the same poll.

    [ Parent ]

    IA, really? (none / 0) (#142)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    In IA on Saturday, Edwards delegates who switched switched to Obama despite the Wright story having broken on Thursday. Of course, GEs are not won with delegates so...

    [ Parent ]
    Too soon. We catch up on Sundays (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    with the news in the heartland.  Except for those of us nooz junkies on blogs.

    We don't change our minds easily, either.  That's so, y'know, coastal to do.  But when we start the slow burn, it smolders for a long time. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    You said it (none / 0) (#191)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    GE's are not won with delegates. They are won with independents and moderates. Dems by and large will not be effected by the Wright story. Most progressives are open-minded enough to accept that Wright's anger doesn't disqualify Obama from being President, even if we don't like the association. But no election in decades has been won by partisans alone. The delegates represent the partisans, not the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    And that is the clue: the general election (none / 0) (#162)
    by lily15 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    If these phonies are not interested in the general election, perhaps there is a reason.  Trojan Horse theory.  Some people in the progressive blogosphere may in fact not be sincere.  We don't really know what we are dealing with.  But some simple facts to consider.  Wright's rants were available on DVD...they were being sold for profit...and Obama did nothing to insulate himself from damage in the general election were he to be the nominee.  Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot initially to avoid losing and looking bad in an early primary, even in a beauty contest. And this furthered the argument he is making now. Don't count the votes.   It was a tactic as was the 100% delegate punishment of Michigan and Florida. Clinton didn't see it coming of course. And her failure to object was not strategic. But Obama has manipulated the system and Democrats. This all looks planned to me.  Obama did well in caucuses, that are not at all democratic.   The last thing Obama wants are democratic elections.  And this is supposedly why there are super delegates...to negate the effect of this type of rigged process.  Once Obama demonstrated he wasn't interested in re voting, he demonstrated that the success of the Democratic party was less important than his own personal ambition.  That should be sufficient to not vote for him.  He is a divider not a uniter.  He will do anything to win, including fracturing and sinking the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    So he's qualified (none / 0) (#199)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    Lots of people in the past say that what makes Hillary qualified is that she'd do anything to win in November.  I guess that Obama is as good of a politician, which is a big relief in case another Florida 2000 comes along.

    [ Parent ]
    It shows the opposite that it is Obama (none / 0) (#159)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    who is actually the one who will do anything say anything including disenfranchising voters to win and gain the nomination.  When this all started some time ago, and I wish I could find the clip, Howard Dean said in an interview that Fla and Mich where never intended to not be seated for the convention that they just had to stop the dates moving and that there was historic examples of delegates being seated later.

    And not sure we ever got an answer maybe we did but my question is, the ruling of the Party was not to seat delegates I don't see anything that then said the voters then dont count too so are they not to be included in any view of the  popular vote.


    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#173)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    it's hypocritical.  Hypocrisy thy name is Barack Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    It's politics (none / 0) (#200)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    And I guess Hillary's change of mind since last Fall is not hypocritical but the result of a Damascene conversion experience?

    [ Parent ]
    Haha-- (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the group's offer showed that Clinton was "willing to do absolutely anything to get elected."

    For instance, she's willing to win in MI and FL again just to get elected.

    Very unseemly.

    It is hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    and it is not working for Obama in Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    Working nationally (none / 0) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    It may not be working in Michigan, but only one poll has Clinton on top over at RCP.  Why don't they use SUSA.  Does it have a bad track record?  I would have thought ARG was worse.

    [ Parent ]
    That is a false measure of (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    the Florida and Michigan issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen's Daily (none / 0) (#58)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    tracking just came out:

    In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama now leads Clinton 46% to 43%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led by eight. (see recent daily results). New polling data released today shows that Clinton leads handily in West Virginia's Presidential Primary.

    I doubt this is the direction Obama was hoping to see the polls trending after his speech.  Nothing yet from Gallup.  

    [ Parent ]

    ahhh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    What is wrong with doing anything to win, especially, when it looks that Obama  would lose badly against McCain?  She is trying to save the Dems from their own stupidity.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#174)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    that's their favorite mantra.  Obama just loves those right wing talking points. They're not going to give it up now.  After all, it's carried them through several caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW (none / 0) (#175)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    LOL!

    [ Parent ]
    It's scandalous! (none / 0) (#182)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    Trying to win an election by winning votes?

    The audacity!

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    My title would have been "Obama Admits He Does Not Care About The Voters of Michigan."

    That's the genius of the 48 state strategy! (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    We don't need to care about FL and MI!

    [ Parent ]
    He's right that it's politics (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    but so is his position: the immensely more damaging proposition that MI and FL voters should not have a say.

    The politics have him (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    NOT caring about the voters of Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah Barack it's just politics (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    but when one person's politics includes giving voters the right to have a meaningful vote, and the other person's politics involves denying people the right to vote, which one has the better politics?

    Or is this just more of the 'politics of change', i.e. a change from democracy to a more exclusive system?

    Well that was just (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    unpleasant.  CNN is really trying for Obama.  They have Cooper traveling with him.  They are reporting everything he is doing live, in fact they have him on right now.  But I am getting annoyed every time he opens his mouth on this.  He's overly concerned with the Republican vote and it is Clinton's fault.  I want him to talk about himself.  I want the media to quit quoting him every time he blames Clinton.  It is unfortunate there is no foul language allowed.

    The same Obama that would not blog (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    or appear on all the news shows? It sounds like the 'Chickenman Wing Warrior of the 60's that I hear on XM Radio". He's everywhere, he's everywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    MI Republicans (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dave B on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    I saw them state on CNN that Obama was concerned about independents and "others" who had already voted in Michigan's earlier primary being disenfranchised.

    The conveniently left out Independents and "Republicans" who had voted in the Republican primary.

    That's a fine example of slanted reporting right there.  They will not come straight out and report that Obama is concerned for Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    CNN hearts Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#164)
    by qnr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    How can they be "disenfranchised" if they have already voted and had their votes counted?

    [ Parent ]
    From the cited LA Times article: (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    The group includes Los Angeles investor Haim Saban; Fred Eychaner, a Chicago contributor who made his fortune in TV and radio; and three attorneys: Peter G. Angelos, who owns the Baltimore Orioles baseball team; John Eddie Williams Jr. of Houston; and Calvin C. Fayard Jr. of Louisiana.

    Others signatories include New Yorkers Bernard L. Schwartz, former chairman of the satellite communications firm Loral Space and Communications; former Clinton administration Treasury official Roger Altman of the private equity firm Evercore; and John Catsimatidis, whose business interests include real estate and oil.

    I may have to think less unkindly about Angelos, who has ruined the Orioles.

    LOL (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So if Obama doesn't want revotes... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Alvord on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    ... in MI/FL and Obama doesn't want to accept the results of the January elections in MI/FL and if the DNC won't step in and insure that MI/FL voters aren't disenfranchised, maybe MI/FL should boycott the Democratic convention this summer. And maybe the supporters of Hillary Clinton from New York, Massachussetts, Texas, Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and beyond should boycott the convention as well. Maybe it is time to play hardball with the Obama campaign and with the DNC.

    Road-Barack in Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    We've said all there is to say, all that was left was coming up with the catchy name for it.

    to win this way is in no way democratic or (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    honorable. The Obama campaign should be ashamed that they wish to win more than they want the democratic candidate to prevail in November, it appears at least...IMHO

    Cynical (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by rose city on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    and shortsighted. But apparently they don't care about the long term consequences as long as they win the nomination. It is ugly to think of someone who puts their desire to win in front of the will of the people. Sounds like Republican tactics. It is very discouraging and depressing to see this with a Democrat.

    I've gleened (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    that this is their line of thinking about everything...just get us to Point A and we'll think about Point B later. (e.g. when they make some really wierd statement to win one state while not really thinking about the fact that they whole country can hear them!)

    Not a good electoral strategy and CERTAINLY not a good presidential strategy -- want my president to be a planner...

    [ Parent ]

    This is a very bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:21:51 AM EST
    for Obama.  As the Dem nominee he will need every electoral vote he can get, including Michigan and Florida.  

    Rasmussen has a new breaking poll -

    The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

    Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama's chances of winning the general election against John McCain. The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven't bounced back.

    In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama's speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday's polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.

    If this trend continues, Wright is hurting Obama's prospects more in the GE than the Dem primary.  Obama's short sighted plan to win the nomination by casting aside MI and FL will not make him a stronger candidate in the GE.  

    I think a point to keep highlighting (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    is that a lot of the problems in Michigan are a result of Obama taking his name off the ballot in an effort to game the system. I find it offensive that he is now using the result of his own actions to claim that the process is unfair. Other than his admiittedly powerful speechifying, I've seen very little from Obama that doesn't seem like politics as usual. He advocated positive campaigning because it worked for him (although he certainly didn't have a problem with slamming Hillary regularly). With the overwhelmingly positive media he was enjoying, only Hillary was in a position to point out his shortcomings. Now, he's going on the attack because it's the tactic that's necessary for him. But of course his campaign portrays it as "look what Hillary made us do."

    I don't see how the OBama camp's response to the MI and FL problem, "Hillary will do anything to win," advances a positive agenda.

    I have lost all respect for him. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    Every time I look for action behind his pretty words, I see nothing to back it up.

    It's just beyond the pale to accuse Clinton of disenfranchising voters.

    In a democracy, and especially in a party called "Democratic Party", you always want as many people participating as possible. Leaving the votes of people in two entire states out is just ridiculous.

    Sure, in this case, Hillary Clinton's interests are better served by a re-vote, so sure, she and her supporters have political motivations by providing money.  But that's not the point. The point is that the people of MI and FL deserve to have their vote counted. It doesn't matter whom it benefits And we don't even know whom it will benefit. It will certainly benefit the eventual nominee by validating his or her victory.

    Anyone with the gal to call a re-vote "buying votes" or "disenfranchising voters" is either a very cynical, ruthless politician (Obama and his campaign) or is way too invested in their candidate to see clearly (some Obama supporters).

    We need to pressure Howard Dean, the party (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    I don't care what election, what party, what year it is. If you have two candidates running pretty close for the nomination, and you say two major states can revote ONLY if both candidates agree on the conditions, that revote will never happen!

    This is the fault of the Democratic party. The Democratic party is allowing Obama to do this. The Democratic party is ignoring Michigan and Florida voters and this will be remembered for years. Years!

    Ten wealthy (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by 1jane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    Ten wealthy Dems offered to pay for a new presidential primary in Michigan; 5 of them are large donors on Clinton's campaign website and have donated to her senate race and to Bill's campaigns. The donors special interest is not about the voters in MI, or some high minded. "every voter counts," it is just pure politics. The Clinton campaign has tried to have it every which way. Clinton's chances continue to narrow.

    This isn't about the rules in MI, it's about buying a re-vote. If Hillary were in Obama's shoes she would sit tight just like he is.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    can produce half the money if that is his concern. It is not nor is it yours.

    There is no buying votes here. There is financing a revote.

    But like Obama, you fear the voters' will in Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    Shameless (1.00 / 2) (#124)
    by 1jane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Thanks for using your crystal ball BTD. No where in my post did I say or imply anything about buying votes. The post is about 10 wealthy Dems, 5 of whom are cited in newpapers all over the country as large wealthy donors to the Clinton campaign who are willing to finance a re-vote in MI. We agree the post is about financing or buying another do-over attempt in MI. The assumption that I fear a MI vote is hogwash. In fact, based on factual data Clinton should fear a re-vote in MI while the news of her support for NAFTA is splashed across the headlines this morning. Check.

    [ Parent ]
    do you have a cat (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    or perhaps a small child who sometimes posts in your stead?

    This isn't about the rules in MI, it's about buying a re-vote.



    [ Parent ]
    Everyone (none / 0) (#161)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    Knows that cats are in the bag for Obama, Kathy ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Nuh-uh! (none / 0) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    My three only like old bags. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Pony up (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    I believe the DNCs position is that soft money is ok.  If Obama doesn't like that one side is paying for it, tell him to pony up.  If you support him, send him an e-mail you and let him know you are willing to contribute if you are so concerned about where the money comes from.  I'm sure if Obama sent out an appeal, his small donors would come running.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't normally respond to you (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    mostly because you tend to be deleted, but tell me how this is vote-buying.  If Obama got his wealthy donors to put up half of the money needed to do the election, would he be buying votes, too?

    Because the simple solution if, in fact, the money is the obstacle, is for both candidates to put up half of the money needed.

    But then Obama would have nothing to whine about as far as a revote, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for (none / 0) (#138)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
     indenpendently confirming the fact I often  get deleted for expressing my opinions  here. as some yesterday seemed not to believe me.

      Why was it a bad idea? Because the proposal that a candidate should have the ability to have new election if he or she  is willing and able to pay for it is unseemly. At the least, it would have been smart to establish the appearance that this was a non-partisan group concerned with votes counting out of REAL principles and not "Hillary supporters." That was dumb both in terms of appearances and making it less likely there will be a new election financed by any method.

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    was speaking to 1jane, not to you.

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't matter who covers the cost (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    The primary would be run by the state.  The whole objection to the donors is nothing but a strawman.  No one questioned the fairness of a state run primary the first time  around.

    [ Parent ]
    Then invalidate all the caucuses, because (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    they are paid for not by their states but by their state parties -- which raise the funds from private donors.  Same deal here.  So, pot meet kettle.  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL !! Unseemly? (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST
    Omigawd, that is hilarious.

    Was I napping when politics became a white-glove garden party?  (In Chicago, yet!)

    Too funny...

    [ Parent ]

    If There Are 10 Wealthy Dems Willing To (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:57 AM EST
    contribute money for the revote and 5 are Clinton supporters according to my math that leaves 5 wealthly donors that are interested in the "every voter counts" and not trying to buy an election.

    You must be starting to feel like a prezel after that comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Mi Vote (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by velveteagle on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    Hillary has some friends with deep pockets for the Michigan So called re-vote... She remindes me of the old cartoon Popeye. She is like Wimpy going around saying Gladly pay you thursday for a hamburger today. I am sure her rich friends giving up millions do not want anything back in return.. Yea...

    [ Parent ]
    That's not going to happen (none / 0) (#109)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
     but it was  really dumb to float the idea. it gives a new meaning to "buying elections."

    [ Parent ]
    don't equate the two. (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    disenfranchisment of voters is the issue and stop trying to pin the tag on hillary in every post.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's loyalty (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Woodsman161 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    I have a problem with Obama, he went to the church that talked hatred for the USA and did nothing. I also see he will not wear the flag pin, nor does he put his hand over his heart when most American do. This man is running for the highest place in our government but shows no loyalty or pride in it.

    Clearly he hates America (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    Glad to see that Republican talking points are embraced here at TalkLEFT.

    [ Parent ]
    Embraced? (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    I'm giving both of you a "1" for that stupid remark.

    Cut it out.

    The both of you.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever (1.00 / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    These sorts of comments just roll by for the most part.  Unless of course they are directed at Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#198)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    Don't respond to the trolls...

    [ Parent ]
    "Hundreds of thousands""??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    Well, under whose plan would more voters be disenfranchised? Well, Mr. Obama?

    And how can you say they were disenfranchised (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    since the voted in a primary that counted?

    [ Parent ]
    Fear... (none / 0) (#7)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    ... thy name is Obama. Sincerely, if he is so sure of his lead, why not confirm it by a re-vote and get it even farther?

    Perhaps because of the latest Gallup research?

    His contradictions are troubling, at least for me.

    On this issue (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    Obama has been repugnant.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like what he's doing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    But to be fair to Obama, his quote was in direct response to a clip of Clinton insinuating that he was the only reason FLA and MI weren't getting counted.  As I've said, I think he has an argument when it comes to FLA.  He shouldn't stand in the way of the MI revote.
    They're both playing politics but Clinton happens to be on the right side of the issue.

    No she SAID (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    he is the main obstacle to revotes in Florida and Michigan.

    Your comment was utterly unfair to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, sorry (none / 0) (#33)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    She SAID he was the main obstacle to a revote in BOTH states.  The main obstacle to FLA seems to have been FLA with the DNC running a close second.  I'm not sure how my comment was unfair unless you mean that I'm not giving her enough credit for falsely equating MI and FLA.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe Obama (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    is the main obstacle.

    You certainly can not argue he is working for a solution. He has been an obstacle, admittedly not the only one, in Florida.

    He is THE OBSTACLE in Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#61)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    If I cannot argue that he is working for a solution (of course I can't, by the way) then I would ask you to acknowledge that Obama finishes no higher than 3rd in the obstacle race in FLA.  If she'd just said he was the main obstacle in MI (he is) I'd have had no problem with it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I would disagree with your argument (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    I think he is clearly the number one obstacle.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    In FLA?  I think that's a very hard case to make.

    [ Parent ]
    At present... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    He is the main obstacle for MI, which is what BTD has been pointing out for the past couple of days re: Michigan.

    The jury's still out on whether he will be the main obstacle for Fla when a decision's finally been made.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#114)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    And I agree with BTD on that.  I think FLA is a very different situation.  If, hopefully not when, Obama becomes the main obstacle in FLA, I'll happily acknowledge it.  I just think equating MI and FLA, while politically savvy for Clinton, weakens her argument.

    [ Parent ]
    They are both at issue... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    with regards to the pledge, the DNC ruling, and the turnout re: voters.

    They have been chunked together by the media and others since this entire kerfuffle began.

    [ Parent ]

    Did Obama (none / 0) (#129)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    agree to the plan that was suggested for Florida or offer an alternate solution?  There were others opposed to the Florida revote that want to have the January 29 vote count but Obama is opposed to that also so I believe he can be considered a main obstacle to Florida being seated.  

    [ Parent ]
    If you're not part of the solution (none / 0) (#146)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:48 AM EST
    you're part of the problem.

    He's part of the problem - in FL and MI both.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    He is PART of the problem in FLA.  I don't think he's the main problem.  In MI he, and I hate to say this, seems to be.

    [ Parent ]
    you know it is only fair to take a serious look (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    at your candidate and not justify some of his bad decisions. i don't like everything about hillary. she is my second choice and in discussions i note some of them. one of the things that has turned  off most about obama is the unquestioned "he's always right" mentality of his supporters. please think about it. that particular position on florida and michigan could help cost him the election if he is the candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#126)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    You need to actually read my comments.  I've expressed my outrage at Obama's behavior RE: the MI vote.  I've said many, many times that Clinton is on the right side of the issue.  The "he's always right" mentality is, I think, a problem afflicting blog-commenters and not a problem most Obama supporters suffer from.  You're making a huge generalization about "his supporters."  

    [ Parent ]
    blog commenters? no i pay attention to all media (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    outlets and i find it to be a disturbing problem with obama and his entire campaign. i won't get into all of it here due to the discussion limitations.

    [ Parent ]
    I value this dialogue (none / 0) (#158)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    And I think that Hillary's gotten worse media coverage than Obama.  That said, I don't think you can argue that everyone (all his supporters, all MSM) act like everything Obama says is right.  
    As for his campaign being on board whole hog, I haven't seen Hillary's campaign criticizing her...nor should they.  
    We can agree that both campaigns tend to act like their candidate has all the answers, is always right, etc.  Can't we?

    [ Parent ]
    overall i don't see criticism of (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    obama from the media and his supporters. i saw the same thing with bush and look at the results. obama hasn't been vetted. of course there is some happening right now and that in itself is a good thing.

    i haven't like all of hillary's positions in the past and have sent emails saying that. she wasn't my first choice. edwards was and still is. i had high hopes for obama when elected to the senate. it has been downhill for me ever since.

    going to other blogs today that i used to frequent is a less than desireable experience. there is no discussion on kos like there was in the 04 campaign. there was spirited debate and all had their candidate. there was a lot of valuable information shared. now, not so! you support obama 110% or out you go. the attemtps to villify and debase supporters leaves me ill. i don't see them ever discussing his posiitons with open eyes. it isn't happening and that never is a good thing. i blame the media for a large part of this. they are pathetic. and the dem leadership, well words can't describe how i feel about them. their lack of leadership since o6 is a nightmare. and the average voter is sick of all of it.

    [ Parent ]

    sorry after posting i saw i was probably (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    off subject here. please delete if you need to do so. i'll be more careful.

    [ Parent ]
    W.O.R.M. n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do we (none / 0) (#180)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    have to be fair to Obama?  Just kidding.

    [ Parent ]
    Are there mechanisms in place to ensure that (none / 0) (#24)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    only Democrats who voted in the Republican primaries be able to register as Democrats for the re-vote?

    Seems to me that Obama is much more interested in Hillary-hating Republicans getting to vote for him even if they already voted for a Republican candidate.

    non-partisan registration (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's objection (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    I believe, is related to this issue, because yes they can exclude those that voted Republican.  Those are the voters Obama says are being disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I want (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    a redo in Ill so I can vote in both the Repub and Dem primary.... for being a "Chicago Dem" he doesn't get how this works... you vote twice for the Dems!!

    [ Parent ]
    He wants to let them vote twice. (none / 0) (#39)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    In most places that would be considered cheating.

    [ Parent ]
    Or, maybe he wants to let every Dem vote twice. (none / 0) (#134)
    by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST

    Either Jan 15. happened, or it didn't.

    If it's a revote, everyone has to get a shot.


    [ Parent ]

    um, no. Everyone who voted in the (none / 0) (#139)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    GOP primary already cast a legitimate vote, regardless of their party affiliation.

    [ Parent ]
    Smoke and mirrors, IMO. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    It's a nifty justification, but I can't believe that's the base motive.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but the nice side effect is that if Obama's (none / 0) (#48)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    objection is appeased and the DNC changes the rules to allow voters who voted in the Republican primary to vote in the do-over, then the result would be a Democratic Primary that is open to every voter in the state , no?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    I've weighed the two interpretations and I think Obama is proposing something that I think he knows that the DNC would never agree to.

    Obviously, it would create the most open primary ever - anyone who was legally eligible to vote could, no matter what their party affiliation.  I wouldn't agree to that.

    [ Parent ]

    It requires CHANGING THE RULES (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I realize that it would require a rules change (none / 0) (#84)
    by MaxUS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    I just don't think that a rule change is that far fetched considering the recent rhetoric of the "impartial" Donna Brazile. I mean the woman went on national television and outright stated that she'd leave the party if superdelegates decided this primary (even though at this point there is no way for this primary to be decided otherwise.)

    There is a mechanism within the rules for pledged delegates to determine the outcome of the Democratic Primary. Neither candidate will have met that threshold at the end of this primary season. The only other way to win the nomination is to win over the Superdelegates so SDs will determine the outcome of this primary whether they choose to use the delegate race, the popular vote or some other criteria as is their priviledge to make their decision.

    Personally, I'm in favor of petitioning for a rules change if a candidate wants to insist that the delegate race determine the outcome.

    [ Parent ]

    let her go! she'd be doing the democratic (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    party a big favor. trouble that name is brazile.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought the Supreme Court says its a no no (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    The other day somebody posted that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that once you vote in one party's primary you can not vote in another's primary.  So this is just a smokescreen by Obama. Many states have the R and D primaries on different dates. Can you vote in both?


    [ Parent ]