On Re-Do Primaries: Carville v. Wilhelm

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is the transcript of the Carville (a Clinton supporter) v. Wilhelm (an Obama supporter) discussion of funding and holding redo primaries in Michigan and Florida. As you can see, Wilhelm is utterly on the defensive and Carville is relishing the role of urging counting the votes. This dynamic will dominate this issue. The key parts of the transcript on the flip:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So far, more than 29 million Democrats have voted in the 2008 primary election. Thatís already almost double the voter turnout from the 2004 primaries, and thereís still more contests left. Even in Florida where Democratic voters knew their votes probably wouldnít count, more than twice as many people cast ballots on primary day, 1.7 million voted this year compared to 750,000 back in 2004.

Letís get some more now on a possible do-over for the Florida and Michigan primaries. Weíre joined by two top Democratic strategists, CNN contributor James Carville, who supports Hillary Clinton, and David Wilhelm, a former Clinton campaign manager who now supports Barack Obama.

James Carville, I know you love Hillary Clinton. Thereís no doubt about that. Youíve worked with her. David Wilhelm once worked with the Clintons, but he now supports Barack Obama. I want to get back to this do-over in Michigan and Florida. You heard John Zarrellaís piece where heís laying out some obstacles that may not be overcome. Can the Democrats get their act together in these two states and redo the elections there?

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, of course they can. I heard a guy say we donít have voting machines. Well, how did Abraham Lincoln get elected president? How did they do that? You can have paper ballots. You can count them. And by the way, in terms of the funding, Iíve talked to any number of Democratic funders today, theyíre ready to put up serious money. Senator Obama raised $55 million this past month. Senator Clinton raised the money. Letís let these candidates get a little skin in this game. Letís go around, raise some money, and letís show the world we can do this.

You know, weíre telling people all over the world to have elections. And the United States of America is saying, well, we canít afford to have an election in Florida and Michigan in the most exciting, highly contested and important Presidential election probably in the history of this country. We look ridiculous. I mean, letís just get together and have the DNC put some money up. Have Senator Obama put some money up, Senator Clintonís people put some money up and letís go out and raise the money. We can do this easy, pass some paper ballots and count them.

BLITZER: You ready to accept that offer, David?

DAVID WILHELM: Well, I hope we can figure this thing out. What I ó Iím glad about is that I think ó it sounds to me like Senator Clintonís campaign is finally getting off this notion that the illegal election, or the election that was run in contravention of party rules should not stand, and that is a very good thing. The posture of the Barack Obama campaign is tell us what the rules are. Weíll play by the rules and Ö

CARVILLE: Weíll raise it (ph). Weíll raise ó weíll put up $15 million. Iíll guarantee $15 million and have the Obama people put up $15 million. And letís go to the polls come on June 7th. Iíve got fundraisers that are lined up ready to go. I think the Democratic party is going to look absolutely absurd if they donít have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote. . . .

WILHELM: Well, this ó you know, ultimately, I donít think this is up to the campaigns. I think this is Ö

CARVILLE: Sure it is.

WILHELM: Öup to Chairman Dean ó the campaigns are part of the discussion, but itís up to the people of Michigan, the state party of Michigan, the National Party, the state party of Florida, and Iím sure we can all Öletís go, we ó all we want to do is know what the rules are, play by the rules.

CARVILLE: No, the rules are these campaigns we can put on a primary. I just love Florida. Every person that I talk to in Florida wants to participate in this process. Itís been racked by the subprime crisis and foreclosures. Look at Michigan. Weíre going to say (ph) we got rules here and weíre going to have some kind of cockamamie (ph) thing, or we can go and have a primary and let these people weigh in. This is the United States of America. Let people vote.

WILHELM: We have nothing to fear from a primary if that comes to it. . . .

CARVILLE: Iíll pledge $15 million.

WILHELM: I am praying and hopeful that we can figure out a way to get this to happen.

CARVILLE: Itís easy, itís easy. Print some ballots, letís raise some money and letís get going and tell this guy in Florida, I donít have any voting machines, then get some people in and count. Say hereís one ballot here, one ballot there and count them. Thatís the way they used to do it. We can do that.

BLITZER: So, basically, what the challenge is $15 million ó he says the Clinton campaign and their supporters can raise ó David, you think the Obama campaign can raise $15 million? You got $30 million. Thatís more than enough to handle new primaries in both Michigan and Florida.

WILHELM: Iím not here today ó Iím sitting here in Columbus, Ohio. I think that this is something that can get worked out, that will get worked out. I think the state party and the National Party need to come together. Iíd be a little suspicious of the various attitudes of the campaigns on this. This needs to be done in a judicious, mindful way that is fair for all parties Ö

BLITZER: But you know, but David, let me interrupt ó David, let me interrupt because Howard Dean says heís ready to oversee a new primary in both states. He just doesnít want to pay for it. The governors of Florida and Michigan say theyíre ready to see new primaries, but they donít want the taxpayers in those two states to pay for it. So, James has just come up with a proposal whereby individual supporters of your campaign, supporters of Hillary Clintonís campaign say, you know what, weíll come up with the money and we can organize this.

WILHELM: Well, I guess that would be one of the options on the table that needs to be worked out in conjunction with the national party and the state parties. I ó I donít think the right place to hammer this out is on your show here today. But I think itís one of the options. . .

And so on. Carville had a lot of fun in that segment obviously.

< Bush Vetoes Water Boarding Bill | Pledged Delegates The Will Of The People? Not Hardly >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Carville Hit It Right Out Of The Park n/t (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    Wilhelm never even took the field.

    Woah. Obama opposing a (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    re-vote would not look good.  

    I love that Wilhelm called it (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    an "illegal election."

    Not the first time we've heard that line.

    Criminals (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYMARJ on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    yep - 1.7 million voting criminals

    Should they be deported? :-) (none / 0) (#12)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    Is this helpful (none / 0) (#46)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    calling the Democrats of MI and FL criminals sure will pay off in the Fall. Really delusional on Wilhelm's part.

    More Than That (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:40:37 AM EST
    Michigan and Florida combined was about 2.2 million.

    This is like watching (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    one of my cats going at the toilet paper roll in the bathroom.  I mean, how can anyone look at how these two campaigns have been running just this week and think that Obama is better at this?  Brilliant, brilliant Carville.  Let the people vote!

    I would call him a liberal, but he's not, he's just using common sense...

    Yeah it's clear who the pros are. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by corn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    The Clinton team is sooo winning this issue.  It will have a knock on effect generally in the campaigns by keeping Obama on his heels.

    I'm sticking with my re-vote opinion though - There won't be one.  Clinton, though much less risky, doesn't really want it either.  They're just keeping Obama's feet to the fire.  It's in his interest to drag his feet.


    Ouch (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    OK, that was just painful to read.  Obama stays away from the media.  I'm beginning to the think his surrogates need to also.

    again and again (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    we see how not ready for prime time the Obama camp is.

    Power touched on this in one of her many rantings, wherein she was talking about cherry picking Clinton staff but not bringing in the ones who are so overscripted that they monitor every word out of your mouth.

    There is a reason these campaigns should be monitoring their advisors--and muzzling them where necessary.

    I think Carville has nailed it on the head today with this call for a revote.  It's right up there with "it's the economy, stupid."  The more Obama waffles on the issue, the worse he looks.

    Because it's logical and it's easy to understand: the first votes didn't count?  Okay, let's vote again.  Here's our side of the money.  You put up yours and let's get this over with.

    The media is going to latch onto the solution because it's just basic common sense and it's something they can fit into a six second toss.  "Clinton says let the people vote.  More at 11."

    It's got a beat and you can dance to it.


    Yikes. I'm no fan of Carville (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    but that was verbal slaughter. Obama's campaign really, really needs to find a better way to address this.

    "Barack Obama: Obstruction to Voting" is a really bad way to play. And yes, I know that's terrible spin, but it's easy spin, and it's how this sort of response will go.

    Every time Carville drives me crazy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    he wins me back again.  Love the ragin' Cajun.

    Carville nailed it when he said (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    we tout voting all over the world, but here in America we disenfranchise 1.7 million voters because a bunch of men got in a pissing contest over a date change.

    What a mockery it makes of Democracy.


    Make Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    the honorary chairs of the fundraising effort -- both, I believe, have been sent off to oversee elections in other countries . . . many of which seem to do a better job of this than the DNC.

    Are privately financed elections legal? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST

    Dean Says Soft Money Can Be Used n/t (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    Ya know (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    I remember thinking in 2000, how can anyone fight or argue against counting votes?  How can this be wrong?  It will prevail in the end.

    Of course, now we know that isn't the case.

    It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  I'm happy that Clinton by the luck of the draw happens to be on the side of what's right.  However, I have no confidence that what is right is what will happen.

    Media can steer these things to however they choose.  And media's choice will prevail.  Media loves Obama.....

    CNN in particular (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    seems to have picked up on the popular support for a revote that would count.  I think what is right is what will be popular with viewers and get them high ratings.

    But I think the media (none / 0) (#14)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    Is getting excited about the notion of redo primaries. It's good for the media:  more stories, more excitement, more controversy; all will lead to a bigger audience.  That's what they want.

    Is Penn's job finally at risk? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    Carville seems to be ready and waiting, and he is a lot more interesting.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#15)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    Carville is injecting a lot of excitement and challenge into the race, at least at this point.  Perhaps he is the point man on this particular issue.

    I hope so (none / 0) (#19)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    Carville seems to be the better choice!

    Congratulations to Carville on completely (none / 0) (#21)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    avoiding Wilhelm's point.

    Here is what Sen. Clinton is reported as saying just two days ago:

    I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

    That is not what Carville was promoting, and you notice he never said Sen. Clinton had agreed to it. He simply said other people were prepared to raise the money to re-run the races, something Sen. Clinton opposed just 48 hours ago.

    So which is it?? As Wilhelm said--repeatedly--the Obama campaign will abide by whatever rules are set forth. Unfortunately for some here, James Carville is not the final arbiter of those rules. But it is good that her supporters are now fully behind a re-vote, abandoning the idea of validating a previously voided election.

    When repeating the same thing over and over, louder and louder, the Clinton campaign wins every debate. If that got you elected, she'd be well on her way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

    But, the people don't want a screamer, they want change. And they have chosen Sen. Obama. She cannot catch him, and will likely lose the Michigan primary. Maybe she'll see the writing on the wall at that point.

    Ok, if she'll lose MI (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    Why not see what happens? Also I think you are missing a big point: that this is also a PR campaign. Most people think all votes should count and want a revote. To take the side that it shouldn't happen doesn't play well.

    Carville one on that point, he put them in the unpopular position.


    We see things differently, which is the beauty (none / 0) (#28)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    of PR. I heard Wilhelm repeatedly saying that Obama would comply with whatever system was set up. They do not support reversing the decision of the rules committee, which is what Sen. Clinton clearly said she wanted.

    You see fighting for voters. I see someone not wanting to abide by the rules being enforced.

    You see fighting. I see whining.

    Wilhelm said Carville's plan was fine, just nail it down and have everybody be clear on what the process will be. As I noted, the candidate Carville purported to support has not come out saying the same thing he is. Obama has been taking a beating for just that type of thing.

    Can we say double standard?


    What is missing... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    ...from your analysis (imo) is what most people out there and SD will perceive to be "truth." I am not saying that both sides don't have a position that can be supported, I was just saying I think the Hillary camp has the more resonant argument on this one.

    Hey I may be wrong. As you said, beauty of PR.


    Well, I guess she should just give up (none / 0) (#23)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    It's only March.  I don't believe all the people have spoken, yet.  We'll see what happens.

    Okay, but imo it would be better if she (none / 0) (#29)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    would take the magnanimous step of helping to fight against McCain instead of certifying him as ready to serve while cutting Obama's knees out.

    Clearly, we are going to see what happens. I just hope the party is not damaged in the end.


    Clinton "a screamer"? Halstoon (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    . . . just because we may move on too fast past the loooooong posts, that won't always work to bury your phrases such as "a screamer."

    Now, let me know when you come up with a phrase anything like that for Obama.


    Obama has been looking like a (none / 0) (#37)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    bungler here lately. And dare I say a sissy?

    Is that equally offensive?

    I don't post long comments to bury anything. I lay out an argument; it's your choice whether or not to read it. And screamer came at the end, with a new paragaph break to highlight the new point.

    I do hope that however ignorant or neanderthal you may view my opinions you'll at least admit that I am not shy about sharing them, nor surreptitious in their presentation.


    Offended at your own words? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    And dare I say a sissy?



    No, but you are free to be. ;o) n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:56:31 PM EST
    This kind of leadership would be a change (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    ... all right:

    As Wilhelm said--repeatedly--the Obama campaign will abide by whatever rules are set forth.

    Well, saying something repeatedly (but not budging an inch, nor suggesting alternatives) while apparently holding his breath has made me flip on my last flop again.

    Obama is indeed ready to occupy the House that Bush Built.


    Why propose alternatives? (none / 0) (#40)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    Did you not notice that he also said Carville's idea sounded fine, so long as it was agreed to and settled, and that those in charge endorsed it?

    Sen. Obama did not write the original rules disallowing FL or MI to go before Feb. 5. He did not make the decision to 86 all their delegates. Sen. Obama is not responsible for this mess the DNC created.

    Do you honestly believe that if Sen. Clinton were the one with a more and more insurmountable lead that she would be out there putting forward all kinds of ways for Obama to have another shot? I think it's rather fair to simply say that he will abide by whatever decision the party and states can come up with, short of certifying elections already declared void. There is nothing inconsistent or shady in that stance.

    Sen. Obama has also made clear that he wil not support Bush's torture stance. Sen. Clinton was for it before she was against it. Even when she addressed it in a NH debate, she only said, "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period." Not being part of policy is not the same as not being done. Can you point to policy that says we render suspects to off-shore prisons?

    Is that the leadership you want? Who sounds more like Bush there?


    If Obama had won FL and MI (none / 0) (#43)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    whether or not they counted, I imagine Clinton would no longer be in the race.

    You have no problem with that? (none / 0) (#47)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    I mean, the idea that her presence in the race is predicated on winning unsanctioned elections?

    But I also assume you agree that she would not be bending over backwards to help him if she were in his position?


    Rules? (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:12:40 AM EST
    Actually Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and I believe (I'd have to check) also South Carolina broke the WRITTEN rules.

    The re-vote in Florida would be OK since it would be a closed primary.

    Michigan has no partisan registration and all primaries are open.  Without a corresponding Republican primary the results in Michigan would be gamed by Republicans as has happened twice (1972,1988)in the past. Not a good plan at all.

    If the vote was added to the upcoming state primary on August 5th it would be better but I would still expect considerable Republican and independent participation.

    But a re-vote makes the whole party look stupid.  Both delegations should be seated without a re-vote and perhaps a 25% penalty levied.


    And.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    Some would burn down the house than not live in it. There is no opponent more formidable in a Democratic primary than Hillary Clinton and the Clinton's 30 year old network of friends and surrogates. I'm sure there will do-overs to help the Clinton's move back into the White House.

    Then Obama should just say this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    Some would burn down the house [...] I'm sure there will do-overs to help the Clinton's move back into the White House.

    Really, if TeamO is all about change and Obama is a leader and a fresh, honest voice for change, he should come out and take the lead on this.

    Does he want these votes counted and seated? Is he for or against a revote? Does he have anything against a Paper Trail Primary? if not, will he support abiding by the results?

    He seems to be hiding while his spokespeople and team wander around flinging mud. TeamO spokespeople and supporters want none, both, inaction and, most of all, to complain that the ever growing menu of solutions isn't to their liking.

    Obama should be front and center on an issue as important as counting every vote and making every vote count. He PERSONALLY should explain to the voters of MI and FL why he won't even take a stand on counting their votes.


    Oh, your humor is wonderful. (none / 0) (#51)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    Yes, Hillary really wants those delegates seated out of an altruistic desire to see those voters served. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she desperately needs those votes to count in order to have any chance at being president.

    Funny. 'Cuz I don't remember her campaign taking that stance when she assumed she would be the only one standing after Super Tuesday.

    Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that fact? That she didn't raise the roof last summer when the voters were originally disenfranchised? I mean, Harold Ickes cast a vote in favor of disenfranchisement, yet now he works for her.


    please don't post the same comment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    on multiple threads. I've found this in the Wyoming thread and now here.

    Okay (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    So Obama's surrogate is on TV saying they're fine with whatever, at the same time Obama's campaign is telling the MI Dem party chair that they're not fine with a firehouse primary, and you're praising him on the issue of consistency?

    Oh, gosh. You caught me. (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    I don't work for Obama. I don't know everything they say.

    Whaddaya know? Both camps are fighting for their best interests. How could anyone expect such behavior??

    Doesn't change the fact that the same thing is going on in Camp Hillary.

    Clinton won't accept a caucus. Obama doesn't want a firehouse primary. Clinton wants the voided FL vote to count. Obama wants the rules enforced. Blah Blah Blah...

    What politician is truly consistent, after all?


    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    considering you just wrote a long essay about how Clinton keeps changing her positions, I didn't realize you were willing to stipulate that all politicians play that game.

    Yes, sir. I am an Obama suporter (none / 0) (#54)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:37:57 PM EST
    that actually doesn't think he's perfect.

    Interestingly, not one Clinton supporter has ceded my original point.


    To spell this out (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    if you concede that all candidates do it, I'm not sure you actually had a point about Hillary.

    Spell it out more for me. (none / 0) (#56)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    Will you admit that Hillary is doing it?

    You know (none / 0) (#25)
    by phat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    I would guess that Florida and Michigan public schools have a lot of bubble scan machines for standardized tests.

    I can't imagine they'd say no to renting them.

    Getting the ballots printed could be a pain, though.

    This is so doable.


    Paper trail Primaries: What's not to like? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    Jeez ... what's not to like?

    • 6 weeks minimum of breathless, mostly free coverage for both candidates at a fraction of the price of a media buy.

    • puts the Pugs back on their heels on their usual nat'l plan to screw with the election mechanism by disenfranchising one group or other

    • retro-feelgood paper ballots will enchant young and old voter alike: a nation is watching! Get your sleep during the 6-8 hours of late night ballot counting! Canada called in to advise campaigns, polls on how that nation manages to hold elections that are fair and transparent and all parties abide by the results!

    • Obama can come out from hiding and actually taking a recorded, realtime stance on an important issue that actually has stuff riding on it as opposed to resting what his avatar did in a SIM or video game. Scratch the last part: resting on what his avatar WOULD do/have done in said format.

    • but mostly, it's FAIR, OPEN, ENGAGING and TRANSPARENT.

    Jeepers, creepers, what's the worry? That democracy might get wrested from the hands of despicable douchebags and even be fun again?

    A quick look at DK: I don't see (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    anything there about Carville's throwing the gauntlet.  Did I miss it?

    Yes He Can or Oh No He Didden? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    And another thing ...

    What's with this damn refrain from TeamO when given tangible options to resolve an existing problem?

    Look at TeamO above, desperately seeking reasons why inaction -- ideally while one side, I'll let you guess which, remains reverently silent while the other speechifies -- is the preferred course of, um, action and resolution.

    Oh yeah, QUICK! Hand this team a country!

    The more I see, the less convinced I am that the team and the candidate himself are ready for Prime Time. I still like Obama and think he may have enough ability and creativity to adapt and succeed.

    We're looking at a nation that needs emergency medical treatment right now and it's down to Dr. McDreamy or House. (NB: Neither is on my regular menu, but two of my sisters -- one is a health professional -- are in a continual battle over which show is better. Sadly, I've absorbed enough to make this comparison. Experts feel free to alter the equation or flame my *ss, which has this strange radiant pain I can't see nor trace to its origins.)

    Carville v. Wilhelm (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    is one thing but when people like Mary Frances Berry start coming out with public pressure on Dean and the DNC, like I saw her do last night, it is going to get  harder and harder to maintain this farce.

    what'd she do? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    she was on CNN (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    last night laying into Dean and the DNC for not counting the votes in FL and MI.
    she seems to be working the issue very hard.
    not an easy person to ignore.  although Dean seem to have ignored her so far.

    Dear Governor Dean: (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM EST
        We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a Democratic Party convention fight over the seating of delegates elected in the Michigan and Florida primaries. We are well aware that in the absence of discrimination parties make their own rules about these matters. We know, also, that the Democratic Party led the fight for the Help America Vote Act and the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. These actions helped to ease discontent over disenfranchisement of Older Americans, Latinos, and African Americans in Florida during the 2000 election and the subsequent issues of disenfranchisement in Ohio and elsewhere in the 2004 election. We believe it is time for you and the Democratic National Committee to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

      We are not suggesting any particular way of deciding the issues. We are suggesting that the decision be made before the convention in an effort to avoid a floor fight. Public floor fights have served the Party badly in the past. They left deep-seated ill will and preceded Democratic Party defeats in 1968, and 1972, for example.  Resolution of this issue is a matter of fairness, justice and practicality. It should receive the urgent attention of the Democratic National Committee.


    Mary Frances Berry
    Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought &
    Professor of History
    University of Pennsylvania

    Roger Wood Wilkins
    Robinson Professor of History
    George Mason University


    Let's show the world we can do this (none / 0) (#45)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    Let's let these candidates get a little skin in this game. Let's go around, raise some money, and let's show the world we can do this.

    This is good for the Democratic party. It will look terrible to be the party of no we can't because of bureaucratic technicalities. That will reinforce a bad (yet existing) stereotype of the Democratic party. It will also be terrible to seat the votes cast already.

    There must be a revote.