Announcement Tomorrow: No Michigan Revote

Howard Dean and the Michigan Democratic party will put out a statement tomorrow that there will be no revote in Michigan.

In order for the delegates to be seated, the campaigns will have to agree on how to apportion those from the January primary.

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton supported holding a second election so the delegates could be seated, but rival Barack Obama feared problems.

....In the statement, they’re expected to say the DNC is committed to seating Michigan’s delegates at this summer’s convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party’s two presidential contenders.

As to the candidate's proposals:

The Obama campaign has called for splitting the delegates 50-50, regardless of Clinton’s Jan. 15 win. The Clinton campaign so far has rejected that idea.

Delegates to the state convention will be chosen April 19. Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

< CBS/NY Times Poll on Issues, Hillary, Obama and McCain | John Edwards Says He Won't Accept VP Slot >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's some real great leadership right there. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    Thanks for not much Howard.

    Depressing! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    Listening to some of the news shows tonight, everyone has totally bought into "the race is over", Obama is the candidate.  This news, on top of the media momentum for their candidate, really makes it hard for Clinton. I hope the people in PA don't give up.  This could depress the turnout for Hillary.

    What's wrong with this picture? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    Some Top Hillary Hands Concluding She Can't Win Nomination Without Popular Vote
    By Greg Sargent - April 3, 2008, 4:08PM

    [...] top Hillary advisers and supporters are wrestling with a big question:

    Is it really politically feasible for her to continue to try to woo super-delegates in the event of a loss in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote?

    Some Hillary advisers and supporters now appear to be concluding that the answer is No. Without a popular vote victory to offset Obama's expected victory among pledged delegates, they say, [...]

    This is completely outside my usual fund-raising, vote wrangling and envelope-stuffing purview, but I'm baffled here. (Actually, I'm more likely to be stuffing the volunteers. :-))Where's the public list of officially pledged, hard-wired delegates that have this sewn up?

    If it's not cut and dried, talk about counting all your eggs in one basket before they've hatched and taken to the market to roost.

    Where's all the coverage about whether Obama can be a nominee without winning the popular vote and MI and FL votes -- apart from the bawling, that is?

    Or coverage about what happens if/when pledged delegates are actually publicly counted (rather than assumed committed using the "If If If If and, Finally, If" formula Team & Camp Obama are overly fond of using to buttress their sense of entitlement to an uncontested annointing?)

    And if it's this close, where are the loud shrieking calls for him to step off for the sake of Unity (and future survival of the planet itself)?


    Obama roolz and (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    his megaphone MSNBC have decided that this year the only factor to be considered is the pledged delegates.

    I do appreciate that Clinton has stated again that delegates are pledged not bound.  I get an evil little grin when she does that.

    I have been calling for him to step off.  Here, hold on while I open my window............ can you hear me now?!


    no doubt he does. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    but rival Barack Obama feared problems.

    the "problem" being the fact that he'd get trounced, again.

    It just makes me want to spit nails (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    when I hear this completely-divorced-from-reality suggestion that the Michigan delegates should be split 50-50, when the man was not on the ballot as a result of his own short-sighted decision that he wants people to forget about.

    Splitting them this way is the equivalent of him stealing the votes of people who affirmatively voted for Hillary; why does this make any sense at all?

    Making the Michigan vote decision contingent on candidate consensus is a DNC punt designed to make sure nothing happens until after a nominee is chosen.  Obama will never agree to accept the consequences of yet another one of his bone-headed decisions, and Clinton should hold fast against him effectively poaching votes he never earned.  Guaranteed impasse, cover for the DNC ("well, we tried, but we couldn't get Clinton to 'see the light' - I don't know, something about 'disenfranchising voters' or something - who the hell knows?  Crazy witch just refuses to give up").

    It just makes me want to scream.

    Yes. I agree. I can't see how the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:19:00 PM EST
    Since he won't allow a revote, give Hillary the votes she earned and don't give him any.

    makes me want to scream too! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Arcadianwind on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:39:36 PM EST
    Why don't we go to the window, right now, and throw it open, and yell: "I'm mad as hell--and I'm not going to take it anymore."

    I think that you would agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:41:34 PM EST
    it is best to have elections that count, don't ban campaigning, don't ban get out the vote efforts to expand the electorate, and don't change the rules after votes are counted.

    The MI primary became irrevocably damaged after the first vote occurred.  Implications of that vote guaranteed that it would be impossible to accurately assess the preferences of the voters in a fair competition.


    No, not everyone agrees (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:58:40 PM EST
    with you.  Some want the votes to count.

    I didn't agree with your other post either....
    In my opinion, HRC's
    hand is being over played by her supporters when it is suggested that the FL vote should be seated as is.  
    A fair election is one where the results matter, campaigning is not banned, get out the vote efforts bring in more voters, and the rules don't change after people vote.

    I hope everyone will agree that FL didn't meet the standards of a fair election.  Because of this it's not possible to retroactively declare the first vote definitive.  Some compromised position will be required.


    Re-votes were the compromise solution. Now? Count the votes before even more voters are lost in November.


    do not agree at all (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    I doubt most here do.

    I completely agree with you (none / 0) (#65)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:53:06 AM EST
    but I'm not sure you are posting your opinion on the correct site. You will get blasted for this.

    It wasn't a short-sighted position... (none / 0) (#58)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    ...It was a position based on the current Democratic Party rules (albeit stupid rules).  This issue is about the Democratic Party leadership, not Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

    The Dem leadership is short-sighted.


    Solution: HRC equally gets 50% of Obama support (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
    ... in areas where he did well because her tactical choices didn't pay off.

    Fair is fair.

    They can use the same scientific vote sniffing TeamO intends to use to determine which 50% of the voters "clearly" voted for him.


    as long as .... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:10:34 PM EST
    DNC is committed to seating Michigan's delegates .... as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders.

    Why cannot DNC do what is right... IF Obama did not agree to re-votes he should agree to the old results.. he was given a fair option.. he declined .. now DNC should go ahead and do what is right.. WHY DOES EVERYONE FEAR THIS GUY SO MUCH???

    I Could Not Agree More (none / 0) (#11)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    The DNC and the state party should be the ONLY ones figuring out what to do - NOT allowing either candidate (in this case, Obama) to effectively veto any option that does not give him the win, or doesn't hurt him in any way (the asurd 50-50 split).  I simply cannot fathom how in the world he is getting away with disenfranchising MI on his OWN poor strategy!!!  WHO has gotten this kind of opportunity EVER???  It is a mockery of the process.  He has made a mockery of the process, aided and abbetted by the DNC.  Wow - what the HECK has happened to our party?!?

    In the long run... (none / 0) (#30)
    by solon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    this would be a terrible precedent to set.

    All candidates possess a right to consent to the terms of the election, just as the party and the people, through their elected representatives, have a right to consent.

    If you were to eliminate the consent from a candidate, then that state legislators and the party could manipulate any election it desired, without the possibility of the candidates voicing an opinion over the outcome.

    In Michigan, Senator Clinton preemptively blocked a caucus because she believed it would cause a harm to the voters in the state. Additionally, Senator Obama disagreed with a revote plan because he believed is would cause a harm to the voters in the state. As candidates, both have a right to this consent.


    that's a lie (none / 0) (#38)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    Senator Clinton preemptively blocked a caucus

    and you know it.. Obama's MI head said they oppose any kind of re-votes. btw, if Obama agreed to caucus's then why not primary when that's the path MI wanted ..

    Will USA support Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan.. if they all start holding caucuses to elect their candidates.. causes are manipulative, abusive and threatening... they are not democratic.


    Really... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by solon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    When Senator Clinton said to US News and World Reports "I would not accept a caucus," about revotes in Florida and Michigan, which part of this is a lie? The State and the Party briefly considered it; her campaign was against it. The State and Party then attempted to find other means for a revote.

    And, remember, the point of my post was that Senator Clinton has the right, as a candidate, to object to a revote since it would be unfair for all other parties to agree to a certain type of vote except for her.

    You may object to a caucus, which is fine. But before you go around judging the whether or not something is true or false, you may want to read more on the subject. Also, the red herrings add nothing to your argument.


    A revote means a primary (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST
    that's what they had in Jan. , that's what would be required for a re-do. Otherwise, its not a do-over, it's a new election with new rules. She supported and backed the new primary vote as proposed by the Michigan state party which asked the legislature to take it up. It was Obama's stall that defeated it. His backers in the legislature wouldn't even let it go to a vote.

    I agree with you on this (none / 0) (#52)
    by solon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:47:12 PM EST
    However, working under the same premises, the revote plan submitted to the Michigan Legislature would not have been a "revote" either since it would change the original conditions under which the people voted. According to CNN, "Michigan voters wanting to cast ballots in the new primary would have to identify themselves as Democrats and certify that they did not vote in the state's Republican primary in January, the source said. Michigan usually does not require party identification in primary elections."

    This too creates a new election with new rules. The only way to have a revote would be to return to the original conditions, something neither party wanted as this would have dramatically altered the race in a way neither campaign could predict.

    Again, my main point is that candidates have the right to consent or to reject to plans and both candidates have done this.


    Except caucuses do cause harm to the voters (none / 0) (#40)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:08:44 PM EST
    especially all the voters who are: health-care workers, retail workers, service workers, disabled, don't drive, can't afford/can't get child care, are ESL, or don't want to argue politics with their neighbors -- and so cannot go to a caucus.

    Having endured through caucuses in WA state in '04 and '08, I am disgusted at that system. Far too many people are left out.

    Interesting -- I'm a Hillary delegate. My legislative district caucus is this Sat. I just got a call from the Hillary campaign (I'd signed up on-line with them to help). They had me down as a volunteer. They did NOT have me as a Hillary delegate for my precinct, -- but they did have the 3 Obama delegates on the precinct list. They said this was the info they got from the State party.  Could be just a mistake as caucuses are so confusing. Or?  


    I don't think they fear him, I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:20:33 PM EST
    they want him to win and they are willing to to use any means to help him do so.

    They can be seated as long as Hillary agrees (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    to give up some of the delegates she won and give them to Obama who wasn't even on the ballot.

    OK.  That's fair.


    If I had voted for HC in MI and part of my (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Teresa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:15:19 PM EST
    vote was given to Obama, I'd be more angry than not having my vote count at all. What part of splitting them 50-50 is better than 0-0? What a stupid solution.

    Now we know... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    ...that the C in DNC stands for "coward".

    This is Dean & Co. doing everything they can to throw the nomination to Obama, but without causing controversy.  They know they have the media on their side, so they'll try the most outrageous things imaginable and then let someone else cover their backsides.

    It's disgusting, it's unfair, and above all, it's undemocratic.


    50-50 (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    That might not be such a bad idea for Clinton. The caveat, of course,  would be she would get to keep her popular vote numbers.

    Is a bad idea (none / 0) (#25)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:42:32 PM EST
    She won 55%. Fair is giving her 55% of the delegates.

    "Uncommitted" got about 42%. This was around the time that Edwards got 2nd in Iowa, slightly ahead of Hillary.

    So give Obama 25 or 30%.  

    If I lived in Michigan, I would be so p-o'd at the state Dem Party I might just sit things out in Nov, since they think the voters don't count.


    Not talking about fair (none / 0) (#29)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    but politically savvy. It's unlikely, even with MI and FL, that HRC will surpass Obama in pledged delegates. So that leaves us with the popular vote, +300k, or so, from MI. She then can use Obama's refusal in the remaining contests against him.

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    I think that anyone who is sane (okay, that's not a lot of people lately) will tabulate MI and FL into the popular vote. If Clinton is going to make a popular vote argument, they have to be included.

    If she wins the majority of the last ten contests by good margins, she'll have a lot of ground to stand on.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#35)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    Still trying to make lemonade though. She could argue that she fought for everyone to have their say, even if they didn't vote for her your votes should still be heard. Or something along those lines.

    what I don't get... (none / 0) (#56)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    and I'm ignoring the fact that since Obama 'pulled' his name of the ballot in MI, the insult to Michigan is his burden...how anyone decides who gets what besides the 'uncommitted' delegates that were selected in the balloting that occurred in January.

    If they want to vote for Obama, I'm fine with that.

    I guess I don't understand how it is that people feel it's OK to just make up rules for how delegates should be manipulated...no different than Obama's campaign stating that 'super' delegates are bound by their notion of the moment.

    Let's get past the point where we in our collective wisdom can tell others what to do...the voting process in MI selected delegates and whatever their allegiance, they should be seated as they will have failed all other attempts at another election.


    I doubt it will happen (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    but I would really like for a reporter to ask Obama what possible justification he can present for receiving votes that were not cast for him?  

    No one ever challenges him (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:28:34 PM EST
    on things like that. That's why he seems to be running such a great campaign.

    The media decides who their darlings are, and they can do no wrong.

    The problem is, if the DNC and the party leaders succeed in shoving Obama down our throats, the press will immediately turn on him like the rabid, anti-Democratic dogs they are.


    You know who will ask that question? (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:37:25 PM EST
    Lou Dobbs.

    Speaking of CNN - I saw Jack Cafferty tonight... (none / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    There was a poll showing that large numbers of people would vote for either a black man or a woman, and he said that's because it's quite obvious how poorly white men have run the country these past seven years.

    He actually said that the Democrats could run a chicken this year and people would vote for it.



    didn't he also say (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:37:57 PM EST
    more would vote for an African-American than a woman? I heard Campbell Brown say she found that amazing.

    I missed it, but I've always believed that (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
    if the AA is male. Maybe it's just my life perspective . . . .

    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:35:14 PM EST
    This is the sort of story that would have Dobbs fuming and ranting over.

    Lou Dobbs... (none / 0) (#57)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:54:42 PM EST
    is bombastic, pompous and tiring. He cuts people off, he manipulates the 'conversations' and his ranting is often unconscionable. That's about as positive as I can get about Lou Dobbs.

    They have (none / 0) (#28)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:46:40 PM EST
    Now, can you explain (none / 0) (#45)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    where anything in the material you linked addresses the question I asked?  

    My Fair Solution (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    Since Obama REMOVED his name form the Michigan ballet, he should get zero delegates.
    Sounds fair, right?
    It's just as reasonable as the solutions put forth by Obama and his supporters.

    To see how the shaft went in on FL (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in August 2007, it's archived at C-Span: also searchable at that site as Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention.

    Repeating from that thread (I came on too late for this to be read there), it's riveting stuff (oh, I am a political junkie) -- an hour and a half long, but especially pick up at about an hour and 15 minutes in for comments by former DNC chair Don Fowler, who looks to be the only member of the committee to express concern and then vote against the amendment to the motion.

    That amendment -- by Obama super-delegate Ralph Dawson of NY -- was to exceed the roolz for punishment and stripping FL of all delegates. As best I could see in a fairly good skim of this, it is after Fowler that Donna Brazile speaks strongly in favor of the harshest punishment. She is not alone in doing so. Nor is she chairing the meeting.

    But there are many references to the "staff recommendation" -- and I know from my time on too many committees like this that staff have immense input and actual direction of such stuff. Oh, but Donna promised to come on down to Florida and do everything she could to make sure that this harsh punishment wouldn't happen. Uh hum. If you have time, do listen to the earlier part, the pleas of the Floridians. They -- and former DNC chair Fowler -- predict exactly the mess today.

    Exhibit A of how to (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Lena on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:03:07 PM EST
    shoot oneself in the foot: the DNC is hopelessly compromising the ge, for whichever candidate wins the nomination. Without Michigan (and Florida), the "winner" will never be perceived as legitimate from the standpoint of a certain segment of voters (including me).

    Obama's supporters should have done everything they could to get a revote. The man's campaign is rich as sin. He surely could have continued outspending HRC 3-1 or 4-1 and at least gotten close to even, in Michigan anyway.

    If he wins by not counting Michigan and Florida, he's going to have to convince both the general public AND Democrats that he's legit.

    And I for one won't buy it. Thanks, DNC!

    What puts a pit in my stomach is (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    that if Clinton doesn't get the nom, she'll prob be out there fighting for those votes for Obama in the fall.

    She better be. Just as Obama better be (none / 0) (#66)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:03:43 AM EST
    if Clinton gets the nomination. Can we all please stop ignoring who the REAL enemy is??????
    This is one of many reasons we need to get a Dem elected.

    Every time I read that 50/50 suggestion... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:09:28 PM EST
    ...my head feels like it's going to explode. Obama wants to seat the delegates, as long as they are seated in a way that doesn't mean anything. He might as well just say "we can seat the delegates as long as they all vote for me". Or maybe (and I've heard this suggested) "the delegates can participate in the convention, but they can't vote for a candidate". The past 7 years have seemed a bit surreal, as I watched my nation descend into an Orwellian nightmare, but I really thought that once Bush's reign was over we would return to normal. I'm beginning to wonder if that's possible.

    Bush reign is hardly over (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    when, if Obama is our nominee, we can say here's the new Bush same as the old Bush.

    Bad news for Barack (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM EST

    The Obama camp (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    must have some good spin up their sleeves on this one.  I can't wait to hear it.  I'm guessing it will be believable to his supporters and MSNBC.  

    There's a great Frontline doc (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:08:28 PM EST
    called News War, wherein it's posited that the cable shows don't need a broad base, but a passionate, devoted segment.  They'll keep preaching to the choir so long as it works for them.

    I think the media outlets will play this MI news as very pro-Obama, the same way they do everything else.  I just wonder if the public is getting to the point where they are hearing one thing on the media and seeing another with their own eyes.  You know, the same phenomenon that took Bush from an historically high approval rating to an historically low one in the relative blink of an eye (and thousands of dead soldiers, I might add)

    They always report the news we want to hear.  Let's see what the rest of the voters want to hear.  I am not giving up on our girl.  She's proven again and again that she's a fighter.  Let's keep fighting for her.


    Guess what I heard on Fox tonight..... (none / 0) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:35:26 PM EST
    that the MI/FL votes need to count and that MSNBC keeps spinning that the pledged delegates decide when that is false.  Go figure.

    It was interesting to listen (a couple of nights ago) to a talking head on CNN saying Clinton needs to go after Obama on these issues and take him out in the primary.  Someone else said she can't because the media will eviscerate her.  Talking head one said it will be her fault if Obama loses in November.  Basically, take him out now as graciously as possible and hope to win in November or watch the Republicans take him out ugly.  Odd responsibility to put on someone.

    BTW... never give up, never give in.


    IACF (none / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:39:52 PM EST
    (It's All Clinton's Fault)

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Hey, it's worked for Republicans for the past 16 years...



    Yeah, like Gov Rendell said: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:44:17 PM EST
    So was it the peace, or the prosperity, or the budget surplus, you didn't like about the Clinton terms?

    Dunno (none / 0) (#34)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:01:12 PM EST
    Can't "pledged" delegates change their mind come convention?
    If Edwards and Obama had left their names on the ballot this would like FL.
    Had HRC taken her name off, the primary would have been nonsense.
    Why not seat all the delegates as unpledged?

    Because she won (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    55% of them. Those voters support her, they were not uncommitted.

    This really is depressing (none / 0) (#42)
    by IKE on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:24:36 PM EST
    Is the the change that we seek, denying millions the right for their voices to be heard? If I were a Michigan / Florida resident I would  have serious doubt voting for a party that doesn't believe that I should have a say in the nominating process. These people are really pissing off Hillary supporters. I for one will certainly be one of those 28% switching or staying at home.

    I say that if FL/MI delegates are not seated in (none / 0) (#63)
    by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM EST
    time to make a difference in the outcome, every HRC supporter --regardless of where they reside-- should consider Obama non legit and should sit out next November except for down ticket votes.

    I still don't understand (none / 0) (#44)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM EST
    why was SC (and NV?) allowed to change the dates but not FL and/or MI?  

    Seems to me if they let some states move it, they should have let other; but especially FL given
    the Rep. legislature was involved...

    I think it was because (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:39:25 PM EST
    they wanted a western state (NV) and a southern state (SC) to move up along with IA and NH which have the early vote by tradition.

    I see... thanks! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:49:30 PM EST
    Heckuva job, Deanie (none / 0) (#53)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    What a ridiculous travesty. And the Obama camp should stop insulting our intelligence with this 50-50 tripe.

    I don't understand why... (none / 0) (#64)
    by outsider on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:12:26 AM EST
    ...in the case of MI, as well as FL, the obvious solution is not just to apply the existing rules fairly and impartially, and seat their delegates with a 50% reduction.  It's the right answer for FL - Dean et al misspoke (to use the now-popular expression) when they threatened not to seat FL at all, rather than merely apply the maximum legitimate penalty of 50%.  It's also the right answer for MI.  I can only see two objections from Obama, and they both fail:

    (1) I didn't have my name on the ballot in MI.

    A: That's your problem.  You made a calculated political gamble.  There were two potential pay-offs for you: (a) discredit the results of a primary you knew you would lose by about 20%; (b) posture yourself as a champion for the rights of the states that were supposed to go first and thought they had been trampled on, thus earning some good will (and extra votes) in those places.  The gamble didn't pay off.  Nobody forced you to withdraw your name.

    (2) I made the decision to withdraw my name having been told that the MI primary wouldn't count.

    A: You should have realised that there would be a big fight about this - states don't take kindly to being disenfranchised.  And you should have read the rules.  You should have known Dean's threat to MI was an inappropriate one even if he didn't.

    Most importantly: O's already got form for winning contests on technicalities.  It'll look terrible for him if he tries to do it again.  seating half of FL and MI doesn't even give HRC a massive leg up - it won't kill O's chances. What it might do is enable her to get his delegate lead under 100 by the end of the contest, however, which some people are starting to say would be enough for HRC to be able to win with the support of supers without accusations that she "stole" the nomination...

    Democrats prepare to snatch defeat (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM EST
    out of the jaws of victory again.