Obama Blocked The Michigan Revote

By Big Tent Democrat

With Obama's new 50-50 proposal for the Michigan delegation (BTW, I guess the whole deterrence thing is out the window now), it is now fashionable with some Obama supporters to forget that it was Barack Obama who blocked a Michigan revote. This memo from the Obama campaign establishes that Obama did block the Michigan revote:

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Robert F. Bauer

RE: Michigan Primary

DA: March 19, 2008

In the short time available, I have reviewed the proposed legislation to establish the June 3, 2008 primary, considering primarily those issues that bear on the central question of whether this election can be conducted successfully without undue risk of legal challenges, including those challenges arising out of errors or other breakdown induced by the schedule the State has proposed.

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative—questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election. . . . proposal.

The argument Bauer outlines may convince you. It does not convince me. But one thing is clear - Barack Obama blocked the revote in Michigan. You may believe he did so with justification or without justification. But let no one say he did not block the Michigan revote.

< How Would You Resolve FL and MI? | The Top Ten Myths of Jury Trials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There you go again (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    posting proof to back up your statements.  How on earth can O legitimately win this nomination if you keep pointing out the chicanery and backroom maneuvering?

    Oh, wait.

    But since the letter didn't come from (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    Obama himself, he didn't really block the re-vote.  It isn't his fault.

    A Staffer Did It (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:07 AM EST
    Or a ten-year old.

    Understood (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    Obama's only area of responsibility and expertise is inspiration.  Anything else coming from his campaign is automatically attributed to someone else, most frequently a staff member, a supporter, or even Hillary herself.

    Only Clinton is responsible for what her (none / 0) (#98)
    by litigatormom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    staffers or surrogates do. Obama has plausible deniability for anything done by his staff or surrogates.

    So my dentist explained to me this morning while he was checking my teeth.  Both he and the hygienist support Obama.  We got into a discussion of the MI and FLA situation, and they both denied that Obama had resisted re-votes.  I told them I would e-mail them supporting information. Thank you so much, BTD, for this.


    Nobody earned nothing (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    Michigan ESPECIALLY needs a revote. It is outrageous that Obama blocked the revote in Michigan.

    All so unnecessary as well. This is STUPID politics from Obama.


    His pattern has been (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    to do everything possible to win the nomination. The general election will be dealt with later.

    Problem is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    he's doing things to win in the primaries that are damaging his general-election chances. He really is a terrible candidate.

    Doing anything to win? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    But...but...I thought that only practitioners of The Old Politics did that!

    Don't tell me Barack Obama is...a politician?


    This is the sentiment that I just don't get (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MaxUS on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    a re-vote is already a compromise.

    You may think, as an Obama supporter, that he is not culpible in his action to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan. But no matter how you slice it, he did take his name off the ballot. That he was not on the ballot is his own doing and he reaped the benefits of that genuflection to IA and NH in the IA and NH primaries.

    There is not need for a re-vote based on the who was on the ballot. There is a compromise between seating the delegates as is and not seating the delegates (not because it favors one candidate or the other, but because the Dem Party must honor MI in order to remain viable in November).


    Why is it stupid politics? (none / 0) (#10)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    So far he's getting away with it. No one in the MSM< is calling him on it. So it seems pretty smart given that he'd be sure to get killed in revotes in Michigan and Florida.

    Because no matter what the media says (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    Democrats in MI and FL will resent this treatment.

    He isn't thinking that far ahead, nor are (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    his supporters.

    Add Voters in other states as well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mexboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    And I mean Democrats like myself.

    I haven't heard any of my fellow (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    Florida Democrats say they will vote for McCain or not work for the nominee in November. Admittedly my circle of friends is not a good sampling of Florida Democrats, but I am not so sure significant numbers of  Florida  voters are going to sit out and not vote come November. I don't think there is anyway to know for sure right now.

    There are recent FL polls (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    showing that lots of Dems will stay home or vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    You would admit your sample is small. I know plenty who have said exactly that. but that is anecdotal too. Polling however, supports my view.

    That is a snapshot of today, not November (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    That is a snapshot of today when emotions are high and focused on the primaries, not November when voters hopefully are focused on the actual choices before them. Come November if Democrats are that brain dead to vote for McCain, just shoot me now.

    Mighty big gamble to take (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    We may have no choice (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    I am not gambling. I am voicing my disbelief that Democrats knowing what the stakes are, would deliberately be so foolish to vote for More of the Same McCain, or sit it out because their perfect candidate is not on the ballot. We used to call those voters Ralph.

    I would not be such a voter (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    but to pretend that they do not exist is folly. Do you know how much time money and effort the PA Democratic party spent on purging Nader from the ballot in 2004? They didn't do it out of spite, I can tell you that much.

    I have to agree... (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    people do 'get over it.'  I know I won't, I have lost my loyalty to the big D, but I imagine I am rare.  The Dem party relies on people to get over it.  Something happens every election to anger the electorate, but they aren't called hard-core Democratic supporters for nothing.

    People support Obama or not.  Most minds are made up by now.  There are some who say resolve it, or......  what?  They have no intention of not voting for the Democratic nominee no matter what.  Many aren't paying much attention and will be fine with any resolution.

    Yesterday, to the Clinton tax returns, I asked a question, and I will ask it again....

    Do you think the Obama supporters will let it go now?  :)


    You would have to direct that question (none / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    to an Obama supporter. I support the nominee- HRC or Obama. I support Democrats, because, if I know nothing else about them, their choice of party ID tells me we agree on more things than not. I support Democrats, because if a politician in this day and age chooses the GOP ID, their core ideals are not mine, even if we may agree on some issues.

    I prefer not to be emotionally invested in any one candidate. That doesn't mean, i have never been or won't be again. I definitely am not emotionally invested in either candidate this year.

    Having made my preferences clear, I will also say, I care nothing about the Clinton tax return- to me its like Gertrude Stein's comment on Oakland, California.  


    Ditto (none / 0) (#125)
    by Grandmother on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM EST
    there are lots of us out there who were lifelong Democrats and are now of the mindset that if Obama is the nominee we will vote for McCain.

    I'm not a Democrat to the point that I would vote for someone that I don't trust with the well being of this country.  I've voted a straight Democratic ticket for forty years but I'm not going to vote for someone who hangs out with the Rev "God damn America" Wright and, as a typical white person, I believe that America comes first.

    If Hillary Clinton has to drop out of this race, this Democrat will vote Republican for the first time.  I fear for this country if he is elected.


    Oddly...and sadly... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    I'm related to 3 who are really not happy at present and are waffling between abstaining, Nader, and McCain.

    The only thing they know is that at the moment they aren't interested in voting for Obama.

    The word "livid" comes to mind...complete with emails to the DNC withdrawing any further financial support.

    No, they aren't brain dead.

    But I'd highly rec' not informing voting Dems that they are potentially brain dead.


    How about I just say thanks Ralph (3.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    I really, really appreciated the 2000 election?

    Suppose you tell me what I call someone who would rather have McCain and all that that will entail then vote for a Democratic candidate who is not their perfect candidate?


    You're welcome to that... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    I even brought up the McCain 100 years thing.

    Right now, they're livid about the fact that their votes (they registered to vote without knowing there was a kerfuffle going on in Fla--newish residents).

    These Democratic voters, ones who cast their first votes for Kennedy, went to the booths in Jan...they voted.

    I would suggest that a) you let them be angry and b) don't poke them with the "Ralph" stick, which will just anger them even more at this point.

    Votes are the candidate's to earn...not expect or take for granted.


    I'm not voting for a Dem in November (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    You can call me anything you wish.

    I don't ask for perfection from my candidates. Obviously being a Floridian I have settled many times for very imperfect candidates.

    Everyone draws their own line in the sand as to what they will put up with and what they won't. For me that line was my primary vote. Not that I'm used to having it as we normally are too late to matter, but rather the principle that votes are sacred. Maybe not legally, especially in a primary, but morally.

    Votes are the one time where everyone is supposed to be equal. That no matter your wealth, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, position in society, etc. you have the same amount of power that everyone else has. And this is the time, the only time sadly, that politicians pay any attention to the people who aren't writing the big checks.

    You want to sell me and other voters the ideal that Dems will stand up for values they espouse and Repubs won't. But right here, right now is an example of Dems not standing up for a value they espouse - voter rights. That is a position they talk about supporting every election - count every vote and every vote counts. And here and now they are showing that not only is it just talk, it's talk they'll sacrifice for no good purpose.

    Dems aren't owed votes. They need to earn them. And if they aren't earning them, the fault lies with them, not the voters.


    No one said the Dems were owed votes (none / 0) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    If you like the last 8 years, be my guest, don't vote Dem or worse yet vote McCain. What the hell, another 100 years in Iraq, maybe an invasion of Iran, a Supreme Court that is pro business, anti-individual rights, who cares. Constitution? We don't need no constitution, monarchy will do just nicely. Whatever the President says is legal is legal.  End  of discussion.

    Don't  expect me or others to thank you for your well articulated position. Dems are not owed the votes.  Your children and my grandchildren, on the other hand, might deserve a better country than we have at the moment. Opting out will definitely give them a better country, right?


    Opting out? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    Who said I was opting out? I am making a choice. It's not the choice you are making, so you think it is opting out. I believe any time you stand for what you believe is right, whether you win or not and whether it is with friends or against them, you give people a better country.

    You missed my point. Instead you once again went with the argument that things will be radically different under whoever is the Dem nominee than they will be under the Repub nominee. My point is that we only have their word on what they believe and how they will act. What stand can I expect on tough issues from people who won't stand on this issue?

    What horrible fate awaited the candidate who said that taking away the right of millions of Dems to vote in the primary was wrong? What fight did the candidate face who said that they wouldn't boycott millions of Americans because some party leaders wanted them to? What loss were they to suffer if they said they wouldn't come to Florida for money while refusing to talk with the people?

    If they won't stand up to a small group of people in their own party, how is anyone to believe they'll stand up to anyone else much less another party or foreign power? A major part of the problem for the last 8 years was that people put party before values. Party before country. Party before everything. The Dems candidates are doing the same thing. I don't believe that allowing them to do it now, leads to anything but more of the same.

    I'm not going to act out of fear. Fear mongering didn't work on me when the Repubs tried it and it won't work on me when Dems try it. Parties change. People change. Ideals are the constant to which I will align myself. Those who work with those ideals earn my vote, those who don't will not get it by default.


    Enjoy your ideals (none / 0) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    I prefer to be practical. Maybe  I am too old, seen to many elections. I didn't like Jimmy Carter in 1980. He was no liberal.  I was for Kennedy. Then came Reagan.

    Carter, for all his faults as I perceived them in 1980, was infinitely better.

    You call it fear mongering, I call it truth telling. We don't know for sure what a Democrat will do in office. We never do. What I know from the last 28 years, I don't like what Republicans do in office.


    Call me (none / 0) (#127)
    by Grandmother on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    There is no way Obama gets my vote. And I'm not alone.  Women, and especially female attorneys in my home state of Mo, are angry at Claire McCaskill for her endorsement of Obama.  We, the female Bar, came out and supported her, worked for her, donated to her campaign.  There is a TREMENDOUS amount of anger towards her for not supporting a female presidential candidate.  She asked for our support and she got it and then turned around and spit in our face and as much as said it only counts when I'm the female candidate.  

    I mention Claire because many of us in this state will not support Obama because of McCaskill's support of Obama.  In my case this is just one reason.  I will vote for John McCain if Obama is the nominee.  It's just that simple. There is nothing that I have seen from Obama that leads me to believe he is capable of running this nation.  

    BTW I practice law in both Mo and Ill.  Before Rahm Emanuel convinced John Kerry to have Obama speak at the convention in 2004, Obama was an unknown. I spend quite a bit of time in Springfield, IL, (the state capital) and even amongst Obama supporters, he is joke.  No one even knew who this guy was.  Must be nice to be pushed to the front of line and why...?


    It would be fine if winning the primary (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    was the same as winning the general election, but it is not and so...

    All I know is that now both of our candidates - regardless of which one wins will have to pour a lot of money into Florida and Michigan in the general and Obama will likely have to live in Michigan like Kerry did in Ohio which I thought was a terrible strategy in 2004.  It looked like the only state in the Union that was important to the Democratic Party was Ohio.


    This new meme is gaining quite the cache (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    He's getting away with it and the media is not calling him  on it, ergo, it is smart and we should acknowledge and celebrate his cleverness.  This bothers me for some reason.  Ummm, I think it may be because it reminds me of the arguments made in defense of someone else.  Getting away with it appears to have been institutionalized as the new winning strategy.

    You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    I'm not defending this strategy. I think it's horrible. But it's working in the short-term and that's all he cares about.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#46)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    But your earlier words, in which you clearly stated that it "seems pretty smart," belie your statement that you were not defending this strategy.  In any event, you are not the first and probably will not be the last to rely upon this now firmly established meme to defend Obama's tactics.

    It "belies" my earlier statement, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    You've run rings around me logically. I hope you are proud of yourself. Christ, winning points on these blogs seems to obsess some people.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#110)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    I'm an attorney; I can't help myself.

    LOL... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:23:53 AM EST
    ...of course the other rebuttal will be that Obama never blocked the vote... he simply let his lawyer through a mountain of FUD regarding possible vote fraud, constitutional questions, disenfranchisement, illegalities, and impracticalities in conducting a revote.

    But nowhere does it say he wanted to block it!


    He seems to collect such arguments (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    and people. . .

    Remind you of a certain current President? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    Maybe, just a little?

    More than just a little (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    Enough to make me uncomfortable.

    But does it *belie* your discomfort? (none / 0) (#68)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    That's the question.

    You know I was kidding don't you? (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    I won't be surprised to see the argument made far and wide if this Michigan vote issue gets traction though.

    The irony is that if a Clinton advisor or surrogate says or does something that is unpopular she is held accountable every time.  If Obama's foot soldiers do anything that turns out to be unpopular, he is rushed into his ivory tower and they claim he never heard it, didn't supported and that he rejects it - whatever "it" may be at a given time - and people for whatever reason buy into that gig.

    Its crazy to me.  If we could all be intellectually honest enough to agree that both of our candidates have flaws that we'd like to change, we might actually have two stronger and more desireable candidates.  As it stands now, one is villified and on the road to destruction and the other is getting a ridiculous free pass which really may cost us big time in November.


    Too uncanny... (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:44:26 AM EST
    ...to not be intentional when Obama can have an army of surrogates out there sliming Clinton and then a week later Obama takes the podium to claim that he denounces the politics of divisiveness and a collective 'awwwwww' goes up from the media...

    Be the problem you're complaining (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    about and then be the hero for solving it!

    It is surreal to me that so many people buy into that bait and switch.  But I guess I am used to it now after watching the GOP do it so overtly and aggressively for so many years.


    but BTD, (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    sen. obama's name isn't on that memo, merely some unknown underling. so technically (i guess), sen. obama has never been directly quoted saying "i refuse a MI revote." this is what the more ludicrous supporters hang their hats on.

    never let facts get in the way of a good, inane rant.

    No Problem (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:16:40 AM EST
    Team Obama worked to squelch the legitimate re-votes in MI and FL against the wishes of the DNC and the interests of the Democratic Party.

    No problem.

    We'll just use the popular vote count and the delegate allocations from the initial votes instead.

    Obama didn't want re-votes, so he's going to have to live with the initial votes instead.  That's his choice.  It may be a bad choice, but it's the way Obama wanted it.

    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    So your brave posts at Ezra's place...keep fighting.  If you are the same.

    Same (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:35 PM EST
    Ezra has really disappointed me of late.   Unlike many blogosphere pundits, he understand the importance of universal healthcare and the Democratic policy agenda.

    But his entire social/professional world is pro-Obama, and he doesn't seem to have the courage to stand apart from his boys.

    I generally like his commentary a lot, so I expected better.


    He is a coward (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    I have lost all respect for him.

    EK (none / 0) (#93)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    He does clearly acknowledge that HRC's plan is better by his lights.  It's not the only issue out there, of course.  Has he in fact endorsed Obama?

    [Full disclosure: I gave him a hard time on the Walt/Mearsheimer issue and found he refused to address any substantive criticism for a very long time, which I found disappointing.]


    Endorsing (none / 0) (#100)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    "Has he in fact endorsed Obama?"

    Well, Keith Olbermann and Josh Marshall haven't "endorsed" Obama.

    And while Ezra hasn't gone nearly as far down the path of intellectual dishonesty as those two, he hasn't been a profile in courage the last couple of months.


    Have KO or JMM (none / 0) (#103)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    called Obama's health care stance quote a lie unquote full stop, like EK has?  He's been much much better in my view than e.g. Matthew Yglesias.  [Admittedly I've quit reading both of them for the most part.]  I agree with EK about mandates, and about the importance of the insurance debate, but BO is better on a number of other issues that I care about, so I can understand EK not committing.  KO and JMM are committed, and not for policy or even rational reasons - so the comparison doesn't work for me.

    Yup (none / 0) (#108)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
    "(Ezra's) been much much better in my view than e.g. Matthew Yglesias."

    No doubt.

    To use Colbert-ian terms, Yglesias, Marshall, and Olbermann are dead to me.  Klein is only on notice.


    you asked about diaries in an earlier comment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    Write an e-mail to Jeralyn and I am sure she will give you privileges. You can tell her, if she asks, that I endorse giving you the right to diary.

    Thx (none / 0) (#12)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    Thx.  The GE story deserves to be brought into the light.

    BS (none / 0) (#14)
    by Traven on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    Asking legitimate questions -- which includes making sure that Dems who voted in the GOP primary because they were told their votes wouldn't count -- and thus are not -- here comes the buzzword -- "disenfranchised" -- is not the same thing as blocking a re-vote.

    More important, had HRC been in Obama's position, she would have done the same thing.  And then lied about ducking sniper fire afterwards.


    It IS the same thing as blocking it (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    You are saying Obama was JUSTIFIED to block it.

    That is something entirely different.


    Politics is...politics (none / 0) (#95)
    by Traven on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    What I'm saying is that this outrage over MI and FLA is totally manufactured.  I'd have more respect for all this blathering over revotes if it weren't for the fact that EVERYBODY agreed that MI and FLA wouldn't count.  HRC was fine with that until her prospects darkened.  So spare me the outrage.  Spare me the hand-wringing over people being "disenfranchised."  Spare me the blasts at Obama.  You want to say this is all an unfortunate screw-up, fine -- but let's not make Hillary a saint and Obama a sinner in this.  That is total crap.

    Most people (none / 0) (#113)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    expected this race to be over by now.  But since it turned out to be such a close race, it's important that as many votes as possible are counted for a fair reflection of the will of the people.  To exclude only two contests is ridiculous at this point.  If Obama was way ahead of her and there was no chance MI and FL would have a decisive outcome then I'd agree with you, but that isn't the case.  MI and FL will either put Clinton over the top or give Obama strong legitimacy.  If Obama wins the nomination without FL and MI a lot of Clinton supporters would be rightfully upset, knowing that there was a chance she could have taken it if not for his stalling.  If he wins with MI and FL then there's little doubt the people (or most of them anyway) preferred him.

    Obama's Chutzpah (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    First Obama REMOVED his name from the Michigan ballet.
    Then he deliberately disenfranchised all Michigan voters by personally making sure their votes wouldn't be counted.
    Now he wants a 50/50 split of the Michigan delegates.
    This guy is too much.

    He only wants half... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    of what Hillary's earned in Michigan. seems fair, right?

    Ahem: (none / 0) (#11)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    Aides to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said today they would oppose two of the possible remaining options for seating Michigan's Democratic convention delegates, leaving it unclear whether any path remains for the state to be seated at the Denver convention.

    Michigan Democrats have said they would consider party-run contests -- either a mail-in primary or party caucuses -- to lift the state's ban from the national convention. But Obama's campaign manager said the Illinois senator would have major concerns with voting by mail, and a spokesman for Clinton said the campaign would oppose caucuses.

    Detroit News, 3/21/08

    That story is (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    poorly written. The Michigan Dem Party and the Governor of Michigan proposed legislation that would have been a full revote primary.

    Clinton ACCEPTED the Michigan proposals. Bauer's memo was the Obama response - rejection.

    It is hard for Obama supporters to accept his feet of clay on this - but the facts are clear. You can not change them. OF course you can lie about them. But NOT here.


    Lies? (none / 0) (#38)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    I just posted a main stream news article.  I think it's important that everyone (especially Michigan voters, come November) understand that while Obama did, indeed raise objections to some of the proposed revote solutions, Clinton also rejected any idea of caucuses.  So both candidates share some responsibility for failing to get a revote done.  Though the lions' share of blame belongs to state dems.

    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    You actually did not post the key parts of the article. You ignored the facts that were inconvenient to you. that is a species of falsehood you delivered deliberately.

    No Falsehood (none / 0) (#51)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    I posted the lede. Here's the rest of the article so people can decide for themselves: Detroit News

    Good to link; bad for your case (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    The buried lede:

    'On Thursday, the state Senate adjourned without taking action on legislation that would have scheduled a state-run, privately funded June 3 Democratic do-over primary. Obama supporters, and others in the state Legislature, said they saw too many legal and logistical problems with the idea. The Clinton campaign accused Obama of killing a Michigan re-do, which would have given her a late-in-the-game chance to win a contest and impress super delegates who will likely hold the key to the nomination.

    "I do not accept the premise that we killed this," Plouffe said, arguing there were "huge problems" with the proposal. The co-chairs of the Democratic National Committee's rules panel issued a memo this week saying the plan would meet DNC guidelines, but Plouffe argued that the memo should not be read as DNC approval of the re-vote.'

    Summary: the legislature proposed X, the DNC said ok, Clinton said ok [and incidentally here are the funds], Obama said, No.


    Continued... (none / 0) (#22)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    Michigan Democrats have said they would consider party-run contests -- either a mail-in primary or party caucuses -- to lift the state's ban from the national convention. But Obama's campaign manager said the Illinois senator would have major concerns with voting by mail, and a spokesman for Clinton said the campaign would oppose caucuses.

    You have probably answered this before (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    but the Memo does raise some interesting questions. How would  revote be accomplished and overcome these issues?

    Or do you find the issues raised specious?  I had to avoid in depth reading the last 4 weeks with work overload. I am in a lull right now and can devote time to reading again.

    At first glance a re-vote does have attraction.

    I find them all completely specious (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    This is a memo from a lawyer who was ordered to write a memo objecting to something. I have written many such memos in my time.

    It is done at the client's behest - in this case, the client is Barack Obama. I find it hard to believe you do not see that.


    In the parlance... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    ...it's throwing FUD - fear, uncertainty, doubt.  One can tear down even the best-architected proposal by this method.  What if lightning strikes?  How would we deal with the issue of ballots returned for insufficient postage.  In short, no plan can compensate for any possible circumstance.  Bauer's memo simply raises fears without any probability of occurrence or plan for mitigation.  The purpose is implicitly to kill the proposal.

    Of course it was written on behalf of the client (none / 0) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    I have never seen a brief that wasn't written on behalf of a client. Have you?

    That in and of itself doesn't mean it doesn't raise issues. Would the vote be skewed if everyone is allowed to vote, regardless of which primary they voted in before? The answer may be yes and it may be there is no choice. Would it be unfair not to allow those who voted in the original to vote again- especially when there is no competing primary? The answer is probably, and it may be there is no choice.

    On the whole I think a closed primary would be preferable in MI, but it would be counter to  MI open primaries.


    If you accept that the client's wishes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    are reflected in the memo, not an objective assessment, I find it hard to understand what you are asking.

    What do I think of the merits of the memo? I think it is a poor memo with nothing to substantiate it.

    None of the problems are substantial nor do they come close to weighing against no representation for Michigan.

    I am sorry but I find it hard to believe you take these sppecious arguments seriously.


    I think we share a basic belief that a do over (none / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    would be best. I think it would have to be a closed primary. and I don't think a serious legal objection could be raised to a closed primary- a state can always change from an open to close primary and vice versa. MI has a high interest in ensuring the vote in this particular primary is not skewed, but I make no pretense of any expertise on voting laws.



    I botched this slightly (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    An open primary with no competing GOP primary is likely to skew the results.

    That is a legal opinion - not a block (none / 0) (#39)
    by Publicus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    Michigan was entirely free to propose and recommend a specific re-vote plan for a yea or nay.  They did not.

    That is false (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    Obama surrogates in the MI legislature, acting at his behest, blocked the proposal. You must face this hard truth, Obama blocked the MI revote.

    If you must defend Obama here, your best argument is that his blocking of the revote was justified by the concerns Bauer raised.


    And the memo is entirely hyocritical (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM EST
    given the contests Obama has excelled at so far.

    One could write... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    ...largely the same memo regarding a proposed caucus.

    No BTD (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    You CLAIM that Obama surrgoates in the Michigan state legislature blocked a revote.  You haven't shown ANY evidence to support the claim.

    Instead you attempt to use this memo as proof positive that it was Obama who blocked the revote when it was in fact the state legislature that never even brought it up for a vote.  

    Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that Obama surrogates in Michigan blocked the vote?  Or do you simply have a post hoc argument that since Obama raised concerns it follows that the only possible outcome was an Obama blocked primary?


    Entirely disingenuous (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    MI Legislature (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    Clinton turns up heat for do-over

    "His supporters in the Legislature said they believe there is not enough backing among Lansing Democrats to pass primary legislation.

    "There's not enough support," said Sen. Tupac Hunter of Detroit, Obama's Michigan co-chairman. "There aren't any moving pieces out there that I can see coming together to change the situation."

    "Hunter and Obama's other Michigan campaign co-chair, state Sen. Buzz Thomas of Detroit, expressed qualms about spending private money on a public election, as proposed in the legislation.

    Thomas issued a statement that the do-over primary bill is "riddled with problems that overwhelm any possible positive outcome."


    You wil never believe it (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:33:48 PM EST
    Because you do not want to.

    I will not discuss this any further with you. You are dishonest about this issue.


    Yes of course (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:35:54 PM EST
    I am the one being dishonest because I have the gall to ask for actual proof of your assertions.

    This isn't a question of BELIEF.  You are making an assertion of alleged fact not an assertion of belief.  

    Maybe Obama torpedoed the legislation.  I have no idea.  But it seems difficult for me to believe that Obama has that much influence in the MI state legislature.  


    you know full well (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    I have provided mountains of evidence. You deny the obvious and I have no desire whatsoever to discuss this with you.

    You are not interested in an honest discussion of this issue.  I am not interested in a dishonest one with you.


    I just found another link (none / 0) (#142)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    to go along with DudeE's that asks the question, is the Obama campaign obstructing a revote in Michigan. It has further links to three other sources.

    I would certainly admit (none / 0) (#140)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    Obama opposed a revote in Michigan. I'm not a lawyer, so even after reading the document, I'm not certain if he opposed it for justifiable reasons or not. The crucial question, it seems to me, is if Obama had stayed silent and let the process go forward, would the issues his lawyer brought up have been brought up again by the DOJ or other parties acting on their own to object or derail the process? If not, then I'd have to admit his reasons for opposing a revote were specious, but again I'm in no position to evaluate such a claim either way.

    I don't know who Obama's surrogates in the Michigan legislature are, nor have I read any detailed accounts of how the proposal was defeated. I'll attempt to do research, but if you did have any links conveniently at hand I'd appreciate them.


    Ok, he blocked the revote. (none / 0) (#54)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    The issue now is: how do you get MI's original votes counted without favoring either candidate? (Which means, of course, that they will favor the frontrunner).

    Since when should votes not favor any (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    candidate? Did Obama win 50% of these votes? The only argument you could have is to give him the uncommitted and even that is generous because at the time of the MI primary, Edwards was doing pretty well.

    You expect Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    to cede an advantage to Clinton at this point in the race?

    I wouldn't expect her to stop trying to get these votes counted in her favor either. Both want to win.


    I expect him to do the right thing. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    Taking 50% of those votes isn't right. He needs to be a leader and agree to re-votes. It would make me feel a lot better about him in November. The least he could do would be to acknowledge the percent of the vote that Hillary won in MI. His offer is a slap in the face to her voters.

    Don't think moralizing (none / 0) (#65)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    is going to do it. Clinton badly miscalculated early on. Now Obama holds an advantage. It's unrealistic to expect him to cede it.

    Tupac Hunter and Buzz Thomas (none / 0) (#61)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:09:29 PM EST
    ...who both are mid level Obama campaign officials and happen to be Michigan state Senators, are the two people most responsible for killing the Michigan revote.
    Buzz Thomas was very smug and gloated after he killed the revote legislation

    Serious question (none / 0) (#64)
    by latebird on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    What should the DNC have done in the first place when Florida moved its date up?

    If they gave in, every state would feel free to set its own date regardless of the Party's position. Should the Party have simply thrown in the towel and let that happen?

    50% penalty as provided by the DNC rules (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    Next question?

    Do the DNC rules (none / 0) (#76)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    allow for a stiffer penalty, or is the 50% penalty the only permissible penalty?

    The rules can always get changed or suspended (none / 0) (#80)
    by Manuel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    They allow for whatever you want to change (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    rules to be. For example, they could allow they be seated as is 100% now.

    Yes (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM EST
    the rules explicitly allow for harsher penalties. 50% penalty is the minimum penalty.  

    Although some here seem to believe otherwise, there are written rules that have been followed.


    It is NOT the minimum penalty (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    It was the EXPRESS penalty.

    you are not credible when discussing this issue. To me at least.


    Actually (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    I am as credible as the expressed rules.

    Rule 20.C.5....

    Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential
    preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.

    The rules EXPRESSLY allow for additional penalties.

    Read the darn rules if you are going to claim you know them.


    Inded it does (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    IT ALLOWS but does not require.

    The EXPRESS PENALTY is 50%. What part of that do you NOT understand.

    What is interesting of course is that IF it WAS the MINIMUM penalty, then it would have been applied to IOWA, NH and South Carolina.

    you are not credible on this issue.


    Nice work (none / 0) (#139)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    Good job changing the topic.

    I would hope you know why Iowa, NH, and SC were not punished.  Because the only people I know making that argument are the ardent Hillary supporters trying to spin the argument.  Since you are an Obama supporter I would hope you wouldn't use that sort of spin.

    Please feel free to point to what I am saying that is  not credible.  


    Others may know why (none / 0) (#141)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Iowa, NH and SC were not punished, but I don't. Well, I have a rough idea why one might argue they shouldn't have been punished (they were moving their primaries in response to the rule breaking of MI and FL), but I don't know what the rule-base reasons for it were. If you have any links, I'd appreciate flyerhawk. I'm not being argumentative, I honestly don't know.

    The rules (none / 0) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    were explicitly created to ensure that NH, SC, NV, and IA were given precedence in the primary schedule.  

    Here is the rule in question...

    A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in
    the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the
    first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the
    second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that
    the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in
    February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the
    first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14
    days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held
    no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which
    scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the
    second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

    When Fl and MI moved their primaries up to 1/15, in direct violation of this rule, the other states moved their dates up to retain primacy.  Their move, however, was in accordance with the intentions of the rules in the first place.

    Fl and MI willfully attempted to subvert the rules and procedures of the DNC selection process.  The other 4 states were not trying to subvert the rules.   Thus they were not punished.


    It looks like they were in accordance with the (none / 0) (#144)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    intentions of the rules, but perhaps not the letter?  The intention of the rules was to protect the primacy of four specific states, and in moving their primaries back, it the states in question were responding directly to the states that initially violated the rules.

    On the other hand, it appears they at least violated the letter of the rules. So I suppose someone had to make a ruling then?


    Yes (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    The Rules Committee would still need to certify the delegate procedures.

    They chose to not impose the penalty given the intentions of the respective states.

    Here is an interesting article on the rules.


    Do you think the (none / 0) (#81)
    by latebird on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    Clinton campaign would agree to that now?

    No idea (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    So raising legal questions about a re-vote (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    is the same as blocking it?

    Let's suppose that I'm correct, and you're not, that the legal questions are legitimate. Are you saying that the Obama campaign should have just ignored them, or failed to raise them? What kind of respect for the rule of law is that?

    Of course it is HERE (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    Your argument is that blocking it was justified. Live with that.

    My argument is that (none / 0) (#88)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    raising questions about it is raising questions about it. Live with that.

    When the effect of (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    "raising questions" (which it was much more than) is to block it, then it is blocking it. Live with that.
    But you know the truth, if Obama had endorsed it, it would have happened.

    Correct (none / 0) (#79)
    by Manuel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    Howard Dean and the DNC should lead.  The DNC should step in and fix this for the good of the party in November but they do not appear to be an honest broker.  Their position that the campaigns should work it out is ridiculous.  Obama said at one time that he would follow whatever the DNC proposed but when the rubber met the road he balked.  The DNC did not have the spine to stand up to him.

    Mutiny (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimbo on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    We can put a stop to the FL - MI problem. Take the pledge:
    "If MI and FL are not brought into the national picture immediately and their votes counted, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote in the presidential election in November only if HRC is the nominee. If MI and FL are returned to the national picture immediately and their votes counted, then I will vote for the Democratic nominee whomever it is".
    If enough of us take the pledge then Dean has few choices. If he makes the wrong choice then Obama will have no chance to be President. Period. The only choice for Dean is to bring FL and MI into the equation, now.

    Take your ball and go home (none / 0) (#96)
    by Traven on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    Hey, what the hell was the point in punishing MI and FLA in the first place if we then change the rules?  Where were all of you complainers when all the campaigns -- including Hillary's -- set up this situation?  And cross your hearts and swear to me, if you can, that if their positions were reversed you Clintonistas would be supporting an Obama call for re-votes.  Of course you wouldn't.  

    Arguing over the delegate count (none / 0) (#106)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    and allocation is one thing, but Clinton already has those popular votes, so do Obama and Edwards, et al.

    In Florida and Michigan, real people got up in the morning  and said, "I think I'll go vote for a Democrat today!" Each vote represents a real person who found time to go to their polling place, got their name crossed off with a sharp pencil, and went into a booth to cast their vote. And happily wore an "I Voted!" sticker the rest of that day, if they're anything like my family. Trying to pretend that didn't happen seems not only politically perilous, but also a bit silly to me.

    If I were in FL and MI (none / 0) (#112)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    I would not have bothered to vote. It would be a waste of my time. There are likely hundreds of thousands of Michiganders and Floridians who held the same sentiments. What do you propose to do about them? And why should we allow primaries to count which were not sanctioned and which the candidates agreed would not count? Fairness, right and wrong are concepts we learned in kindergarten. I will never allow my advocacy of any candidate turn me against those values.

    There are a lot of reasons to vote (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by katiebird on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    If I were in FL and MI I would not have bothered to vote. It would be a waste of my time.

    I've been thinking about this, but it seems to me there are a lot of reasons to vote.

    For example, I live in Kansas, an overwhelmingly Republican state.  So overwhelming you'd think Democrats might not bother to vote for President at all, since the GE is winner take all.  

    Bush blew Gore out of the water here 622,332 to 399,276.  A difference of 223,056.  There was no reason for us to vote.  It didn't make any difference to anyone.

    But I like thinking about Gore winning the Popular Votes.  And without the votes of Kansas Democrats, he might not have done it.

    I'm just saying that Voters Vote.  And you might have surprised yourself and voted in spite of yourself if you lived in Florida and Michigan.

    In a year when Every vote counts, we should count every vote.


    So because you wouldn't have voted, (none / 0) (#117)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    the votes of people who did shouldn't count? The primaries were legal, run by the states, used proper ballots and counting procedures, were presided over by election judges in official polling places, and the primaries were authorized by the state legislatures as a matter of law.

    Neither the DNC nor the candidates can say which votes count or don't, that's up to the states, the election commissions, and the courts. They can agree what party delegates such votes control, but they can't negate that the votes took place at all. I guess we have different values, because counting the legal votes of all citizens is a big one for me. I believed that was fair and right in 2000 in Florida, and 2004 in Ohio, and I believe it now.


    The sanctioning body (the DNC) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:59:11 PM EST
    said they wouldn't count. The candidates agreed they wouldn't count. Many people did not vote because they wouldn't count. There was no campaining, no ground game, no ads, no GOTV. Obama would've lost TX by 20 if he wasn't allowed to campaign and execute a ground operation.

    The MI and FL elections were not simply flawed, they were illegal and therefore irrelevant.


    But the DNC is *not* the sanctioning body (none / 0) (#128)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:04:49 PM EST
    for Florida and Michigan elections, only for delegates to the convention. Nor do the candidates' opinions or the lack of ground game have any legal weight. Saying those were illegal doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it. Each Secretary of State legally certifies the election and the vote count according to laws passed by that state's legislature.

    If you don't want to count them for delegates, that's up to the DNC, but the physical votes exist and have been counted already.  I wish South Carolina hadn't voted when they did, because Hillary might have done better a week earlier or a week later, but my thinking that would have been more fair doesn't negate those votes. I can't agree to disagree on this one, because reality just is.


    That vote should have been blocked. (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    If they opened it to all, I would agree they should have it, but they would be unfairly disqualifying those voters who participated in the GOP race due to the absence of a valid DNC election. McCain did not win MI, so the GOP nomination was not effected by the state. Those who voted in the GOP primary should have been eligible to vote in this new primary. Since their not, it's an unfair disenfranchisement of those voters due to changing the rules in the middle of the game as the memo states.

    If Obama and his campaign not being willing to participate in a second election of dubious legitimacy is a problem for him, I suppose they'll just have to deal with that problem.

    Where do voters get to vote (none / 0) (#109)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    in both democratic and republican primaries?  Nowhere, so why should MI be the exception?  Dumb argument.

    Where do people get told that their vote won't (none / 0) (#132)
    by halstoon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:13:25 AM EST
    count and then later learn that they will vote for real? The whole thing is dumb. That's why the revote got blocked, and rightfully so.

    When you have been suspended (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    You must CEASe to comment.

    jaman and publicius have commented when suspended. Their suspensions are no extended through Sunday.

    Senator Clintons position for Yahoo news (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    ...."The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state, it's been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state, and the question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic party."

    So not sure it is meaningful that Obama blocks Mich Delegates the voters will be counted.

    the real pity (none / 0) (#124)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:10:46 PM EST
    Seems to be the tone here. Pity.

    is the shortsightedness of both the obama campaign and the DNC. should sen. obama be the eventual dem. nominee, and the MI & FL primary results were not included in that calculation, as is, the mccain campaign will have a field day.

    why everyone seems to be missing the obvious is a mystery to me.

    for such "bright" people, this particular group (the DNC & obama campaign) has made some remarkably stupid decisions, decisions that, if allowed to fester all the way to nov., will cost the democrats the white house.

    good going guys.

    www.seatourdelegates.com (none / 0) (#126)
    by chopper on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:40:52 PM EST
    Go see this petition and you will see comments from more than 10,000 ticked off people from all over the country.

    P.S. While you're there sign it.

    I appreciate these comments (none / 0) (#129)
    by RFB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    I do see now that the people who voted for Hillary want their votes to count.

    I previously thought the people in Mi and Fla blamed their own legislators for holding the primary out of schedule since I do.  It seemed obvious that if you hold your general elections in October or whenever, it won't count either.  

      I am puzzled about who would be eligible to vote in the do-over in Michigan. I pulled up Michigan's voter registration form and I don't see any indication of party affiliation on it.   Would people who voted republican in the first primary be eligible to vote in the do-over?  I am concerned about Republican (Limbaugh-esque) mischief.

    We're asked what party ballot we need (none / 0) (#133)
    by Shez ZK on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:13:41 AM EST
    I'm from Michigan as I just explained above. When we go to vote in the primary, and sign in on the precinct voting rolls, they ask us what party ballot we need to go into the voting booth with. My Democratic Party ballot I chose had Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Uncommitted, and Write-In as the 6 choices to vote for on our emergency reprinted ballots that we couldn't afford to do but were forced to. We had no proposals this time to vote on. Simple choice: nomination for Prez. It is completely false that Hillary was the only one on the Democratic ballot. Any MI district or official state site has a PDF ballot file available to check it, to put that common lie to rest.

    Our state media and party leaders made it clear to everyone that 'Write-In' wasn't a valid line to use since both Obama and Edwards failed to apply by the deadline to be eligible for Write-In, even though they had weeks to get the paperwork in for that option. They had no intention to do so.

    They were gaming our state remember and trying to embarrass Senator Clinton. Their supporters bragged about this exact scenario for weeks, they wanted her "humiliated". That's how sexists treat our women afterall and it wasn't noble or admirable by any means or excuses. So, Obama and Edwards gambled stupidly and lost badly. They should have left the gaming to our casinos. We're still furious over this treatment of Senator Clinton.

    Therefore each of our voting precincts have the records with our voter signature of if we asked for a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. Anybody that asked for and voted on the Republican ballot has had their vote counted and the Republicans already allocated their delegates (50% for now) accordingly based on their valid voter tallies. Done deal.

    Our state Dems had no choice but to follow Michigan law when negotiating a revote. You can't vote twice, one time in each party. Only people that voted the Democratic ballot could possibly be able to revote. (I'm leaving out people that didn't vote at all for now to keep this simple) The Republicans aren't about to redo theirs just to please Obama, or anyone.

    Karma struck again though and I busted out laughing. It certainly affected the "Have Fun Make Mischief Vote Mitt!" that suddenly isn't so hilarious now to them that fell for that idiotic interfering plot. If you cross voted you have to live with it, you stuck yourself in the eye. You signed the precinct voter roll. I don't respect anyone that doesn't take their vote seriously and thinks it's OK to play games. What a shame it was with our future too, not just their own.

    Bottom line is that I already voted a valid vote in Michigan. Obama needs to be punished in Michigan for what he did, not given unearned delegates or an undeserved second chance. The punishment is: tough luck you brought this on yourself, no manipulating mulligan for you. I'm against a revote and if you don't live in Michigan I don't care WHO wants one you need to Back Off. It's a done deal.


    It's the people who didn't vote at all, (none / 0) (#146)
    by RFB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    and the people who voted uncommitted that we, in the rest of the country, need to hear from to support Michigan in apportioning their delegates accurately.  How can we be expected to believe that NOBODY in Michigan wants to send ANY Obama delegates to the democratic convention?  We get it that Mrs. Clinton and her supporters don't, but what about the rest of the Michigan democrats?  

    Since in the re-vote, you'd be excluding people who voted republican in the first primary (because their vote was already counted), are there privacy laws that stop the state from releasing the identities of the people who voted republican the first time?

    Does anybody know if there's any precedent for a 3rd party, other than the state itself, paying for an election?  It sounds creepy.

    About the block of republicans who didn't vote in the first primary, was there something about voters having to sign an affidavit that they are serious and not just trying to mess up the democratic candidacy?


    Michigan Spoils It's Primary (none / 0) (#130)
    by Dee on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    Good for Obama.

    Can the re-vote be done lawfully? (none / 0) (#147)
    by RFB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:53:43 PM EST
    Since in the re-vote, you'd be excluding people who voted republican in the first primary (because their vote was already counted), are there privacy laws that stop the state from releasing the identities of the people who voted republican the first time?

    Does anybody know if there's any precedent for a 3rd party, other than the state itself, paying for an election?  It sounds creepy.

    About the whole block of republicans who didn't vote in the first primary, was there something about voters having to sign an affidavit that they are serious and not just trying to mess up the democratic candidacy?