Obama Proposes 50/50 Michigan Split: Just Say No

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:00 AM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A few weeks ago I wrote a long post on why Barack Obama's suggestion that he and Hillary split the Michigan delegates 50/50 was tanatamount to vote-stealing:

On January 15, 2008, 594,398 Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. The official Michigan election results are here.

328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

That's called stealing an election.

Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat.

Obama is still pushing this unfair solution. My DD has a copy of the e-mail his campaign sent out today: [More...]

"Senator Obama firmly believes that the Michigan delegation should be seated in Denver. A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.' It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules. It's time to move forward. Senator Clinton should accept an equitable solution that allows Michigan to participate fully in the convention," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Hillary's campaign provided this response, before receiving the Obama e-mail:

"The issues and voters of Michigan are too important to be dismissed. Close to 600,000 Michiganians cast ballots in January and these votes cannot be ignored. We urge the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to take all necessary steps to ensure the voices of the people of Michigan are heard and its delegates are seated at the Democratic convention this summer. Already, over 100,000 people have signed our petition calling on the DNC to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. We urge Senator Obama to join our efforts to ensure that the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida are counted."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD presents his views of the pros and cons of such a compromise. My view has not changed:

There's a very simple, fair answer to the Michigan dilemna: The DNC does a big "mea culpa" and removes the penalty. Hillary gets the delegates according to her vote total. The uncommitted and other candidates' delegates remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention in Denver.

< NYT/CBS Poll: Obama's Support "Softening" | Justice, Missouri Style >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Proposes 50/50 Michigan Split: Just Say No | 197 comments (197 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm with you on this one. Obama is (5.00 / 7) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:59:20 AM EST

entitled, at most, to 40% of the MI votes; HRC to 55%.

COUNT THE VOTES (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM EST

I totally agree on the divisioning of delegates, but as a resident of Florida (and in the best interest of the American people) my primary concern is that every vote be counted.

This business of disenfranchising the voter must end.

Now.

[ Parent ]

And what IS fair? (none / 0) (#134)
by Traven on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:06:30 AM EST

Fact: in almost every contest, Obama has started off behind, as HRC enjoys such name recognition and people "know" her.
Fact: every time Obama has campaigned in a state (including those he has lost) his numbers have gone up, while hers have gone down.
Fact: neither MI or FLA were real primaries, because the candidates did not campaign.
Fact: In MI, many Democrats chose to vote in the GOP primary, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter.
SO: you cannot hand HRC a split of delegates based on phony primaries where Obama did not campaign; you cannot know what the actual vote total might have been if the candidates campaigned; and so ANY allocation that's based on the "votes" in MI or FLA will be unfair; if you plan to seat delegations, you've got to come up with something less biased in HRC's favor.

50-50 is, in my mind, an opening gambit. Let's remember that ALL the candidates agreed not to campaign in MI and FLA. To retroactively award them to HRC is just as wrong as (in your mind) to split them 50-50.

[ Parent ]

: Your facts are specious... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST

...and even if true have absolutely no bearing on the validity of splitting delegates 50/50.
There is no 'opening gambit' like it's some kind of negotiation.
The biggest fact is that not one single voter in the state of Michigan pulled a lever for Barack Obama
But let's start with the premise that he should have 50% of those votes. Right.

[ Parent ]
: FL Dem primary had largest turnout - ever (none / 0) (#136)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST

Candidates didn't campaign, but Obama was the only candidate to violate the rules by airing TV ads. Can you imagine the faux outrage diary titles at DK if Hillary had done that?
Although Obama had won SC 3 days earlier giving him much media attention, he only won a few FL counties, all connected to universities.

[ Parent ]
: I dont' understand this argument: (none / 0) (#146)
by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM EST

"Fact: in almost every contest, Obama has started off behind, as HRC enjoys such name recognition and people "know" her."
Isn't this true of every primary and election, that some candidates are already well known and others are less so? For example, in the 1992 GE, President GHW Bush was much better known than Governor Bill Clinton. And in the 2000 primaries, Al Gore was much better known than Bill Bradley. I don't remember any previous arguments that primary votes should be deemed invalid because one candidate being better known made the voting unfair and phony.
John McCain was much better known than Mitt Romney when the primaries started, and I don't see anyone saying McCain's primary victories shouldn't count because of that.

[ Parent ]

Here's MY idea of a compromise: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:03:30 AM EST

Instead of directly addressing the FL and MI questions, raise the total for delegates: make it 2025 if FL and MI are NOT included; I don't know what to do if FL and MI are included with gimmicky totals like this.
Especially in the first case, don't lower the "magic number"---that punishes the FL voters THREE times, imo: once for not getting the votes counted directly; once for losing any influence over the race, and once at the end for the gratuitous insult of having their very numbers dropped from the magnic number.

: 2025 already is the number (none / 0) (#97)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM EST

with FL and MI NOT included. So we in FL already got the 3 insults. But we're not bitter.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so, Obama. (5.00 / 6) (#3)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:06:27 AM EST

Hate to break this to ya sir, but WE CAN do the MATH.

"eminently fair solution" my a**.

Obama would have (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by bjorn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM EST

more credibility if he was honest about how he "played" Michigan. Intentionally taking his name off the ballot and orchestrating an effort in Michigan to vote uncommitted. Until he comes clean about this and stops "blaming" Clinton for having her name on the ballot he has no credibility and any solution he proposes is automatically DOA. He should just be honest and talk about why he blocked the revote. He has been utterly duplicitous on this issue. And BTW, what about "context" - the thing Obama wants to give the Rev Wright scenario while at the same time always taking Clinton out of context deliberately. She said the votes don't count for anything (per the DNC) and then when on to argue why that could not be allowed to stand.

[ Parent ]

It's bad enough... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST

...he's proposing such a ludicrous solution. Even more offensive is his campaign's obsession with bashing Clinton at nearly every opportunity. She can be "fair" (ie go along with our scheme) or else she's just scoring political points and changing the rules.

Really these guys are just as slimy as BushCo.

[ Parent ]

: Obama offers a 50/50 he knows won't fly (none / 0) (#139)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST

But he can say he did offer a proposal.

[ Parent ]
: Exactly (none / 0) (#165)
by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST

"[T]hese guys are just as slimy as BushCo." But I guess the collective "we" has grown so accustomed to these kinds of slimy tactics, that "we" view them without alarm, i.e., as the norm.

[ Parent ]

yes - Obama played Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#140)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:23 AM EST

Oct. 2007
>>>>Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

[ Parent ]

This is so true (none / 0) (#98)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST

It would help if he would event talk about it honestly.

[ Parent ]

How about 80/20 for Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:08:42 AM EST

She needs the delegates more, so its only fair!

Hillary 80/20 (5.00 / 6) (#42)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:17:19 AM EST

At the Washington Monthly, Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote a great article titled The Law of Rules which details the party rules for both the DNC and the RNC. According to Auspitz "... The most important group yet to be heard from : The Committee on Rules and Bylaws of the DNC. It can excersise the same interim authority that created th Fl-Mich poblem to propose a way out. It's co-chair, James Roosevelt Jr. ( grandson of FDR ) has been quoted as saying that a significant minority of his committee are more committed to the institutional party than to tactical advantage of either campaign. All of the membes of this committee are PLEOs or "super delegates " In other words, these people can within the rules overturn Dean's draconian ruling and
seat the delegations. I encourage democrats to read the article don't know how to send the link, but it's the april issue of this online magazine Washington Monthly. Thanks for the article. 50/50 pleee( sigh )eez! Well if He'll give back the delegates he won unfairly in Texas ( over 2000 voting fraud complaints ) then I say he can have 1/2 the uncommitted, but not FL. He was on the ballot. He's a putz.

[ Parent ]

: yes - great article (none / 0) (#156)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:57:25 AM EST

I wasn't aware of this -
>>>(Michigan and Florida are denied representation entirely for holding early primaries, while Indiana and North Carolina receive 30 percent bonuses on their delegate base for holding late primaries in May).

[ Parent ]

Obama's vote 'softening' (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by yourkidding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:09:16 AM EST

Quick, before we find another bombshell in Obama's background, Hilary has to drop out!!!
That is the 'reasoning' behind the push to get her to remove herself from the fight.
If she can just hang in there long enough, Obama will implode.

: High information voters are finally (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:34:13 AM EST

becoming sceptical (I hope).

[ Parent ]

give him credit for chutzpah. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:11:56 AM EST

my guess: the media will tout this as a "fair" resolution of the problem, and castigate sen. clinton for not agreeing to it. they'll completely ignore the fact that it doesn't even agree with the DNC "penalty" resolution, as originally articulated in the "rules".

so, what about FL?

He's on a chutzpah roll today, what with (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:14:18 AM EST

that fundraising e-mail relying on MLK's memory.

[ Parent ]

Which is nauseating, in my opinion. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:41:27 AM EST

Obama has NO civil rights record at all. I have looked for some sign that he has ever done work for anyone regarding civil rights. Nothing. That is one of the things my black friends don't understand, why a black candidate can not have any connection to the civil rights movement, or any involvement. He can't even keep the date of the Selma march clear in his mind. And he lies about it too. Obama has co-opted the Rev. King's cause for gain, without paying any dues to it at all. He didn't even make sure that his Chicago constituents, mostly poor and black, had decent housing provided by his good friend Tony Rezko. People were living unheated, substandard housing about a mile from Obama's house, and he didn't know anything about it. If he gave a damn about anything but his own ambition, he would have looked into the situation. A mile isn't far to go to walk among the people you represent. Even if you aren't asking for their vote. Obama remembered them at election time, but when it came to actually doing them some good, protecting them against people like Rezko, he didn't do his job, the job they elected him to do. What makes anyone think that he is capable of doing a job other than promoting himself?

[ Parent ]

What is nauseating me... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST

Juan Williams of NPR wrote an excellent article about MLK and Obama recently for the Wall Street Journal. The best line comes from the end of the article when he concludes that Jesus himself would have walked out on the sermons of the Good Pastor Wright. Check it out, He's a fair critic of Obamessiah.

[ Parent ]

: yes - it's a great article (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120726732176388295.html

[ Parent ]

Yea (none / 0) (#8)
by ajain on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:23:40 AM EST

That was particularly surprising and down right bizzare. I mean - what is wrong with him and his campaign?

[ Parent ]

: Well, he'll get away with it. Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:32:15 AM EST

is barred from making any comment since MLK and Obama are both African American.

[ Parent ]

what's the basis of the email? (none / 0) (#143)
by Josey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Say What? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by CoralGables on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:23:59 AM EST

55/40 with the other 5% abstaining on the first ballot is a gift to Obama. The closest to equitable would be more like 55/30 with 15% uncommitted on the first ballot.

Reasonable is not giving Obama every vote that didn't vote for Clinton, plus giving him nearly an additional 30,000 that voted for Clinton to make it 50/50.

He should be embarrassed putting that offer on the table.

How many of Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:33 AM EST

supporters voted "uncommitted" to protest the DNC ruling?

There's no way to know, but Obama does not deserve all of the "uncomitted".

[ Parent ]

That would be zero (1.00 / 1) (#80)
by echinopsia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:32:32 AM EST

How many of Hillary's supporters voted "uncommitted" to protest the DNC ruling?

What an idiotic question.

[ Parent ]

Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by ahazydelirium on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:26:06 AM EST

according to the CNN exit polls for the Michigan primary, 3% of the uncommitted voters would have voted for Hillary had all names been on the ballot.

[ Parent ]

thanks for the kind words (none / 0) (#92)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:57:06 AM EST

I didn't expect such a passionate response... lol.

[ Parent ]

it raises a greater point (none / 0) (#108)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST

which is that we have no idea who stayed home or why anyone voted. Those arguing that O voters stayed home are basing it on opinion. The opinion that Clinton voters stayed home is just as valid, based on the logic they are trying to employ.

Nothing stupid about it. Just basic reasoning.

[ Parent ]

I've mentioned this before about FL (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by blogtopus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM EST

With all the folks complaining about 'So many Obama people must have stayed home', they don't realize that the law of averages says that an equal proportion of potential Hillary voters stayed home as well. It's a well known and universally accepted principle that every single poll is based on. If Obama wants to overturn the results in Florida, the burden of proof is on him to show that more of his supporters stayed home; and he can't prove it. Tough.

I think that it is a legitimate concern that perhaps more Obama supporters stayed home in MI, because of the Uncommitted material. Some Obama supporters probably stayed home rather than go to the polls to vote a paltry 'Uncommitted'. However, this might be more than offset by the fact that he would get EVERYBODY'S Uncommitted, even Hillary's (by this I mean those who voted Uncommitted for Edwards, Obama, and even those who legitimately were uncommitted but would now vote for Hillary given the chance).

I like MMDD's idea: Let the delegates be seated, and the Uncommitted will support their opinions in the tally. That's very reasonable, I think, and as a Hillary supporter I like it more because it is very likely a solid proportion of those votes/opinions will end up for Hillary as well. [/bias]

[ Parent ]

: I've mentioned this before.... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST

Obama can't provide the necessary proof Sharpton was in Florida trying to dig it up shouting about disenfranchised African American Voters who would have supported Obamessiah, one of the more absurd moments of the race. That voter in Florida who filed suit against the DNC was an Edwards supporter, and he will refile again. Dean is slowing down as he tries to duck. This is squarely on Dean. Again, what a putz!

[ Parent ]

Impossible (5.00 / 6) (#35)
by psychodrew on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:58 AM EST

Impossible for someone who is shameless.

[ Parent ]

If it is 50/50 (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST

aren't the total results not changed. He wants to steal 5% of HER vote. He wins more and she has to give up some of her delegates and votes. Aw, the unity fair balanced guy. He is lucky that he was even being given the uncommitted delegates.

I get the feeling about BHO that I got with Reagen, GWB, and the Iraq War/Occupation. I didn't even get that feeling with #41 who was not a great President. Having charisma does not make being a Commander in Chief. If Tweety can stump you and LIKES you and pushing for you, then maybe there is a problem in judgment and leadership qualities.

[ Parent ]

: I get the same feeling (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:02:37 PM EST

And it runs deep and produces in me the same degree of apprehension I had about Reagan, GWB, and the Iraq War/Occupation. That apprehension, then as now, manifests as anxiety and nausea. In other words, it literally makes me sick.

[ Parent ]

the man has no shame (5.00 / 8) (#51)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:50:34 AM EST

his handlers tell him this is how it is done in national politics and he goes along. His moral compass is broken.

[ Parent ]

: Are you sure (none / 0) (#171)
by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST

he even has a moral compass? I've seen no evidence that he does.

[ Parent ]

consider only... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:30:34 AM EST

the words that they used...

they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules

They see it as an either/or proposition and Obama's either/or proposition is:

Either ignore the voters and give us half the delegates
Or honor the voters and that means you are trying to score political points and change the rules

I suppose we get an idea of transcendent politicians solve problems...they create false choices that belie reality. Obama claims he can reach across the aisle in a bi-partisan way but he is party to absurd notions that he can force his same party rival to bend to his will by tossing away the votes from the state of Michigan.

I now know what he would do for New Orleans if elected...he would put the emergency funds under the control of Haley Barbour.

Totally aggravating. Reminds me of (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:35:37 AM EST

playing Scrabble w/my younger brother.

[ Parent ]

my sister and half brothers (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:55:39 AM EST

all very smart involved people would accept the Obama plan as fair.

It makes me scratch my head in wonder.
My sister said the other day that Obama won TX because he got more delegates.
Now someone tell me how democrats supporting Obama have managed to morph in to James Baker.

[ Parent ]

Frankly I didn't understand this whole (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST

primary/caucus/delegate/superdelegate thing either until I started reading here. Maybe you could give your relatives this:
Caucuses were never meant to confer votes, just delegates. It was a short hand way to bypass expensive primaries and keep the "insiders" in control in many states. You cannot make delegates into individual votes, but you can make voters into delegates. Caucuses are NOT representative and they were NEVER intended to be. SO SORRY. That is the payout when you do things on the cheap with a wink-wink. So at the end of the day it will be a decision about a series of issues.

[ Parent ]

Frankly I didn't understand this whole.... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST

If you want to gain a better understanding, read The Law of Rules article by Auspitz at the Washington Monthly. He explains in a clear and accessible manner the rules, the roles of the PLEO's or what the press call superdelagates etc... Coupled with the fun of researching party history, it's interesting reading for any concerned voter. One thing is clear to me, you can easily gain a new perspective on this issue and the actions of certain party leaders which put the double speak where it should be, a low level hum. This guy Auspitz is probably on Dean's hit list, Thank god for Free speech and open access... ( Well what's left of it... )

[ Parent ]

: Thanks for the tip. My take is that (none / 0) (#158)
by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST

many of the Obamaites really don't want a long dissertation on many of the intimate details. When I have spoken to some in my circle they are really clueless about what I wrote about above. I am even appalled at the lack of information most voters have about who their representatives are at the local level. The president and their senator (maybe not even them) and thats about all.

[ Parent ]

scrabble... (none / 0) (#82)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:34:26 AM EST

Thanks I finally figured out who Dean reminds me of. LOL

[ Parent ]

They tried to run the clock out (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by felizarte on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:58:49 AM EST

but more like the clock ran out on them. Is it possible that their own internal polling reflect a slide in the poll because of their stance on the Mi/Fla situation? Or a real apprehension that the momentum is clearly on Clinton's side?

[ Parent ]

No better way to tell the voters (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:41:24 AM EST

of Michigan, your votes don't count.

Anyone who wants your votes to count is merely trying to score political points.

As if that wasn't Obama's intention by withdrawing his name in the first place?

The way I see it, Hillary has no option but to hold out for counting the votes that were cast unless their is a re-vote. There's no reason for her to adopt the position that votes don't count and she won't count votes...that's Obama's territory and she can cede that ground to him because it's a losing position in all ways except for one...trying to score political points.

I think I smell fear.

smell fear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:32:42 AM EST

The fear you smell is not coming from Clinton's camp. She has sucessfully changed the dialogue to make an idealogical argument and arouse grass roots support for a cause. Makes Obamessiah look bad any way you cut it. The more he argues for them rules the more he conradicts himself and appears self serving. Why is it that when he scores political points he is to be congratulated and when she does she is cynically ridiculed ? The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC can overturn Dean's draconian punishment of FL. and MIch. the committee chair is James Roosevelt Jr., Perhaps democrats could write him and remind him what his Grandfather's ( FDR ) party stands for. Obamessiah is backpedalling because he's finally clueing into what is being discussed by disgusted democrats, would that Dean do the same. ( Dean is the most disappointing of Putzs )

[ Parent ]

Sorry I wasn't clear... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST

My commment that I smelled fear was related to Obama's campaign...

I tried to figure out why they would make an absurd proposal that was certain to be rejected out of hand and the only thought I came up with was that they were afraid not to make any offer at all.

You cannot disconnect the fact that Obama claims to be able to reach across the aisle to breakdown political impasse and achieve solutions.

We are looking at his best effort to effect a solution to the problem that he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and has no legitimate claim to control a single delegate from Michigan. The 'undecided' delegates of course are free to choose Obama.

They cannot simultaneously claim ability to effect political solutions and block a solution to Michigan so their fears became obvious...it drove them to make an absurd proposal.

Call it the official declaration of the end of:

the politics of hope
not practicing politics as usual
any recognizable skills for the art of political compromise.

He's got a Michigan problem to be sure and that problem is that he pulled his name off the ballot and regardless of whatever justification he offers, the fact remains that he officially will get no votes and no pledged delegates from the primary held in January. The only thing that can change that is a re-vote.

[ Parent ]

: Sorry I wasn't clear.... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:45:10 PM EST

I completely agree with you. Obamessiah's campaign don't fool the other 2/3 of the democratic base who can't help but wonder... Do Dean the putz and Pelosi et, al. actually expect me to support him as the best representative of the Democratic Party ? It's really hard to stomach. Whichever candidate is nominated, they represent the National Party and the Party platform. They become Head Boss against the other Head Boss in the general election. Obamessiah's reaction to FL./MICH. make his very representation of the National Party and the Party's Interests untenable in that the contradiction is so foolhardy. If I were smokin what Dean's been smokin, and had run out of my supply, and were lost in a fog of mild paranoia, I'd swear Dean the putz was a republican plant. But since I'm sober I'll just conclude that Dean can't see beyond himself and is really just a putz.

[ Parent ]

Obama isn't (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by cloudy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:55:12 AM EST

entitled to any of the delegates. At most he is entitled to fight for the Uncommitted and other delegates he can pick up. Any other solution gives him votes he did not earn. I was for a revote, but I do believe that since that's not going to happen, the only thing to do is honor the voice of the voters. Anything else is inconsistent and unfair to the voters. Eminently fair, indeed.

What really rankles me about the his email is the tone. It sounds like they're trying to take the high road except it's really only fooling his most ardent supporters, and therefore ends up sounding condescending and false.

Absolutely nuts! (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by ajain on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:17:21 AM EST

I think it takes some guts to first, remove your name from the ballot, when there seems to have been no good reason to do that. Second, block revotes. And then third, demand half the delegates.
I mean this is outrageous and insane.

First you insult the state and then try to appease them by taking their voice away from them.

The Obama camp is truly crazy.

Gall Galore (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by Athena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM EST

Obama - unlike Clinton - has been unwilling to submit himself to the voters of Michigan. He didn't appear in January, and won't agree to a real vote.

Therefore - he gets NO votes from a state that has never seen his name on a ballot.

It's like not taking an exam and then arguing you deserve a grade anyway.

The unmitigated gall - but this is a result of the star treatment he has received from the party and the media.

[ Parent ]

: That is the right response... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST

...indeed, the name Barack Obama has never been on any ballot in Michigan and so the 'equitable' proposal is that he's automatically conferred half of the delegates?
Again not one single vote for Obama has been cast in the state of Michigan
That he can claim he's entitled to half of their delegates just spins my head.

[ Parent ]

Democrats manage to shoot themselves..... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by SomewhatChunky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:22:53 AM EST

If you're a Republican, you couldn't make this stuff up. Democratic party civil war and nobody can blame you!

Where were the Democratic party elders when the half-baked decision to not count MI and FL was made? Perhaps hoping that the race would be over by now and it wouldn't matter? Of course, if it did matter (and it does), the fact that you didn't address and SOLVE the issue when you could (before the results were known and before it altered the campaign or non-campaigns of all the candidates) just might mean you pay the piper in November when it really counts.

Maybe the party elders, like most politicians in both parties just decided to punt when the going got tough. That might be a time-tested strategy for such long term issues like social security, but when the rubber meets the road in a few months... not so good.

Now... a box with no way out. Of course you can't not count the votes of all the people who voted. But wait... of course you can't count an election you said wouldn't count. Who knows what might have happened had all the candidates decided to run an active campaign? And since all these dumb decisions were made by a chosen few, let's not worry about the hundreds of thousands who voted and the many more who might have voted had they thought their votes would count. After all, they just pawns.. wait I mean voters.

No matter how this turns out, it will reflect poorly on the democratic candidate and party in November. And nobody to blame but......

Aarggh....

If your a republican... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:40:48 AM EST

The GOP controlled legislatures of both states probably were well aware of DNC party rules and the effect of the double bind. It was a classic GOP set up... They knew how each party would react according to the rules, but I don't think anyone took Dean's nuclear threat seriously as it was so over the top extreme and political suicide for the party. Gov. Crist is going to get a HEFTY reward from his party. The VP perhaps ?

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#88)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST

If the Republicans did not plan it this way this year, they surely will next time. What a gift Dean gave them.

But Crist is not going to be the Republican VP nominee. Not gonna happen.

[ Parent ]

: I agree... (none / 0) (#138)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST

Well if not now, then later... He's got something cozy coming his way. I'm not judgin' I'm just sayin'...

[ Parent ]

Actually the rules stated 50% cut (none / 0) (#122)
by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST

in delegates so the Republicans couldn't have seen this coming.

[ Parent ]

: So when did Donna change it? (none / 0) (#131)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:04:57 AM EST

Did Donna change it before the GOP controlled Florida legislature voted for moving the date? Or after it was a done deal? I suspect before. And yes, the Dems went along but they had no chance of changing it.

[ Parent ]

Why is this even a matter for *negotiation*? (5.00 / 7) (#30)
by outsider on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:53:41 AM EST

You don't negotiate with votes, like they're chips in a card game - you just count 'em! If MI broke the rules, however, follow the accepted penalty. Dock the number of delegates by 50%, but seat the rest as per the primary - i.e. 55% for HRC, 40% uncommitted, etc.

Of course Dean et al carry a substantial amount of blame for this, and perhaps Obama would have a good case if he were to say he took his name off the ballot only because he had been assured by the powers that be that the primary in MI wouldn't count. But equally Obama should have read the rules and established penalties for going out of turn before removing his name. And he should have realised, if he had any political nous, that disenfranchising a state of the size and influence of MI couldn't be done without controversy. So it's only fair now to tell him he'll have to compete for the unalligned delegates in Denver, I'd say.

IMHO, any other solution is unacceptable. That includes, I think, seating the whole MI delegation without penalty. Just dock 'em by 50%. Same for FL. Crucially, that wouldn't give HRC a massive bump in pledged delegates. But neither would it prevent her from counting the popular vote in MI and FL in making her case to the supers.

: she can and should count the popular vote (5.00 / 7) (#47)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:41:56 AM EST

from MI and FL and sho should the SDs. Anything else would be stupidity to the max. Think of the ultimate purpose of the Super Delegates... to figure how best to win in November given the impasse we find ourselves at. It makes no sense to say that the popular vote from those states should not be used to make that decision.

[ Parent ]

Obama's bamboozle of the Florida ballot (5.00 / 7) (#32)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:53:03 AM EST

October 9, 2007 - Obama announced he was withdrawing his name from the Michigan ballot because it was "an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out."
October 28, 2007 - Florida Democratic Party's Executive Committee voted to place the eight major Democratic Presidential candidates on the Jan. 29 ballot.

For 20 days, between October 9th and October 28th, Obama did not lobby the Florida Democratic Party Executive Committee to remove his name from consideration of the January ballot.

When Obama's supporters spin that in order to remove Obama's name from the Florida ballot, Obama would have had to certify he was not going to be a Presidential candidate at the upcomining nominating convention, they are hoodwinking you. That requirement was necessary only after October 31, 2007 when Flordia's Democratic Party submitted a list of candidate to the Secretary of State.

Okie-doke?

Its hard to claim suppresed voter turn-out (5.00 / 8) (#44)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:26:50 AM EST

when there was a record turn-out.

Anyway Floridians were told to vote because the delegates would be seated by August.

Also, how can you say on the one hand, Floridians were aware of the delegate impasse (and decided not to vote) but on the other hand they were totally clueless as to the candidates because of lack of campaigning?

[ Parent ]

voter turn out was a record high (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:44:28 AM EST

and all the people who voted in FL knew the candidates. In fact Obama did campaign there.

[ Parent ]

: Highly Motivated (5.00 / 4) (#93)
by Athena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST

You can actually argue that voters who turn out in spite of knowledge that their votes may not "count" are highly motivated to send their preferences to the party - and are the enthusiastic voters that the party needs and should not ignore.

[ Parent ]

So WHO told FL that the delegates (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by Fabian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:48:42 AM EST

wouldn't be seated?

Because if it was the DNC, then you imply that the DNC itself deliberately suppressed the FL vote, thereby disenfranchising the voters.

And if the DNC disenfranchised voters then....?

[ Parent ]

Not having people campaign didn't affect (5.00 / 8) (#62)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM EST

turnout at all. And here in FL, we have the internet, as well as newspapers from all over world, and we can keep up with the candidates' positions and policies quite well, thank you. You don't think that in this day and age that not campaigning somewhere keeps the people there from being aware of the election and its issues, do you?? If so, wake up..it's 2008 and we are all wired for sound. Even in Florida.

[ Parent ]

Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#78)
by Sunshine on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:29 AM EST

It may have suppressed voter turn out a little, but there is no reason to think they were all Obama supporters, don't you think that Hillary, Edwards and Dodd supporters were equally suppressed?

[ Parent ]

Choices (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by psychodrew on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:15:01 AM EST

Obama choose to take his name off the ballot. He didn't have to do it, but he did so to kiss up to the voters of IA & NH.

If the situation were reversed, and Obama needed new elections to close the gap with Hillary, the DNC would be moving heaven and earth to get those new elections. Hillary would be accused of racism for disenfranchising black voters in Michigan. She would be under huge pressure to agree to whatever Obama wanted.

There is a pretty good argument for your idea (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:30:45 AM EST

Obama's supporters encouraged people who wanted to vote for him to vote "Uncommitted" saying that they planned on getting the uncommitted delegates seated and having them vote for Obama. Given that this was the expressed political strategy during the election, it seems like a reasonable compromise. The other delegates can be allocated according to party rules, which I believe means that they make up their own minds about who to endorse.

Rules is rules (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:48:36 AM EST

I'd like to see MI and FL seated, but I don't know how you go about doing it. The rules were established upfront that the delegates wouldn't be seated. Neither Obama nor Hillary raised any fuss about that until much farther down the road. I don't think a revote would have been fair as there wouldn't have been a way to keep non-Democrats from casting a second ballot in a mischief vote. In both states, voters were told their states wouldn't be seated so that had to affect turnout, making the use of the previous vote somewhat dubious. And one candidate wasn't even on the ballot in MI. It's an embarrassing hash, but I think the Dems have to live with the original ruling by the DNC. Can't change the rules midstream.

: FYI (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:56:09 AM EST

This argument has been done, redone and overdone here and elsewhere. And also FYI Barack Obama AND John Edwards had their names taken off the ballot in MI.
Their ploy to pander to Iowa is now something they have to live with.
And since when is it the job of the DNC to disenfranchise voters? That's not the kind of action that citizens should accept. Oh well, too bad about your vote not counting cause the DNC has decided to disenfranchise voters in 2 states and the roolz is the roolz.
And we may have to "live" with this mess. But many won't like it. And they may well show their anger at the polls. And the country will have to "live" with that.

[ Parent ]
: rules are made to be broken (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:04:18 AM EST

when they are arbitrary and unjust.
There was huge turn out in both states and the majority of voters chose Clinton. People voted and we do not disenfranchise them because other people, for whatever reason, did not vote. That is a horrible and ridiculous precedent.

[ Parent ]
: can't change the rules... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:05:28 AM EST

The Committee on Rules and Bylaws for the DNC can overturn the punishment Dean imposed and either seat as is or come up with a different penalty. It is within their pervue and the party rules. They can do this for the good of the party, this has become a power struggle within the party leadership, and Dean et, al. are behaving like adolescent putzs... Just an opinion from a concerned life time democrat watching the party largely built by FDR drive off the cliff. And Dean is drivig the bus.

[ Parent ]
: Rules is rules... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST

Dean made a stupid decision that was not for the overall benefit of the National Party. His penalty was absurd and draconian placing the Ideological Foundation of The National Party at risk.
Bad management and looks partisan when his job is to put the interests of the National Party first. The DNC Committee of Rules and Bylaws can overturn the penalty in the interests of the National Party. They have the authority to do this according to those precious rules you mention. Leaders of the 3 main groups of PLEO's. DNC chair Dean ( the putz ), House Speaker Pelosi, and TN. Gov.Bredesen/ Chair of the Democratic Governors Assoc. keep playing a fast shuffle with various gimmics to try and wiggle out of this mess, the latest being confuse the voters by spreading mis-information about the role of the " super delegates " or as they are known in the party as PLEO's and trying to shout HRC out of the race. This is why HRC lifetime democrats wrote the angry letter as Pelosi is clearly acting irresponsibly as a National party leader. Pelosi and Dean et, al are in a bind they have created and in my humble opinion have acted irresponsibly by putting personal partisan concerns and egos ahead of the interests of the National Party. This will have reprucussions for all democrats, voters and politicians running at all levels in the future, That's the very real reprecussion of this FL./ Mich. that the party faces.

[ Parent ]

No one's calling Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:49:57 AM EST

a Saint except you. She's a politician and thus is interested in what will benefit her. That what is benefiting her at this time is also the right thing to do is immaterial. What matters is that voters are not disenfranchised. If they are, and if they take their rage to the voting booth it will not serve either candidate well. It will not serve the Democratic Party well.

It may get Obama the nomination but it will, IMO, lose him the GE. Because no matter how much crap is thrown at McCain it will not stick to the media's pal. And no matter how much crap is thrown at McCain, Democrats and Independents just don't hate him the way libs want them to hate him. He ain't George Bush and the passionate loathing just isn't there.

Jeralyn, re the math -- it's even worse (5.00 / 7) (#43)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:23:19 AM EST

These are not "5% of Hillary's voters" -- these are 5% of the voters in the Michigan primary.

These actually are more than 9% of Hillary's voters -- i.e., one-eleventh of the 55% she won.

The audacity of this proposal leaves me no hope of change with Obama. So I'll be audacious right back at him and suggest that, since he bailed out of the Michigan ballot to kiss up to Iowans . . . we just allocate to Clinton a cool 9% of his Iowa voters.

: allocate his 9%... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:09:59 AM EST

I say throw in the Texas caucus delegates too, if you use that will of the people argument. She overwhelmingly won the primaries and yet... ( 2000 voter fraud complaints ) later he gets the most delegates. If there is any reason to ge rid of those charming caucuses look no further then what happened in Texas.

[ Parent ]

There (5.00 / 8) (#46)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:33:27 AM EST

was no "agreed upon rules" to withdraw a candidates name from the ballot.

Is lying the new HOPE?

: This is the exactly the problem (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by angie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:30:33 AM EST

Obama supporters think he will be "penalized" if peoples' votes count. Instead, tehy should be worried about the PEOPLE who are being "penalized" by not allowing their vote to count. Voting rights should be sacrosanct and that is what the Democratic party supposedly stands for (after this fiasco I admittedly have my doubts about what it does stand for). If all Obama cares about is winning, even if that means not counting votes, then he is no better then W. You can argue "rules" all you want, but I said it before -- this isn't the US Constitution we are talking about here -- this is DNC rules which they can, and have, amended during this election alone. And if the implementation of those "rules" results in voter disenfranchisement, then those "rules" are unconstitutional and should be overturned. You would think Mr. Constitutional Law "Professor" Obama would know that.

[ Parent ]
: Get this straight now: The DNC did not (5.00 / 7) (#64)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:31:19 AM EST

ask or tell anyone, including Obama, to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. He and Edwards did it on their own to get votes in Iowa and NH, the states that wanted to still go first.

[ Parent ]
: So then explain why your man Obama (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST

did not take his name off the Florida ballot, if you think there was a DNC rule for candidates to remove themselves from the ballots in both states.
We're waiting. . . .

[ Parent ]
: seeeteee (none / 0) (#89)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST

sez
All Obama did was follow the DNC's rules?
No, seeeteee, don't bamboozle yourself.
The DNC did not have a rule re the ballot withdrawal.

[ Parent ]

so... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:58:29 AM EST

None of the candidates were required by any rules to remove their names from any ballot. This is a fiction. Edwards and Obamessiah amongst others chose to remove their names. At the time this was seen as cowtowing to political pressure from the tradtional caucus states who have dominated the calandar for decades. Clinton and others chose a politically savvy decision and Obamessiah now utters the Homer Simpson DOH! every morning with his first cup of coffee, or is it tai chi tea?

"The rules" (5.00 / 3) (#56)
by honora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:05:11 AM EST

clearly lay out ways that the FL/Mich delegations can be seated. Working Class Artist at 7:17 this morning cites a great article regarding the Committee on Rules and Bylaws and how they have the authority to alter the 'punishment' given earlier. That decision, however, is not final either. The Convention delegates have the final say--the dreaded floor fight. This all gets very twisted, if Florida and Michigan certify and send delegations-- do they get to vote on whether or not they are seated?? It seems like they should since a decision to bar them is not final until the Convention delegates vote to bar them. This is why Pelosi wants Clinton to drop out-- there is not real way not to seat the delegates unless you go to the floor of the convention.

This is why Obama's argument that Michigan and Florida do not represent valid elections is bogus. Under the rules those elections alway held the potential to 'count'. Obama gambled and lost.

: The rules... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:46:11 AM EST

I agree that Pelosi et, al. ( what a disappointment as a speaker and I was a former fan ) and the rest of the so-called leadership have been hand wringing about a brokered convention and have been trying to avoid this as Al Sharpton has threatened the requisite protests etc... So I have been doing my research into party history and the wicked possibility of a brokered convention. I think the reasoning over the fear is perhaps exagerrated as these are very different times than 1968, 1952,etc... The big fear is that chaos on the TV would mean a landslide victory for the GOP. Although this has happened, today the GOP has never been more vulnerable with the economy, Iraq war debacle and the ideological split within the GOP party. Lots of folks just want change period and this is why so many independents are interested in the democratic candidates. The greater danger for the DNC is the peril of losing our iedological and moral authority as the party that fights to let each vote count. If we allow FL. and MICH. to be discounted the effect on the party would last for decades and would seriously alienate at the very least 1/2 of the traditional base. These are democrats who are ideologically commited to the party and will not be willing to stomach such an obvious ideological shift that has no real authority to substantiate it. Especially after Fl. 2000 and Ohio 2004. Put it another way, How long would the ACLU survive if they started refusing to defend free speech based on whether they liked what that speech was ? The ACLU defends these rights because of their ideology which has a record that gives them a moral authority based on principles. I don't always like who they defend, but I understand the principle and am grateful ( particularly as an artist ) that the organization exists and as a citizen hope they always do. They exist as a watchdog on the power of the govt. to protect the citizen against abuses of that power. The DNC endangers the ethical foundation of the party and is frankly commiting political suicide through Dean's putzing obstinance. This is bigger than the current race. I say let's see it happen, on TV in front of tap dancin' Jesus, if it hair lips the pope... ( I'm catholic, I'm allowed ) This aint' 1968 and however rowdy it won't degenrate into violence. I mean this is Denver after all. If HRC can release her tax returns starting from before there was dirt to answer Obamessiah's call for transparency, the DNC can do the deal upfront in the spirit of transparency too. The progressive movement started with the labor movement, The liberals fought for civil rights and we have suddenly become to afraid of yammering at each other on TV ? No wonder the GOP is laughing.

[ Parent ]
: unsanctioned events... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST

Would this include selecting a nominee at the convention who hadn't run in any of the primaries? Well, it's happened before and according to party rules. Check it out. Research the party history, it's fun and interesting reading. The party has always been a little messy, probably why I like it. But the current FL/MICH debacle is truly dangerous as it affects the party's future and it's ethical foundation.

[ Parent ]

Okay, so would you please give me (5.00 / 12) (#59)
by Anne on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:22:08 AM EST

half of the cash you have in your wallet?

Why should you do that? Well, because I thought I wouldn't need mine, so I left it at home. But you - you still have your wallet, and here I am with no money, and so, I think it's only fair that you give me half of it. No, I know it's not "mine" and I didn't "earn" it, but you see, I want it and well, frankly, I need it.

What? No, I don't want to start over and go home and get my wallet, because you might end up with more money than I have in mine. This way, if you give me half of your money, we both have the same. And having the same is fair, isn't it? I mean, what's more fair than 50-50?

Oh, well, I guess if I have half of your money and then add it to what's in the wallet at home then I might have more money than you do, but - hey - what's in my wallet is mine, see - I get to keep that, too.

Fine - if I can't have half your money, then I think the only fair thing is for you to just throw your money out so neither one of us has any money. It's either you give me half, or you get rid of all of yours.

No. I Left My Wallet At Home - didn't you hear me? And I don't want to go get it - that wouldn't be fair to make me go allll the way back there when you have money you can just give me.

God, you are just so unreasonable.

This post (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by outsider on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:35:27 AM EST

is absolutely inspired! Great analogy...

[ Parent ]

half your money? (none / 0) (#99)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:07:04 AM EST

LOL almost spilled my coffee. This sounds like Chicago style reasoning, and anyone wonders why he hasn't won over the other 2/3 of working class democrats.... Of course I was impressed by the bowling... When I need to be cheared up I watch it on Youtube along with Letterman's clips of great presidential speechs.

[ Parent ]

WorkingClassArtist, may I just say (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:55:43 AM EST

that I'm enjoying you here and hope to see more -- such as the comment about scrabble and Dean, in reply to the one about younger brothers. I've got more than any woman's fair share of same, including one in particular who does so remind me of Dean, both said younger brother and said DNC non-leader shall forever suffer from the comparison. I can just see Dean, like said younger brother, waving the scrabble rules and declaiming wildly about some strange interpretation of them until wearing us all down to let him win.

I might add that said younger brother is a lawyer, a Republican, and with clients including big oil companies. There ya go.

[ Parent ]

: workingclass artist, may i just say... (none / 0) (#167)
by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST

I think your little brother and my little brother must go to summer camp together....

[ Parent ]

A vote is a vote (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by mjames on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:58:25 AM EST

I guess I must be incredibly dense.
A vote is a vote.
Michigan: I don't see how you can change a vote from Uncommitted to Obama. I don't see how y