Obama Proposes 50/50 Michigan Split: Just Say No

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.



    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).


    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).

    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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.

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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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]


    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!

    Impossible (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by psychodrew on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:58 AM EST
    He should be embarrassed putting that offer on the table.

    Impossible for someone who is shameless.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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... )

    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.

    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

    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?

    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 )

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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......


    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 ?

    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.


    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'...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Obama's bamboozle of the Florida ballot (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:53:03 AM EST
    1.  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."  

    2. 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.


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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....?


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. . . .


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


    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.

    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.


    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....

    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 you can change a vote to someone who wasn't on the ballot. No one voted for Obama. He wasn't on the ballot. There is no allegation that he wasn't on the ballot due to fraud, or, if there is, it is unsubstantiated. So Clinton gets her votes and the rest are uncommitted. No changing votes, no cutting votes in half. No nothing.
    Florida: The voters voted. Count their votes. Again, I don't see how you can change a vote - or even cut a vote in half. Then it's no longer a vote; it's half a vote.
    I agree with the comments about Obama's making his own bed, but I think they are somewhat irrelevant. Absent fraud, each vote needs to be counted as is. I am not for a revote on the same principle. The people have spoken. Count their votes.

    Obama's formula (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Andy08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    Vote stealing + disenfranchisement  + caucus
    cheating  = Obama's strategy to win  

    sorry, I just don't agree that it constitutes (none / 0) (#181)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST

    Coming from Chicago, trust me, we KNOW what cheating entails in elections.


    Do you know or have read what happened (none / 0) (#186)
    by Andy08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    at the Texas caucuses; that was caucus cheating indeed.  That you have a different type of cheating in Chicago doesn't mean it is the only form of cheating.

    I followed the stories, but frankly, (none / 0) (#192)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    the whole idea of caucamary or primacus, or whatever they call that hybrid left me with the idea of "DUH!"

    To the extent that I think that the whole idea of supper-based delegate life forms are filled with artificial flavor, empty calories and pesticide-based post chewed food byproducts, I can easily compare the Super Delegate cistern with the Texas contraption - and conclude that  both suck.

    My solution. Trash the whole program. Start from scratch.
    have 4 or 5 regional dates. Period. One month apart. A steady mix of small and large states. No lobbyist money. No corporate money. No industry money.

    This is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, not corporate, Inc.


    This is called a negotiation everyone is calling (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:21:50 AM EST
    for the situation to be resolved.  Your arguement is based souly on election results that where outside the bi-laws and hence forth not valid.  Either have a revote which the state legislature stopped or find an equitable way to seat the delegates.  The arguement is borderline ridiculous, now instead of being mad or angry because you don't feel your candidate will get the delegates she needs have her negotiate a counter offer.  By extending this offer regardless of your perspective he is trying to resolve the issue.

    Too call this vote stealing is tantamount liable.  Be careful with your disenfranchise arguements as well.  Threads here are based on superdelegates over turning the candidate with a majority of votes.  Not counting caucus states.  The arguement could be made that Clintons remaining campaign chances are structured on the disenfranchisement of a majority of Americans.  I know the arguement this isn't disenfranchisement it's in the rules. Which is funny because when it comes to rules you certainly don't consider them in dealing with Michigan, Florida or caucuses.  Selectivly accepting or not accepting rules strictly on a candidates best interests is not a worthy or just cause.

    I like TalkLeft but it's become almost comical.

    Either way the jury is almost out on this one and something tells me they won't be deliberating for long.

    When your first negotiating position is (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:28:53 AM EST
    "let me cheat", that's not very good.

    How is it cheating? (none / 0) (#22)
    by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:38:50 AM EST
    First your basing he's cheating off a primary that didn't happen.  Second your assuming that if it did happen and have credibility that the 55% of the vote would stand for Clinton.  The voter turnout was much less then if an actual primary would have happened.  So using any statistic from that primary has no factual basis.  

    And now lets assume that you have negotiated in the past.  You would start high knowing that the other party will come back low.  Now if the other side came back with "you are cheating" then you may not negotiate at all.  Then it appears that you are the one not only willing to seat these delegates but that you look un-presidential because you can't even deal with someone in your own party.  God help us when you trying to negotiate something that's important.  

    Isn't the point here to seat the Michigan delegates?


    I can't tell whether your reasoning is more (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:41:47 AM EST
    casuistic or Orwellian, but PLEASE, can you get the Obama camp to use your wording and say that the MI primary didn't happen?



    Thanks for the healthy discussion I now reallize (none / 0) (#24)
    by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:45:41 AM EST
    that you have no arguement just zingers and blind enthusiasm towards your candidate.  Good luck and if I ever do talk to the Obama campaign I'll bring up Healthcare, Iraq, Economy, Supereme Court Nominees and if Michigan Primaries come into the picture I'll tell him a Clinton supporter would like you to say they didn't happen.  

    I'm sorry but saying the primary didn't occur (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:07:43 AM EST
    is just ludicrous.
    Do you say the same thing about the FL primary too?
    Start from a position based on reality.
    I have no blind enthusiasm for CLinton, btw.
    I simply believe she is more qualified in every single area than Obama---not surprising considering his lack of experience and his disinterest in the nitty gritty of governance.

    It did not happen (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    So, how do you claim 50% of something that did not happen?  50% of that is 0.  

    There's no E (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:04:17 AM EST
    In argument.

    Maybe they're Canadian? (none / 0) (#123)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    Color = colour?

    Ahem (none / 0) (#168)
    by anniethena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    You may be our neighbours but we spell argument with one E, where it belongs. (the mEnt part).

    I actually did hear the Obama camp (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    use that phraseology at some point - said the FL and MI primaries did not really happen.  Mind boggling.

    How is it cheating? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:50:37 AM EST
    I suggest you research beyond the campaign literature what actually happened in these states with regard to the current situation. The upshot of it is that 6 million voter in two pivotal states are victims of a glitch in the rules. Obamessiah's partisans have actively interfered to thwart solutions including a reprise of primaries in both states. The rules were not applied fairly. There are actually life long democrats who support Obamessiah who are upset with the DNC and disappointed in Obamessiah's response because they see the ethical problems and are concerned about the long term mpact on the party. By the way, part of the Fl. democrats problem is that they had been trying to pass in the GOP dominated state legislature a law that required a paper trail fro voting machines since 2000. If they refused this most recent GOP primary wrangling they would have lost this important fight in the legislation. It was a classic GOP set up. I think there should be a little more sympathy offered to the Dem's in Fl. because when the situation is carefully evaluated
    it's clear how Dean et, al. have really messed up. Check it out impartially and see if you still feel the same way.

    THANK YOU!! (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    So many people think that the FL voters had something to do with the primary date being shoved back. It was the Republican legislature who put the primary date into a bill requiring a paper trail for our votes. They KNEW that the Dems would never vote against a bill that included something they had been trying to get for years. So they attached the primary date as a "poison pill" amendment to that bill. The FL Democrats had a choice, piss off the DNC by changing the date of the primary or lose the paper trail for votes. Given what has happened in recent Fl, and other, elections, the paper trail was thought to be the important thing. It has cost us dearly. With no thanks from anyone for doing what we can to make sure our elections have a paper trail and are fair. So remember what it cost Florida. We fought for fair elections and it cost us our primary votes. Thanks, DNC, that really shows your commitment to democracy and fair elections.

    Thank you... (none / 0) (#161)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    I salute the democrats in Florida, Michigan and Ohio and thankyou for putting up the good fight for us all. Any and All true democrats support you beyond these candidates. Democrats who care about the National Party care about FL./Mich./Ohio (2004). Let's hope the DNC will regain some reason.

    dura lex sed lex (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    poor jeralyn, the law is the law and nothing but the law. 1-michigan did not respect the decision of the dnc, michigan knew the consequence
    michigan has to accept that playing with fire burns. 2- clinton agreed regarding michigan penalty and now because she won - an very easy fight isnt it and a very unfair fight now she wants to change the rules. well sorry missy
    cheating and not respecting decisions bodes ill for the future.
    michigan was plain stupid and should apologize .that's how it is. michigan and florida chose to be disrespectful.they should be punished.
    if they had abide and clinton had won do you think one minute that their vote would not be accounted, naturally not. because they would have been fair and square...which they are not. Clinton should instead apply the painful arm of the law. for next time 2012.any US state complies to the rules. otherwise in 2012 heaven forbid hell is going to rule the roast...

    poor jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    I can only suggest that if you are a concerned democrat ( that is concerned about the party ) you do some reading about this dilemma and read up on the party rules, history and hey why not the party platform ? This issue has gone beyond this race. Clinton has responded to her base which is largely made up of life long registered democrats who are seeing the bigger picture.
    These are democrats who were upset by the principle. These include some of  Obama's supporters too. These candidates are lawyers and know perfectly well the rules and what's at stake. By the way the lawsuit brought in FL. against the DNC was brought by an Edward's supporter and although dismissed will be brought again as the sympathetic court gave him the legal ammo needed to properly hear the case. Check it out.

    You make a great point... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    I think that in punishment for moving their primaries ahead of February 5, the DNC must make sure that these rogue states are fully punished. This is an effrontery to the party that cannot stand.

    Their votes not count. Voters who want their votes to count should move to another state.

    The Democratic National committees shouldn't provide money to any candidates from these states.

    Candidates are fully prohibited from meeting people from the state and making connection with them.

    The local economy should not benefit from advertising revenues, influx of campaign staff, reporters.

    Can the DNC be any more stupid?

    I take issue with your assertion that Michigan should apologize...for what? Voting? Yeah, that's a really crappy thing for them to do and they should apologize and Obama should be given 50% of the delegates because they voted.


    You make a great point... (none / 0) (#164)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    Well Said,,, LOL... Of course this worked in Stalinist Russia and perhaps Dean et, al. wish for the same simplicity. It's too bad Howard that voters can read and that occasionally ROGUE journalists not involoved in the omnipotent OBAMEDIA actually present information to voters who cherish the idea of Informed decision making. I'm sending love letters to the Chair of the DNC Rules and Bylaws, named James Roosevelt Jr. to remind him that his grandpa FDR who built the party as well as Progressive Action Hero Teddy Roosevelt ( another relative ) would be proud that he show some spine and act for the good of the National Party and overturn the penalties of Party embarrassment Dean the Putz.

    2012? (none / 0) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    After a McCain presidency?

    Noooh, he didnnt... (none / 0) (#17)
    by carrienae on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:03:19 AM EST
    His campaign is so sneaky....

    The problem is (none / 0) (#176)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    His supporters appear to be quite enamored of that sneakiness.  It is so cool, you know.

    Sometimes they refer to it as "Genius" (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST
    And brilliant (none / 0) (#196)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    Here's an idea (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:11:29 AM EST
    How bout we shelve talking about Florida and Michigan until after all other elections have occurred.  Say on June 10th?

    After that both parties agree to meet and have open negotiations regarding coming to an agreement.  Both sides would then be required to act in good faith since they would be publicly on record with their statements.   At that point whatever agreement that is reached will allow the superdelegates to vote the way they think they should.  

    Sounds good, doesn't it?  This way Michigan and Florida aren't able to unduly influence other states.  But they both have their voices heard.

    I'm holding my breath waiting to hear you guys embrace this plan.

    Clever (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:18:02 AM EST
    That's the thing.  Keep FL and MI out of the narrative.  Build the narrative that says Obama has an insurmountable lead because FL and MI aren't being counted.

    Is that it?

    Have I figured it out?


    Right (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    So it really isn't about disenfranchising voters.  It's about using Florida and Michigan to retake the narrative.  

    If it was simply about letting their votes count then it shouldn't matter if we waited until after the other primaries.  But it isn't simply about that.  It's about using those 2 states to swing the narrative for Hillary.


    Sure (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    That's where the narrative would be right now if Dean hadn't done what he did for the Obama campaign.

    Yeah ok (none / 0) (#149)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    It's fun to play in the world of make believe.

    If only Dean didn't hatch that conspiracy to topple Hillary she would have easily won.  

    What I thought was truly remarkable was how he got Hillary to buy into the conspiracy right up until she was losing.  That took some crazy skill.


    No one cared about a butterly ballot (none / 0) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    In California.

    If a vote can determine the winner then yeah it matters.

    Was it wrong to assume back then that it wouldn't matter, yes.

    It just would have looked better if Dean was disenfranchising a state that was pro-Obama too!


    This makes no sense (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    A complete deflection to an irrelevant issue.  

    Why do you Clinton supporters assume that Michigan would be go Clinton.  She beat uncommitted by 15%.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.


    Please do keep holding your breath ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:30:45 AM EST
    ... because you're wasting it here.

    not really. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by The Realist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:24:22 AM EST
    Why would anyone agree to wait to see how the cards fell to make a decision. Obama is running scared and he knows that if Florida and Michigan are counted he will not get the popular vote. With his suggestion that the SD's vote with their constituents, he would lose. To wait and see how everything else goes is basically giving Obama control over the process since they have agreed that both have to agree to a solution. Obama won't agree unless it benefits him, leaving Florida and Michigan disenfranchised, again.

    Can I make a plea? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Simplicissimus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    I understand the passion and enthusiasm we all feel for our respective candidates, but from one liberal to others, can we all pull back from talk of "stealing elections", "coup by superdelegate", etc, etc?  
    By all means, let's have it out.  Let's call each other names. Let's say unpleasant things about the other candidate.  Let's gnash our teeth and rend our garments.  In the end, like a family argument, those wounds will heal over and we can go on to clobber the Rethugs.
    But there are some lines we cross at our own peril, and some toothpaste tubes that can't be unsqueezed. Let's not accuse one side of stealing elections, of putsches, of coups.  I say this because, in one sense, we are all out here together on a limb and the only thing that keeps us from crashing down is the faith we have in one another as progressives and the faith we have in our processes.  Sometimes that faith is tested... or else it wouldn't be faith.  And sometimes that faith needs to be strengthened by passionate debates like we are having right now.  
    But to speak of stealing and to speak of coups and the like is to take an axe to the living limbs of the party that support us all.  Sure, question the candidates.  Sure, make plans to work together to change the process in the future. But to question the very process through which any and all candidates must achieve legitimacy as the Democratic candidate, is to guarantee precisely that no candidate can achieve legitimacy.  
    As am Obama supporter, I'll try my best to remind my fellow Obamaniacs of this (and they surely often need reminding of it) and I hope those of you who are Clinton supporters will try to do the same.

    Then ask the Obama camp to withdraw the 50/50 (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    solution.  Because really, this is cheating.  Demanding something that they did not earn.  And I wish you were around to tell Ms. Powers before she called Hillary a monster.

    We do not even know, but it certainly raises suspicions as who who how or who came up with DNC rules that really created this mess? How could a candidate end up with less pledged delegates after winning the popular votes in any state?  I have no trouble with allocating delegates by districts, but at least award some points for overall wins.

    For my part, so much water under the bridge.  I am so upset with how the party has seemed to stack the odds against Clinton.  I and my family have decided that it is Clinton or no one.


    Clinton or no one.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    I'm thinkin of opening up a chain of Rehabs for Democrats suffering from Incomprehensible Demoralization Syndrome if Dean doesn't fix it and we watch our party go over the cliff dragging god knows who under it. Dean is such a Putz, but then again so is Obamessiah. By the way, these rehabs will not conflict with those opening nationwide for the disappointed O minions, as I'm sure Oprah will cover it on her inspirational net.

    legitimacy... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    Look it depends on the criteria for legitimacy you apply. There is the DNC rules argument that applies to this particular nomination process. There is also an ideological argument about the ethical application of those rules , and the future of the party
    with regard to Dean's obvious ineptitude. One argument focuses on the current race, one focuses on the future of the party. Since accordng to most polls, Obamessiah's base is largely made up of indpendents and cross overs they simply refyse to see the other argument or anything else beyond OBAMEDIA and the campaign lit. Most registered democrats see the bigger picture with regard to the party, regardless of which candidate they support. It reeks and is in direct contradiction to the principles of the party. Surely as an avowed liberal you can see that. How would you feel if you lived in FL. or MICH. ? This is effects all democrats everywhere.

    Nice plea (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    But where were you back in January? After years of being on DKos, I did not know that so many of my fellow Democrats were so crass. Even as a Edwards supporter we did not lambaste Hillary and BHO with such foul name calling and including us for saying something nice about Hillary or arguing against some tall tale. There I didn't say lie. There were always a few 'off the charts out there, but so many went for the Take No Prisoners rule. There is no $($h@#)%& here & no %($@#( name calling either.  And stealing is a very simple word. You can use trickery, duping, and being sly. As analogized above with the wallet scenario, demanding half your money is still stealing. As for let's come together for the greater good, jump on over to Hillary's side and making that happen.

    Nice plea.... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Well said... Do you think the DNC will provide the complete and updated lyrics to Kumbiya at the convention. I'm hoping they do the bouncing ball to the lyrics on TV so I can sing along. Who do you think will play the guitar... Maybe it should be someone who lives overseas to maintain the illusion of nuetrality....

    How much say so does Mi and Fl in the GE ballot (none / 0) (#69)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    Just curious. Since this is a federal election can MI and Fl put conditions on the Democratic ballot in those states.  Can they say since you did not count our vote in the democratic nomination process and  since Obama became the illegitimate nominee because he stopped a re vote in those state then his name will not be allowed on the ballot in those states. Then tell the DNC the only way we will allow a democrat presidential nominee to be on the ballots in those states  is to allow a re vote in those states.  How much power does FL and Mi have over the ballots in the GE . Can they play hard ball to get their way.

    How much say... (none / 0) (#74)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    It depends on the laws in each state. According to Auspitz in his excellent article in April's online mag Washington Monthly titled, The Law of Rules... ".....Unlike the Republicans, moreover, the Democrats' " order of precedence " provisions do not enable state parties to depart from state law. To the contrary, the Democratic order of precedence creates a double bind for state parties: national party rules take precedence over state law, which takes precedence , in turn over, state party rules.... In other words, 6 million Democrats in two pivotal states are victims of a glitch in the rules.... " There wasn't anything the state parties could do as the legislature was controlled by the GOP. The state parties lacked the power. I'll bet that this guy Auspitz is on Dean's enemy list right now. Check it out.

    In Florida (none / 0) (#75)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    There was a legislator looking into not allowing a party nominee on the ballot if delegates weren't counted. He had clerks researching the legality of it. But the article made it sound as if it wouldn't be going forward because legislators from both parties were wary.

    I personally think they should at least make the nominee qualify as a third party candidate and be listed with the rest of the third party candidates.


    There was a legislator... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    Hey Florida, You can contact the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, they can overturn Dean's penalty and enact a more reasonable one. If the DNC Putz Dean insists on his new 48 state strategy, and ya'll vote to cecede from the union, can I a disgruntled democrat lost in the wastelands of Texas join your country? Just askin, cecession from the union is a traditional texas rant around here that pops up every so often. Seriously supportive of FL./Mich. Democrats. Committee Chair is James Roosevelt Jr. FDR's grandson, how ironic is that ? Good Luck.

    The real target is Obama superdelegate (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    Ralph Dawson of New York, who made the motion to amend the rule to strip Florida of only 50% of its delegates.  Dawson's amendment was to up the punishment to 100%, totally stripping the state of all delegates (and then that was followed for MI).

    I watched the hour-and-a-half DNC Rules Committee meeting on August 25, 2007, when this was done.  It is archived on C-Span.  It has the Florida party's explanations and pleas, it has only one committee member (Don Fowler, former DNC chair) expressing concern about the impact of this, and it has Donna "Walk Out" Brazile playing her hand to show which staffer was behind getting this motion made.  (See especially the last 15 minutes or so of the tape.)

    Who is in New York here, who knows more about Dawson, and how can we get the spotlight on him for disenfranchising so many voters -- including, I might note, so many AA voters in Detroit?  


    Here's his work bio . . . . (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST

    and from an interview


    "[Question: Did you anticipate your resolution to strip Florida of its delegates would be as pivotal as it is turning out to be now?]

    "No. [laughs]. No. well, I was a member of the rules and bylaws committee and as a member of that committee, the committee had worked hard to try to establish a fair and evenhanded process that would give us an opportunity to look at how our potential candidates faired with many of the constituencies of the party and with different parts of the country. ""


    The real target is Obama superdelegate.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out..... This is starting to stink so bad...Gives new meaning to Roosevelt Jr.'s quote about a small minority of his committee caring about the interests of the Institutional Party. Still think Dean is a putz.... That hasn't changed since his POTUS run. HOWL!

    Here's (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    the link to my comment a couple days ago with the link to the C-Span coverage of that DNC Rules Committee meeting with Obama super-delegate Dawson's motion to amend DNC rules to strip Florida (and then MI) of 100% of its delegates, with Brazile's rousing support of it (she, as the staffer to the committee probably wrote it), etc. Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

    Clinton should treat this (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    as an opening bargaining position and come back with Jeralyn's solution.  Clinton gets her 55% and the rest remain uncommited until the convention. That seams perfectly fair to me, considering he took his name off the ballot.

    She cannot accept anything less than her 55%. That would be, as Jeralyn says, vote stealing by Obama.

    that is no solution (none / 0) (#106)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    that is oiling the squeaky wheel. And it guarantees that every Michigan voter who did not vote in the primary, and even some who did, will be pissed as hell at Hillary

    This is no solution, but a catastrophe created by the State party. Caving in to one or the other side is simply stupid.
    And giving Hillary 55%  just because is just as stupid.


    Gee, maybe the ones that voted for MITT? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    Since they were encouraged by DK to go and vote for Mitt to stop McCain in Michigan, you are saying that they should count too because they might get mad? Maybe if these people were not encouraged to try and muck up the primary in Michigan, then we might have a more true total. And maybe if candidates were not trying to muck up the primary by taking their names off the ballot and using wrong Judgment, then we might have a more true total. Hillary is not the bad guy here. And two wrongs do not make it right.

    yeah, counting votes is stupid (none / 0) (#111)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    so says Obama...

    Politics of hope *sheesh*


    that is no solution... (none / 0) (#118)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    I agree. The correct solution is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committe to draw up and enforce a more rational penalty that is within their party authority. I know it would hurt Dean's ego, but these people could and should come up wth a solution for the overall benefit of the Democratic Party.

    good idea. (none / 0) (#194)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    very good idea

    Expecting either candidate (none / 0) (#101)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    to concede votes or delegates at this point in the race is hopelessly naive. Using moralistic terms to describe either one's positions is beside the point. There is no high ground here. There are two candidates intent on winning.

    Clinton supporters cannot reasonably expect Obama to give up his lead. Obama supporters cannot reasonably expect Clinton not to try every tactic available to her to overtake him and build her case.

    Even if paradoxical, MI and FL must be seated but their votes cannot give any benefit to either campaign right now. Which means, the situation will inevitably benefit the front-runner. Clinton miscalculated early on, no amount of "shaming" the other side can change this now.

    Expecting either candidate... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28:03 AM EST
    Dean's penalty was extreme and ill considered. bad management of the party. It can be overturned and should be for the good of the party. This is within the rules governing the party. New penalties can be enacted and still maintain party discipline and integrity. Both candidates know this, they are lawyers and well versed in the party rules and proceedures. Dean is a Putz and has badly managed this situation. Simple.

    What is simple? (none / 0) (#114)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    Seating MI without counting the votes in a way that gives advantage to either candidate?

    What is simple? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    Simple in that the DNC Committee on Rules and Bylaws can overturn Dean's penalties and enforce new ones that are within the framework of the party's rules and ethics. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure there are alot of options that can be applied to instill party discipline and not compromise party principles. This race is close. Obamessiah's recent offer is ideologically unsound and as a constitutional law lecturer he knows this. His campaign is manipulating his base. Why ? Because he's a politician. Dean is a putz and that is my simple conclusion based on following his actions and reading the facts.

    Trying really hard (none / 0) (#144)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    to understand what is simple here. According to you, there must be some lawyerly way to change the rules that allow MI votes to be counted, but which will still penalize MI for moving the primary forward. Correct?

    Alright, let's imagine that this happens.

    How does that address my question? Those MI votes (under your new rules) still cannot be seen to favor either candidate, which means the new situation will inevitably favor the frontrunner: Obama. Which means we'll end up where we started: 50/50.


    Ahem,,, Nobody In Michigan voted for Obama. (none / 0) (#189)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    That was a strategic mistake on his part. A tactical mistake was made by those who voted in the republican primary.

    But Obama is not entitled to votes he did not get.

    Thus the phrase vote stealing.


    There is a right side to this issue. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM EST
    Finding a way to allow MI votes to count is the right side here. Clintons motivation are irrelevant to this. 1+1=2, it matters not what my motivation are for supporting this conclusion, not one wit.

    Thanks for the lesson in morals and math. (none / 0) (#137)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    Now maybe we can discuss politics.

    MI votes will count if they favor neither candidate. Which means they will favor Obama because he's the frontrunner.

    You may not like it, but you can't deny Obama holds some cards at this table.


    Never said Obama had no cards to play. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    My position is that the motivation of either candidate is irrelevant to the central point. That point being, in a Democratic Republic each state gets to have a say in the direction the country takes. The candidates motivations are not germain(sp?) to that principal, you are either on right side or the wrong side of this principal.

    I agree with your general position. (none / 0) (#153)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    But elections need to happen with some controls, some rules.

    There were rules applied to the MI votes. Now we're not happy with those rules. The rules must be changed. The change in rules will affect the race for the nomination. Otherwise, there would be no dispute.

    So how do you change the rules and get both sides onboard? I'm suggesting that moralizing won't do it.


    They should go back to the default (none / 0) (#155)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    penalty, 50% reduction in delegates, that's in the rules too. the uncommitted can vote for who they like at the convention.

    So Clinton gets the delegates now, (none / 0) (#157)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    and she gets to include the votes in her PV totals now, and Obama gets to... feel really good about himself?

    Yes and no. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    Obama can lobby the uncommitted delegates at the convention for their support. Which means he gets a shot at delegates that might have otherwise gone for Edwards  or one of the others. And since it's has been Obama's position that it's only the delegates that decided the nomination there should be no reason for him to need the popular vote numbers.

    So Obama cedes (none / 0) (#162)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    a clear advantage now, in exchange for possible, last-minute benefits at the convention?

    I think you're seriously underestimating both candidates.


    It's not about them, (none / 0) (#163)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    nor should it be. This argument is about how our country wishes to conduct it's selection process. Do we count count votes or don't we? Fraud seems to be a good reason not to count some, or all fraudulent votes, arbitrary dates on a calendar not so much. People also need to understand the fact they be on the winning side, for their choice of candidate today, doesn't mean that will be the case tomorrow. That's why "we the people" need to stand on principal not tactical advantage.

    It's not about them.... (none / 0) (#174)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    Well stated.... This is the second and frankly overiding argument and involves the interests of the National Party. The PLEO's could and should consider the interests of the National Party at the convention. This has become a power struggle between partisan infighters and institutional platform democrats. The later are concerned about the party and the bigger picture.

    It's not about them.... (none / 0) (#177)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    Also I would like to add that these ideological  fisticuffs are common in our party history. Recent example was when LBJ placed the Ideological " Soul "of the party ahead of the tactical advantage when signing Civil Rights Legislation in to place. As the Head Boss of the party he looked at the bigger picture, and knowing the consequences of conceding the south to republicans for decades still chose the larger interests of the party beyond the election because ideologically it was the right thing to do and was in keeping with the modern ideology of the party built by FDR. It was right for both the party and the Nation.
    Similarily, discounting votes is ideologically opposed to the party principles. It's better for the party and it's elders to look a little foolish than is is for the party to compromise a foundational principle that the nation is senstitive too especially after elections of 2000 and 2004.

    Can't argue with foundational principles (none / 0) (#179)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    but it's still all about them.

    Otherwise, this would have been fixed long before Iowa. Or we'd all happily agree that FL and MI votes will be "counted" after June 3.

    The system is far from perfect, but appealing to lofty ideals of perfection mid-stream without acknowledging the current political context seems to me somewhat vain.


    This argument has been going on ever since Dean the Putz announced the penalty. HRC was smart allowing a groundswell of opposition to build over the stupidity of the penalty. She's a savvy politician, just like Obamessiah. Only Obamessiah can't win this one because of the ideology. Sometimes the cult of personality just gets tripped up by their own feet, look at Bush/Gore. Maybe you think it was silly but who won the high road ? America was the loser on that one.

    Principles are not silly. (none / 0) (#199)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    But if the issue is how to count these votes now, then the discussion has to include the political context we're in.

    Otherwise, it's all about who is holier. Or more right. Or more Democratic. And these are pointless, inquisitorial questions at this point, unless you factor in how they affect the race today.

    The solution has to allow both sides to benefit and everyone involved to save face. It will, in any case, favor Obama because he is the frontrunner.


    Could someone explain something (none / 0) (#102)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    to me?

    Why was it that there supposedly was pressure for candidates to take their name off the MI ballot, but not the FL ballot?

    I'm not sure I understand why the two cases were treated differently to begin with.

    It's been covered many times... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    Florida law didn't allow candidates to remove their names from the ballot.

    Obama and Edwards purposely removed their names from the Michigan ballot for these and probably other reasons:

    • to claim commitment to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for their traditional roles in first part of the nomination process
    • in recognition that without campaigning in Michigan, they would likely lose
    • for political advantage that they can't lose a race that they aren't in

    It's been covered many times... (none / 0) (#112)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    I'd say all three, and both regretted it later. FranklyO perhaps you would consider reading up on it in the local FL./MICH. press and the state party info. You can find out alot about why this is so upsetting.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    the thing I had forgotten was that it was against the law to remove a candidate's name in FL, otherwise I'd guess the same pressures would have applied.

    Partial truths are the problem. (none / 0) (#141)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    Once his name was printed on the official ballot, then he would have to swear an affidavit that he was not going to be on the GE ballot to get it taken off. BUT the primary ballots were printed in January, not October, and he had at least three weeks to tell the FL Dems not to send his name into the Sec of State's office in the first place. No affidavit would be needed in that case.

    Please see this comment for timeline


    Obama negotiating style (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    For healthcare he thinks mandates will be impossible so he leaves them off the table.  So I think we can get him down to Hillary 60, he gets 40%.  

    How bout a 50/50 split of Illinois (none / 0) (#113)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    as well?  It would be as fair as this crazy proposal.

    The new ethics (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    Every kid gets a blue ribbon, don't you know?  It would hurt their feelings if they lost, all those young voters that got so excited.  Now why would we want to be real?  

    How about a Pizza Party? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST
    Sheesh. Since when did the Dem Primary become the Special Olympics?

    This may be the best comment of the day (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    and it's not even noon yet, where I read this.

    I now will be thinking of the doings in Denver, after the Summer Olympics, as the Special Olympics.  Thanks for a funny thought that may get me through it.


    How about a pizza party ? (none / 0) (#183)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    I always have fond memories of the stunt Teddy pulled at the
    convention of 1980. Perhaps it began then ? That was a riot at least comedically. Truth is we Democrats have always been a little unruly, it's part of our proud working class heritage, but this FL./MI. debacle is way beyond the usual and threatens the National Party. I say settle it at the convention and don't allow Dean the putz or his cohorts to say a word. He should have to sit in the dunce cap on national TV and the rest of the et, al should have to wear rehab signs that clearly state how they didn't maintain nuetrality and tried to force an arbitrary gimmicky solution that compromised the party. Then we can sing Kumbiya. Tap dancin Jesus will sing along and the apocalypse will be avoided.

    Now, it will be a DEAL that seats MI & FL (none / 0) (#172)
    by Egalitare on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    Was Dean a bit heavy handed about whacking us Michiganders for moving the Primary to Jan 15? I think not. See, because of all the calls of making Iowa and New Hampshire less important, the DNC collectively decided to add Nevada and South Carolina to the front of the Primary calendar. An incremental step? Perhaps, but it was the result of years of discussion and negotiation. Then our "esteemed" leaders of the Democratic Party in Michigan, for reasons I will not comment on, decided to DEFY the collective will and move our Primary up unilaterally.

    And Dean was supposed to do...what? Say "Okay, but just you guys 'cause you're so important to the General Election in November. But don't tell anyone else."?? And what would have prevented New York, or Illinois, or California from leap-frogging to late December?

    Yes, Obama's current position is a 50/50 split of the 128 pledged MI delegates. Team HRC has yet to counter, because they were hoping against reason that Michigan would somehow find a way to have a "do-over." The door is now officially closed on that, and now we are left with a deal to seat our delegates at Denver. Frankly, I'll take the 55/30 split that one of you proposed: it guarantees that HRC cannot catch up on the delegate count, even if the Florida results stand "as is."

    But feel free to discount my viewpoint. I am Black, college-educated and live in Washtenaw County -- one of the two counties in MI where "Uncommitted" received more votes than HRC.

    Now it wll be a deal that seats MI & FL... (none / 0) (#178)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    Okay... Dean had other options, besides the nuclear one. It never made sense and contradicts party principles. There were other penalties, it was reactionary and just plain stupid. He's the chairman of the party and as such he is supposed to exercise authority and maintain party discipline without sinking the ship. He is a Putz.... He and Pelosi et, al. appear to be partisan in their actions and are undiscplined in what they say and do. By virtue of the offices they hold within the party they have abdicated responsibility and compromised the National Party. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths looks the same no matter who you support. It looks like classic Putzian behavior.

    I suppose this dovetails (none / 0) (#175)
    by tandem5 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    with Obama's campaign of packaging - Sure there's no difference between a 50-50 split and not seating any of the delegates, but it looks fair and conciliatory.

    This is pointless (none / 0) (#180)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    The fantasy world bubble that Hillary and her supporters seem to live in is what caused this mess. Hillary initially refused re-votes, instead pushing to ratify the results of these two invalid elections. Her supporters convinced themselves that that was possible. Well, Hillary will not benefit from these invalid elections. Case closed. All the scenarios postulated here that will give Hillary an unfair advantage have no relevance in the real world and will never be taken seriously by anyone but Hillary and her supporters. It will never happen. Why keep arguing over it?

    This is pointless... (none / 0) (#184)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    Spoken like a true Stalinist.... Democracy and the free exchange of ideas can be so irritating wouldn't you say?

    Yet you think it's fair (none / 0) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:20:58 PM EST
    to completely deny Obama votes and delegates in MI. You have no leg to stand on. On the one hand you're for enfranchisement. But on the other hand you're against enfranchisement. You are contorting yourself into unrecognizable positions in order to give your candidate an unfair advantage.

    Please name one person who voted for (none / 0) (#190)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    Obama in Michigan's primary.

    The votes were for uncommitted delegates.


    Again... (none / 0) (#193)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    ...that is the opening and closing statement on the notion that Obama has any entitlement to MI delegates.

    Not one single vote in the state of Michigan was cast for Barack Obama

    Ahem, case closed.


    No one and that makes my point (none / 0) (#198)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST

    Well, then you're an idiot (none / 0) (#201)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:36:31 PM EST
    i might get a suspension for this, but the facts speak for themselves.

    Yet you think it's fair... (none / 0) (#191)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    Look, I think that the penalty should be overturned by the DNC
    Committee on Rules and Bylaws even if it means egg on the face,
    it's within the rules and should be done in the interests of the National Party. New penalties can be assigned that won't jeapordize the National Party. The apportionment of delegates can be decided afterward, but until the Party addresses the idiocy of the penalty, what happens to the delegations is moot. Either Dean repairs the damage he has caused by his bad management of party interests or he continues the more important fight to salvage his ego. Sometimes leadership means admission of mistakes and correction of those mistakes. Dean is a putz who lacks the abiliy to see the forest for the trees. Obamessiah would hope we were all so nearsighted as well. His proposal is silly. Kinda like the firehouse caucuses suggestion.

    You know what I expect, (none / 0) (#182)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    if Obama succeeds in keeping both the FL and MI votes from counting, and, as a result, wins?

    That Hillary supporters will be hearing from the Obama side the exact same story that we got when Bush "won" in 2000: Stop being sore losers. Get over it.

    And so they would replicate exactly the Bush/right wing team that foisted Bush off on the American public in 2000. And they will not note the fact nor the irony of the fact.

    You know what I expect.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    Touche'... I expect that the institutionalists within the party will according to party rules rectify the situation. Who knew Denver would be the actual site of the end of the world... Has anyone told the Mormons as I think they think it's Missouri?