Obama's Offer on FL and MI Amounts to Nothing

I disagree with Big Tent Democrat on Obama's statement today on FL and MI. It's woefully inadequate and nothing he and the party haven't said before. It doesn't address the issue.

The issue is not seating the delegates at the convention. It's counting their votes and awarding delegates based on their votes BEFORE the nominee is chosen. It's about giving 2.3 million voters who took the time to go to the polls and who did nothing wrong have their votes count in deciding our party's nominee.

Obama is playing the same games he's always played on Michigan and Florida. He's not agreeing to let their votes count.

Saying they can be seated at the convention means they can cheer for the nominee and sit in on party platform and rules meetings. Big deal. If they can't have their votes count in determining the nominee, it's a shell game.

< Obama: FL Delegation Will Be Seated | Conyers Releases Documents on Rove Subpoena, Siegelman Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You go, girl! (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    100% right.

    Ditto for me! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    Third (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Grey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    I'd say 1000% correct....just goes to show (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    you can fool some of the people some of the time, etc....

    Thank you so much Jeralyn. I agree 100% (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by FLVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST

    Amen, Sister!! (none / 0) (#75)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    Every time (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    Obama and the DNC--that by the way follows Obama's cue--- come up with this same charade it angers me
    further and further.
    The pint of delegates is to have a voice in the choosing of a nominee not on the empty confirmation of an already chosen one. That's an insult to the voters.

    Obama, Dean and Pelosi have shown no leadership on this issue. It is shameful.

    Jeralyn is right on this (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    The crux of the matter on this is whether or not one believes the process is now over and so it's OK to re-enfrachize those states.

    Jeralyn is also fighting for the legitimacy of Barack Obama.

    His legitimacy is still in question.  The only way to make it happen is to satisfy the question of whether or not Florida and Michigan had an impact on the process.

    Because they have already been removed from all media narratives going on 4 months now, I think it's safe to say every minute that passes now is a nail in the legitimacy of Barack Obama.

    Exactly!!! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    Obama wants FL and MI to NOT count, and he is being deceitful.

    There can be no legitimacy (none / 0) (#48)
    by smott on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    ...without re-votes IMO.  No matter how they try to splice this either side will have valid claims of illegitimacy against the other.

    I wish the re-votes could still happen. (none / 0) (#51)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Thanks to Obama, they can't.

    And just what (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    what would Obama's claims of illegitimacy look like?

    The only illegitimate claim would be Obama's claim to 50-50 which robs Clinton and the voters.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    and unfortunately this all so much reminds me of the GOP in 2000 and even 2004.  Lovely way to start but I tried to tell people when a nebulous word like change or hope are used, you are guaranteed to be played by expert media/sales/public relations people who specialize in getting you to buy a gas guzzling hummer when not working for candidates....so now maybe people are getting the true definition of what change really means here....

    it means more of the same.

    I'm sorry, but I'm so disgusted by Democrats right now, but on the other hand, the multinational and special interests, pure power plays that run this nation have made me sick for a long, long time.

    Thank you. Excellent post (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    Obama needs to be asked point blank how the delegates' votes will count towards determining the nominee.

    This is what I don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by henry2008 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Why were Fl and MI punished for moving there primaries but not the other states that did?

    Yes, and please note other states punished (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    by Republicans, not just FL and MI, for moving up primaries ahead of the RNC-specified dates.

    There is a reason Republicans keep winning.  They do not allow the RNC to be taken over by fools with narrow agendas and anger like Prima Donna.  

    And I know, I read, all the reports that the Republicans are going to get creamed in fall.  I'll believe it when I see it.  They know the role of the party, they make it do what it is expected to do -- and they thus have had none of this disarray despite having even more states with delegates halved for getting ahead of the party's primary calendar.

    Yes, it may be because they didn't end up with two candidates tied -- but I think not.  I think it's because they demand from their party leaders that they do their job description and don't exceed it.


    Exactly Cream! (none / 0) (#125)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    It was apparent that the RNC and Right Wing Radio wanted Romney to be their candidate. But the voters wanted McCain and that's who they got.

    If the Republicans are so evil then why did their voters get to choose their candidate without the interference of Party leadership? Or am I missing something? Because trust me, this is the first time I have ever thought that the RNC was right about something and the DNC was wrong. Actually I still can't believe that I just typed that. Even liberal gene in my body is cringing.


    No other states moved their (none / 0) (#126)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    primary before the DNC authorized February 5, only MI and FL.

    The DNC allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to have their usual first in the nation caucus and primary. One state representing the midwest, the other the northeast.

    To balance things out, the DNC sanctioned the Nevada and South Carolina votes before February 5, representing a south state and a western state.

    Per the agreement of the DNC rules committee which Clinton folks like Harold Ickes fully supported in 2007, all other states were not allowed to schedule their caucus or primary before February 5.

    If this nomination fight was not so close, none of us would even be talking about FL and MI.


    Right On! (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    And if they can't vote as is, that means do-over in Florida and Michigan and then the delegates  vote at convention.  It is a nobrainer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You would think (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by delacarpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    You would think that Obama would let them be seated because the polls are showing they are rejecting Obama as a nominee IMO. He could make it the right and smart thing to do to seat them now. He is more insterested in looking Presidnetal than thinking of FLA/MI. He just doesn't get it. Onward to the convention.


    The people are split. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    The supers will nominate our candidate, and I can not for the life of me see why that shouldn't be Hillary.  Doesn't experience count for anything anymore?  Let's run him as VP.  He gets 8 years of experience and then 8 years as president.  Seems logical to me.  He's a young man.  I think things are so screwed up right now that we need experience in the White House.

    Logically speaking, (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    this is eminently, obviously, duh ffing duh clear.

    Electability is clearly on HRC's side. What is the freaking problem with these people?

    Occam's Razor would dictate that they do not care about winning this election.


    It's not even just the winning. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    It's a terrible year to be a Republican so it is possible he could pull it off.  But he has virtually no experience.  Hillary is prepared.  She's done the groundwork.  I just think it's too important to get someone in there who is prepared.

    Oh, I understand. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    I think Hillary would make a much better President. But at this point, the SuperD's will probably not be making their choice on that metric.

    As I understand it, their jobs (in a close nomination fight) are to save the people from nominating someone unelectable.

    I sure hope they do their jobs!


    The split (none / 0) (#89)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    isn't as close as you're willing to admit.

    Note the article further down (none / 0) (#120)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    about how once PR has voted she could well lead in just about every type of popular vote count structure you choose.  No wonder they want her to drop out before then (and also give Obama some of her MI/FL votes).

    Isn't it a shame... (none / 0) (#127)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST

    the nomination is not decided by popular vote?

    Yes, the supers could buy that argument to support Hillary, assuming she does end up with the popular vote (of course four of the caucus states did not relase actual popular vote number, but whatever).

    But on August 27, the candidate that has the majority of DELEGATES voting for him or her will be our nominee.

    Been that way since old Andy Jackson was nominated in 1828 as the first Democratic nominee of the modern Democratic party.


    Still, has to be a bit embarrassing (none / 0) (#130)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    that your guy can't pull it out more definitely and receive more TOTAL votes than his opponent.   Does not bode well for the GE.  Good luck.

    No more phony outrage (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Nos on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    All of the phony outrage on behalf of the people of Michigan and Florida is both too late and misplaced.

    The DNC sanctioned Michigan and Florida in 2007.  Where was all of the outrage on behalf of the people of Michigan and Florida??  Personally, I wrote letters and emails to party officials expressing my disgust with the overly harsh sanction of stripping those states of 100% of their votes.  But the DNC stood by their decision, and so did ALL of the candidates and the rest of the state parties; no one stood up for Michigan and Florida when it counted.

    So now I am to understand that after agreeing upon the rules BEFORE the primary, it's time to reassess the rules and change them??

    What about the voters in Michigan who wanted John Edwards?  Who knows how the primary may have been different if he had a shot at the Michigan primary in January??  Forget about them?  What about the people who would not participate in a third-world-style "primary" with only one candidate on the ballot; a candidate who agreed that the primary in which they would have been voting would not count?  

    What is being argued here is that Michigan's delegates should be seated no matter what the agreed upon rules were, or how unreliable the primary process was.  

    As far as Florida, that's a shame, because a Republican legislature moved their primary up.  The problem is, no one stood up for them when it mattered; especially not the majority of people claiming to be so very concerned now.

    If the agreed upon rules, which were accepted by ALL the candidates can be changed during the primary process, why have primaries at all?  Those who believe the delegate system or caucus system is unfair need to advocate for a change BEFORE the next primaries start, not during the primaries.

    The superdelegates already know this, and are presently exercising their independent judgment, in accordance with the wishes of Senator Clinton; albeit, not in the way she may have hoped.

    There was plenty of outrage (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    and there's still plenty now.

    Use teh Google, it is your friend. MI and FL voters have been trying to get this decision reversed for quite some time.


    The point is.. (none / 0) (#128)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST

    they failed to get the rules changed BEFORE the primaries began.

    It is unfair to change the rules after the game has been played and the prior commeter is right - we will never know how different the results would have been in MI and FL had this been a sanctioned election and each candidates supporters voted in an election they believed was going to count (not to mention each candidate would have fully campaigned in)


    The rules explained (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    The best explanation that I've seen of the rules can be found here.


    Now maybe you don't consider the rules themselves to be fair, but that's a different matter.


    That's very well done... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    There were other names on the ballot.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    Please get your facts straight.  Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich were on the MI ballot.

    Obama, Edwards, and Biden(?) removed their names VOLUNTARILY.


    Jamal Simmons on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    summed up Obama's position (inadvertently, since he's in the tank for Obama):

    When asked why Obama shouldn't just seat the delegates and have their votes count, he replied that Obama "couldn't leave any doors open while he hadn't yet secured the nomination."

    This is called politics (3.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    There's no point in nitpicking this here. The two sides will come up with a compromise. Not because they want to, but because they have to.

    Unity ticket in 3, 2, 1....

    Jeralyn: (2.00 / 0) (#4)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    Why do you support the disenfranchisement - which results from counting the January results as-is -of the thousands of MI Dems who, after being told their vote in the Dem primary wouldn't count (including by Hillary), either stayed home or crossed over and voted in the GOP primary?

    mattt, you didn't just arrive here. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    Surely you know all the explanations by now.

    No, (2.00 / 0) (#11)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    I really don't.  I've seen a lot of spinning and rationalization, and attempts to weasel out of Hillary's own statements that the primary 'wouldn't count for anything,' but never anything approaching an explanation.

    What's to weasel out of? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    they said it wouldn't count for anything because the DNC said it wouldn't, so they did not think people would actually show up and vote.  When people did show up and vote, they realized that it meant something to people.

    I'm glad to have the Clinton team championing the cause, no matter how they came to see that it was important. Right is right.


    The basic answer is simple (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    For all the defects in the MI vote, it's the best representation of the will of the people that we've got. (And I'd argue it's still better as such a representation than any caucus -- when you put caucus results side by side with primary results from the same state, it's perfectly obvious how much the caucus result distorts the public's true sentiments -- typically by 30% or more, in this context).

    Again, Obama could easily have supported a less defective revote, but refused to do so. So you go with what you've got.


    good response, frankly0 (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:46:06 PM EST
    Too bad it seems to have been ignored.

    That's really a laugh. (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    Clinton compares FL/MI to Zimbabwe.

    Let's say some third world dictator used armed force to drive opposition voters away from the polls.  The international community would insist that results of the ensuing vote be thrown out.

    The dictator would very likely say something like: "For all the defects in the recent vote, it's the best representation of the will of the people that we've got."

    This anlogy is admittedly dramatic; Clinton is not Mugabe.  But any effort to count the results of a vote where only one candidate's name was on the ballot doesn't deserve to associate itself with the word "democratic."


    You know if you're (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    going to talk about absurd hyperboles, how about you bring up how Josh Marshall and John Kerry and every feverish supporter of Obama went into a moral tizzy once upon a time over how the Clinton campaign was supposedly interfering with the Nevada caucuses, declaring "every vote must count!" "Democrats always stand against voter disenfranchisement!" "This is just like Florida in 2000! The humanity!"

    And how many votes might even possibly have been affected by this supposed interference? Maybe one or two thousand?

    Funny how the same characters can't work up any emotion whatever about disenfranchising millions of voters in FL and MI.

    But hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does.


    Why do Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    keep saying that "only one name was on the ballot?"

    Is this mere ignorance or spin?

    Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because he removed it...but others did not and their names were on the MI ballot.

    Look it up.

    Adjust your argument.


    Maybe it's more like Bataan? (3.66 / 3) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    I'd address that question to (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    Obama, who did everything he could to run out the clock on revotes.

    Even (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    Michigan Dem leadership backed away from revotes, when it started to look like Clinton-sponsored pay-for-play.  

    I'd like to see a re-vote or caucus in MI, if a fair re-vote is impractical I'd like to see delegates awarded based on the current sentiment of MI voters:



    Pay-for Play??? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    LOL.  Votes are overseen and certified by people who I hope know what they're doing.

    Look, you can't just cherry pick a (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    poll and say that that's what should count, not least because polls are completely unreliable, as anyone following this race can see.

    By far the best way to handle it is to base it on the actual poll results in MI, and distribute the uncommitted portion to the various candidates based on exit polls (which at least catch a voter at the time they have made a hard decision about how they are going to vote).


    I meant (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    actual election results

    Polls are unreliable, (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    but at least both candidates were listed as options.

    Imagine if (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Evie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:04:37 PM EST
    one candidate demanded that his name be left off the poll and then argued that the only "fair" way to read the polls would be to give him 50% of the respondents.

    Matt, you're beginning to look like (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    a chatterer, dashing in to threads to raise questions discussed repeatedly here, dashing on to other threads to drop one-liners, etc.

    Do you have a contribution to make?  I don't see it.


    Those Michigan Dem (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    leaders might have been Obama supporters hmmmm?  Why do people insist on passing around untruths.  It might be better if the Michigan Obama supporter wasn't on youtube smirking over the fact that 'it's politics and when you're in the lead...'

    BTW the DNC approved using the soft money for this.  They didn't think it was 'pay to play' and Obama was offered soft money for his half and turned it away.  Link? use the search tool.  

    I wouldn't go by current sentiments if I was you.  If what is known about Obama now, was known 3 and 4 months ago, he would not be the nominee and he polls poorly next to Clinton.


    This thread is about FL (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by chancellor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    I don't see where MI enters into the conversation.

    Simple, it is al so simple (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cpa1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    Howard Dean and the DNC had no right to disenfranchise anyone.  That is like the Pope excommunicating the US for Roe v. Wade.

    Dean could have punnished the two states' delegations by logistical positionings but how can an organization that promotes voting, prevent the vote which in turn promotes a candidate that will lose.  If that is not a violation of the voting rights act, I don't know what is.  Pre-empting is as bad as throwing ballots away.


    Jeralyn's post (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by mattt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    mentions MI twice.

    The FL results have more legitimacy.  Still flawed, since neither candidate got to campaign and it was explicitly stated by the governing body that that the results wouldn't count, which surely led many voters to stay home.  But with both names on the ballot there is a plausible claim to some degree of legitimacy.

    The MI results should not count at all.


    So pretty much (none / 0) (#111)
    by suisser on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    let's set a system in which the candidate who is polling badly can opt out, thereby rendering that election void?  Is that what you want?

    MI voters (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    went to the polls in record numbers. There was a grass root strong campaign from the Obama side to make sure
    all his supporters voted uncommitted. Obama made a political play for Iowa that backfired.

    Your argument counting MI voters is disenfranchisement is absurd.


    My concern is that (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    his plan did not backfire.  He's absolutely gotten away with this.  Even now if all delegates get seated proportionally to the votes in January his plan worked -- it simply changed the entire narrative of the campaign, robbing Clinton of big wins early in the season and effectively allowing his campaign and the media to formulate the "Clinton will do anything to win" storyline, among many others.

    Disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Evie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    is not being allowed to vote or not having your vote count.

    People stay home during elections ALL THE TIME. They chose to do so. Enfranchisement is not about MANDATING people to out to the polls to vote.

    The Dems that crossed over got to vote and have their vote count albeit in the GOP primary. They are not disenfranchised either.


    Suppression (none / 0) (#119)
    by Knocienz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    But people aren't told that the election won't count that often. Or rather, when they do, and then folks go on to use those results, it is typically considered voter suppression.

    There is no good outcome here. On one side, you have a group who put out the message that the election would not be used to choose the nominee now arguing that it SHOULD be used (and that the folks that relied upon them in good faith have nobody but themselves to blame)i.e. voter suppression. On the other side, you've got a bunch of voters who had very minimal power to impact the nomination process i.e.voter disenfranchisement

    Both suck and I'm disappointed that the folks most responsible (The state parties) aren't being hammered at least as hard as the candidates.


    So, just to be clear... (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by pb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    If "[i]t's about giving 2.3 million voters who took the time to go to the polls and who did nothing wrong have their votes count in deciding our party's nominee", then surely that applies to the MI voters who didn't vote for Clinton, too, right?  So why not allocate a bunch of delegates who are "uncommited" but can't vote for Clinton at the convention?

    Presumably somebody has suggested that before, but I haven't seen it.  That seems like a real no-brainer.  Giving MI no representation at the convention disenfranchises all MI voters.  Letting "uncommitted" delegates vote for Clinton disenfranchises all of the people who didn't want to vote for Clinton.

    Michigan has already selected (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    their delegates.  There are already 'uncommitted' delegates, they are not undecided.  BTW in the exit polls, Clinton supporters did vote uncommitted.  Who knows why.

    Well, OK, but... (none / 0) (#116)
    by pb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    Hopefully you can see how that doesn't really answer my question.  The remaining issue is How are those delegates to be seated? My question is, why not seat all the delegates, but prohibit "uncommited" delegates from voting for Clinton?

    Is it true that BO skipped the (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    vote on the Vets Bill yesterday - even though he was in the Capitol...having his picture taken?

    Could he possibly be that dumb?

    Totally False (none / 0) (#42)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    Where do these rumors even begin? Both Clinton and Obama voted for Jim Webb's bill.   McCain missed the vote.

    He missed this vote (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    McCain, Obama, Coburn, and Kennedy (understandable, of course) missed this vote. I believe it was to strip timetables for withdrawal from the house bill. Clinton voted against as did most of the Obama boiz, like Kerry and Durbin. Some anti-war candidate that Obama is.

    He's useless even as a Senator (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    with one of the worst voting records in the Senate.  And he was in the Capitol but couldn't be bothered?  The long walk to the Senate chambers felt like the Bataan death march, maybe?  Tell that to the vets.

    didn't it take him a year to find (none / 0) (#97)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    the bathroom?  so what can you expect, past behavior and all...

    It certainly amounts to something (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    It amounts to an admission that the Magic Number should not be 2026 and that his claim of having a majority of the pledged delegates is inoperative.

    I am surprised you do not see those implications.

    If I were the Clinton campaign, that would be what I would be saying.

    Do you think the primary (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    Is over?

    But did he say that or even mean that? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    The magic number only comes into play if the delegates have full voting rights. "Participating" means what the listener wants it to mean. And the Harvard-trained lawyer, Obama, knows that. Just witness the screams of his followers claiming that the word "participate" in the famous pledge meant he was compelled to remove his name from the MI ballot. But that same word means something entirely different to them in FL where running ads and holding press conferences fall short of participation.

    Make him deny it (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    Impose on his words the meaning you want.

    This is politics people.


    If we only had a functional press corps (n/t) (none / 0) (#58)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    you project what you want onto the words (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    I'm so glad you pointed this out.  This is a major sales/public relations/marketing technique and the Obama campaign is famous for it at this point.  When words are ill defined that allows people to project onto that candidate what they personally believe that word means.

    For example, change.  It's never defined and because of that when people hear the word change, they believe what they mean by change is somehow what Obama means and that just is not the case at all.

    This has driven me nuts absolutely bonkers because this is such a powerful psychological or mass psychology well known manipulation, people just simply do not read the real policy positions, proposals and voting record behind the Obama candidacy.

    Literally voters will go into denial over what the real policy agenda is because they want to think that somehow a candidate has a personal connection with them, that somehow that candidates agenda has to be their agenda.  All that has happened is that voter projected what they desperately want onto a nebulously defined candidate and because things are never truly defined, it makes denial of policy positions and agendas the voter is actually against, harder to realize.

    The best example of these techniques are George W. Bush campaign in 2000.

    Is anyone aware that Robert Rubin is playing both sides of the field?  He endorsed Hillary but has two sons working for Obama?

    How come so many peole are charmed by the same tactics used to get people to spend over $4.00 a box for grains coated with high fructose corn syrup which sales people call breakfast?


    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    know but I'm with you 100%. Perhaps it's something that works with younger people but not older people like me.

    2025, 2210 (none / 0) (#91)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    Neither candidate gets the 'majic number', no matter which one you use.  At the end of the day, the pleadged delegates and SD's will be counted, and whomever has the most will win.  The majic number is irrelevant.

    The quotes you provided did NOT (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    establish that at all.
    There has been talk about "seating" the delegates for months---meaning they can vote  on matters outside of choosing the nominee.
    This is just doubletalk from Obama.

    Haven't they already (none / 0) (#6)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    admitted that? Ickes mentioned it yesterday in the conference call, didn't he?

    Axelrod was his source (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    today he has Barack Obama on the record.

    Which will have more resonance in your opinion?


    Aha! (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    I see what you're saying.

    A fine distinction, but one that could make a difference.


    Please prominently post your advice (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    to the Clinton campaign; seems to be helping, for which I thank you.

    they are smarter than you might think (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    If they saw my post I think they can put it together. Most times anyway.

    But does he think that (none / 0) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    the delegates should be seated BEFORE the nominee is chosen? And, even assuming he does, does he say anything that implies that they should be other than split 50-50? If not the latter, he may have moved the magic number, but the basic math is not in any way altered.

    That approach would be better than this one (none / 0) (#71)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out."

    Respectfully Disagree (none / 0) (#15)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    You wrote that the most important issue is:

    ...counting their votes and awarding delegates based on their votes BEFORE the nominee is chosen.

    According to Armando's blog entry, Obama stated that the delegation will be seated and a resolution reached within "10 days".  Since this will be months before the convention, it would appear your concerns are unfounded.

    I took the 10 Dayss as referencing (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    my 10 Days That Shake The Blogging Wworld! SNARK.

    Actually, I think he means the 5/31 hearing.


    Ha. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    If you're OK then (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    With this going to the convention, then fine.

    10 days is after the last primary (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    DId that (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by smott on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    ....de-affiliated from the Democratic Party last week. When I get my Indie card, I'm tearing up my Dem one and mailing it to Brazile with a note wishing her luck with her New Coalition.

    How does that make a difference? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Faust on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    As long as it is before the supposed "superdelegate primary." Do you think the results will affect the voting patterns of Puerto Rico, Montant and SD? Is that your concern here?

    Will be before the end (none / 0) (#36)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    I think Armando's interpretation is accurate.  Obama expects the resolution in place by 5/31 and before the Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico primaries.  If so, would your concern be mollified?

    That is only if.... (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    they are seated with full voting rights. If they are seated but without the right to vote on the nominee it is a sham.

    Obama's stand all along, and the DNC's, was that he would seat them only if their votes don't count towards determining the nominee. Although the words he uses now are different I do not see any shift in meaning or intent.  His previous stand is not excluded by this new rhetoric.


    Do DNC Rules Mean Anything? (none / 0) (#40)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    Everyone talks about being fair to MI and FL voters. I agree the MI and FL politicians who decided to move up their primary contrary to DNC rules were unfair to the voters in their state.

    And before you say FL Republicans pushed their date up - the vast majority of Democrats in the FL leglislature "supported" the earlier primary.

    of course, we all know Harold Ickes, key Clinton advisor, voted FOR these rules in August 2007 and now he is against them since FL and MI might make a difference in the nomination.

    But if we ignore the DNC rules that were constructed to satisfy IA, NH, NV and SC, then in 2012 it's a free-for-all.

    But that is not the point here - the point for "2008" is FL and MI violated DNC rules knowingly and now we say "Nevermind" that is OK.

    Of course if the shoes were reversed and Obama was behind and needed MI and FL to win, I am quite confident Harold Ickes would be fighting to ENFORCE the DNC rules (even as Terry McAculiff threatened Levin in 2004 when Terry was DNC chair and Levin talked of moving up MI's primary then and Terry said then MI would "watch the convention on TV".

    I have zero problems with political hardball.

    So Clinton needs MI and FL to count so she can use her popular vote argument with the supers. Fine.

    But don't say this is about MI and FL voters. This is entirely about helping Clinton win.

    Before you begin your comments about (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FLVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:39:00 PM EST
    Florida Democrats voting for the change in the primary date why don't you find out why.  BTW it is ALL ABOUT THE VOTERS.

    Rules, rules, rules (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:48:15 PM EST
    The rules have always allowed a re-vote and the same rules allow for seating/counting as is.  'Nevermind' is not a fact.

    Some of us think it is about voters.   Yes, Jeralyn supports Clinton.  No, she doesn't think the process is over and their are arguments for both candidates on who would be the best nominee.  

    Do you think possible Jeralyn and other Clinton supporters who will vote for Obama might also have some interest in how Obama handles issues so that he might win in November?  Apparently not.


    Not sure why you presume anything (none / 0) (#122)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST

    about what I think of Clinton supporters.

    If Obama is the nominee, I expect the vast majority of Clinton supporters to support Obama in November and visa versa.

    Both candidates have passionate supporters and both candidates supporters frequently are guilty of hyperbole to say the least.

    I am totally confident a fair compromise will be reach on MI and FL and both state's delegations will have voting rights at the convention in one fashion or another.

    I am also quite confident not 100% of Clinton or Obama suppoters will be happy with the compromise.

    And even as most Clinton supporters will vote for Obama in November or visa versa - to be sure, some Clinton suppoters will NOT support Obama in November and visa versa.

    Isn't democracy wonderful?


    Do DNC Rules Mean Anything? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Monda on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    "the ultimate rulers of our democracy are not the president, the senators, the members of Congress and government officials, but the voters of this country."

    By the great FDR.

    And the DNC rules are the worst than any third world country voting process.  It is argued about electoral college "if it ain't broken, don't fix it."  Well, the Democratic Party primary process is shattered, but we have to worry about "rulz".  


    Yep, some of these rules suck... (none / 0) (#123)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:07 PM EST

    and frankly I do not believe Iowa and New Hamshire should be guaranteed first shot out of the gates.

    But you cannot change the rules AFTER the game has started.

    If you or anyone do not like these rules, work now to change them for 2012 - and that includes the dreaded caucus states - work to force all states to have primaries if that is your wish BEFORE the campaign voting begins.


    B.S. DNC rules do not mean more (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    than democracy, and the DNC does not mean more than the country -- a country in which counting the votes matters, especially after the debacle of 2000 in one of the very states whose votes the DNC refused to count.  And that required that, late in the game, it changed its rules, which were a penalty of losing only half of the delegates.  

    And there is more to entirely negate your nonsense.  But you must know that.  If not, search archives.


    See my reply (none / 0) (#124)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:37 PM EST

    to the comment right above

    As I Said This Is About... (none / 0) (#121)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    which candidate benefits from changing the rules, NOT the voters.

    SOME of you may sincerely care about the voters, but my guess is the vast majority of those arguing for the voters are Clinton supporters.

    For the record, I am an Obama supporter and I AGREE 100% the DNC rules as written disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL. Absolutely!

    But Harold Ickes and others now arguing FOR the voters of these two states had their chance to argue for the voters back in August 2007 and chose not to. Why? Because Clinton was way ahead in the polls and the Clinton people figured a couple of renigade states would not matter.

    Now that it matters, suddenly Harold Ickes is a voter populist arguing for the voters.

    Once again, nothing wrong with fighting for your candidate, playing hardball. Harold Ickes IS doing his job even if he now looks like a hypocrite. I'd fire him if he was not doing what he is doing now.

    But let's call a spade a spade folks - this is all about what benefits the respective candidates (Clinton AND Obama) and not the "poor" voters of MI and FL.

    Remember, I agree this is unfair to the voters, but that is not the issue (at least for Harold Ickes and company).


    Jeralyn's point (none / 0) (#69)
    by PaulDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    If I'm getting Jeralyn's point, she is asserting that the Michigan delegation should be seated without the 55 uncommitted delegates being assigned to Obama since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.  Effectively this would mean that these delegates could vote for Clinton at the convention.

    If I'm getting the point, it means that Obama getting those 55 delegates would violate the spirit of "awarding delegates based on the vote".  On the other hand, allowing those delegates to vote for Clinton would somehow be a fair awarding of delegates based on the actual vote.  

    Nice trick there.

    Those delegates have already been chosen. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    A good number are Obama supporters, many claim to be still uncommitted. Some support Hillary. To say they are "pledged" to Obama only gives him a PR tool for psychological value. They are "pledged" to no one. But that doesn't mean they can't or wont declare before the convention.

    The way I understand it, at this point the delegation has been elected. The substantial decisions are if they are seated and if they get full or half votes. The labels are just for PR value.


    I sure someone else will chime in... (none / 0) (#86)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    but my understanding is that the delegates remain officially unassigned, and at the convention will probably vote for Obama (they are mainly his people anyhow, iirc). The only thing is changes is that if gives Clinton her delegates now -she earned them- and Obama his later -since they are officially uncommitted-.

    I don't think it's a trick at all.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#98)
    by PaulDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    My understanding is that among the "uncommitted" MI delegates selected there are a fair number of Clinton supporters, thereby increasing here delegate take beyond what her votes would warrant

    Obama, on the other hand, wants the ability fill these 55 delegate slots with his committed supporters to assure their votes for him at the convention.  

    That proposal, if I am correct, is the grave miscarriage of justice that bothers so many folks around here.


    That's delegate selection issues... (none / 0) (#109)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    Obama, on the other hand, wants the ability fill these 55 delegate slots with his committed supporters to assure their votes for him at the convention.

    I heard the opposite, that most of the unc delegates were Obama supporters, which is fine.


    On April 19th (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    Michigan filled the district delegates.  Obama won 31 of 36 uncommitted delegates with Edwards winning 2 and Hillary winning 3.  

    That has already been settled.  The remaining 19 at large delegates will be selected on June 7th with most likely similar results.

    In all likelihood Obama will receive about 50 of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan.


    Most of those delegates already are picked (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    and are Obama supporters.  So it's no trick on Obama.  It does deprive him of continuing to trick the media and thus the public by claiming more committed delegates than he actually would have -- although, with his track record of tricky stunts, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to try to do so.  Nor would I be surprised to see the media fall for it, as they are so gullible and easily fooled.

    It is enough for me that I am onto him -- and to supporters similarly suffering from what psychologists call transference.  Nice trick, yourself.


    Wait just a minute. (none / 0) (#100)
    by brooksie78 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    How do you square your view that the key is "counting their votes and awarding delegates based on their votes BEFORE the nominee is chosen" with the fact that Harold Ickes (and others) voted to strip those same delegates?

    It makes no sense....

    Perfectly sensible.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    they made a mistake by over-reacting and they can undo it.

    This is not rocket science but it is deadly dull and endlessly tedious.  (Ever take a statistics course?)


    Will it help though? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    But the question is: will a full seating change the results and put Clinton ahead?
    If seating them puts her ahead then it is very interesting and worth pursuing. If not then it seems she just wants to placate FL and MI but only in a trivial way.
    The Super Delegates know the results of each state - so it is not as if they would change their mind if suddenly MI and FL counted.

    Let's be honest (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    Current pledged delegate count.

    Obama - 1669.5
    Clinton - 1500.5

    Count if Florida and Michigan are seated as-is.

    Obama - 1728.5
    Clinton - 1678.5

    There are 86 remaining pledged delegates.  For Hillary to tie Obama she would need to win 75% of the remaining delegates, which is effectively impossible.  

    And those numbers don't even take the 55 uncommitted delegates, which have already been selected as Obama delegates.  Or the 18 Edwards delegates which have overwhelmingly endorsed Obama.

    So this has nothing to do with having their votes count.  It has to do with trying to convince the superdelegates to overturn the pledge delegate vote and the only way Hillary can do that is by painting things in the most absurdly favorable way imaginable.

    That's per one source (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    and it's closer per others; see greenpapers.com.

    And see history.  Stuff happens.


    Greenpapers (none / 0) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    is closer only because they wait for the official delegates selection process to be completed before assigning the delegates to a candidate.  That is why their numbers are well below the sources.

    Every other notable source is very close to each other.  

    When was the last time that the delegate leader in May was not the nominee?  

    Regardless the point stands that Hillary is trying to make an appeal to the supers and trying to massage the numbers to give her an unrealistic count.


    I entirely disagree (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    but then, I so often do entirely disagree with you and your "massaging" of so much in this campaign.

    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    what you are even disagreeing with.

    Do you disagree that Hillary needs to get the supers to predominantly vote for her in order to win or that she has almost no chance to win the pledge delegate count?

    A little clarity would be helpful.

    Oddly enough I don't massage anything.  I state the numbers.  The problem is that you don't like the numbers and prefer to believe that somehow some event is going to happen to propel Hillary to pledged delegate victory.


    Convention Plan (none / 0) (#106)
    by Manuel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    Is the DNC planning to have Hillary's name placed in nomination at the convention?  I would hope they are planning to do it no matter what.  FL and MI will be represented in the roll call and will cast their votes as agreed to on May 31.  Sometime in June, Obama (or less likely Hillary) will get enough super delegates to claim the nomination.  The only question is if Hillary will pursue a Kennedy 1980 strategy to get delegates to change their mind.  I can't see her doing that.
    Though it is more likely to happen if FL and MI are not resolved amicably.

    I don't think she will (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    I think she respects the Party far too much to engage in trench warfare.  

    I also don't think the party would allow it to happen.  If Obama achieves the requisite number of delegates, whatever that numbers is on June 1st, they will expect her to concede.  If she doesn't she would start to see serious defections among supers.

    Everyone is talking about 2000 right now but if Obama gets the magic number everyone will be talking about 1972.


    Still Phony Outrage (none / 0) (#114)
    by Nos on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    @ madamab:

    Yes, voters and state party people tried to resolve the issue with the DNC, with no real effort from the candidates.  Once again, no candidate stood up for Michigan or Florida when it counted.  It's phony outrage from the candidates and their surrogates.  

    @ pie:

    Yes, Senator Dodd and Congressman Kucinich were also on the Michigan ballot.

    I suppose if their presence on the Michigan ballot is fair enough for you to feel the Michigan primary was fair and gave an opportunity for full participation, we agree to disagree.

    And no comment about how Senator Clinton VOLUNTARILY said prior to the Michigan primary that it would not count for anything?  No comment about her agreeing upon that??  Nothing???

    Litigation Strategy as a Metafor (none / 0) (#118)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    I read this morning that Harold Ickes is arguing not only that the Michigan delegates should be seated, but that the "Uncommitted Delegates", most of whom have now been chosen and almost all of which have "pledged" to Barack Obama, should not be allowed to vote for Obama because his name wasn't on the ballot and therefore he didn't reach the 15% threshold to receive pledged delegates.

    This approach reminds me of what I watched a co-counsel do two weeks ago.  The case was a complicated environmental litigation that had been going on for years over development of the wetlands at the mouth of the Los Angeles River.  

    The developers and the City had won at the trial court level.  We appealed and won before the California Court of Appeal, which sent the case back to the trial court "for an order in conformance with this ruling."

    The developers' attorneys submitted their proposed order and we submitted ours.  My co-counsel (representing a different set of clients) wrote the brief and did the oral argument.  At the hearing, the judge said he was inclined to sign the developers' version of the order because we had not put citations to the (voluminous) record in our brief.  We asked if we could have time to submit a supplemental brief with the proper citations to the record.  The judge said he was inclined to give us 60 days to do so.

    At that point my co-counsel got up and got right in the judge's face.  Telling him that it wasn't our responsibility to put citations to the record in our brief, that it was HIS duty, as judge, to go through the 85 volumes of record and find the proper citations for his order.

    He looked at her in astonishment and quietly said that she had changed his mind, that he wasn't going to give us 60 days to submit a supplemental brief and that he was just going to sign the developers' order.

    We were finally able to convince the judge to give us a week to submit a supplemental brief, but it was a close call.

    Harold Ickes reminds me of my co-counsel.