home

What's Fair for Michigan and Florida

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:28:12 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's Richard E. Berg-Andersson of Green Papers who says he has no dog in this fight on the correct solution to seating Michigan and Florida:

On Michigan

[W]hat is fair is that 73 pledged delegates be seated for Mrs. Clinton and 55 be free to vote for whomever they might wish (after all, they are 'Uncommitted'!)-- for Michigan constitutionally set its Presidential Primary date as 15 January 2008 under State law, held said election- again, under State law. The voters who wished to do so, thereby, voted on that date and the results, if the rules set for all jurisdictions under Democratic Party national rules be applied, would be 73 Clinton/55 Uncommitted... period!

....To my mind, the Michigan Democratic Party has done both their Party and their State a disservice by being so willing to advance a 69/59 split (that, and they are also ignoring the fact that, in the end, it is not really their "call" anyway...

On Florida: [More...]

By being so willing to settle for "half a loaf" ....the Floridian branch of the Democratic Party is, likewise, selling out as, again, Florida's Presidential Primary was held - in this case, on Tuesday 29 January 2008 - under State law, the voters voted as they did, and the result was (and should be) 105 pledged delegates for Mrs. Clinton, 67 for Mr. Obama and 13 for former Senator John Edwards (who has, of course, since released his delegates and endorsed Obama [though his released delegates from Florida become, in effect, "uncommitted" and are under no obligation to follow Edwards' lead]).

After tomorrow, it's on to Puerto Rico.

< Fairness, Rules and Self-Interest | Saturday's Argument Schedule for Florida and Michigan >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What's Fair for Michigan and Florida | 197 comments (197 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    MI is a mess....overall I like what he has to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    say...just want this taken care of and move on to the convention...

    It's true (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    Reality is, these were the officially mandated primaries under Michigan and Florida law regardless of whether the DNC or anyone else said they wouldn't count for delegates.  The DNC could impose a 300% penalty and they would still be the legally held primaries of those states.

    When your state holds an election, my advice is to show up and vote, regardless of what anyone else tells you.  Including, but not limited to, "Republicans vote Tuesday, Democrats vote Wednesday."

    Misinforming voters (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:37:00 PM EST
    about the details of an election is the nastiest dirty trick in existence. And the Republicans do it every time. . .

    [ Parent ]
    20/20 hindsight (2.00 / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:51:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not at all. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    You either take your ability to vote seriously or you don't.

    I voted in MI.  So did my husband and a lot of other people I know who don't follow the blogs.

    No excuses.

    [ Parent ]

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:16:32 PM EST
    Me too, and all of my friends voted in MI, some of which never blog, and some who do not have a PC. If our state says we can vote, we all vote.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST
    Personally I have the same ethic, but as a rule, Democrats do not. We bend over backwards trying to make voting clear and easy and trying to keep misinformation at bay.

    That seems to have been tossed out the window here at the convenience of whomever is making an argument. Add a large dose of judgementalism and you get what I see here.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you objecting (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    to the "your vote won't count" argument?

    We bend over backwards trying to make voting clear and easy and trying to keep misinformation at bay.

    It was a primary.  A lot of Michigan voters went to the polls.  Almost 600,000 people went to the polls here.  I'm looking for numbers in other primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    2004 Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    It's listed as a caucus, but trust me - I went to the polls that day. We don't do "caucuses" in Michigan like you see in Iowa (that's just crazy!)

    I think in 2004, Michigan had something like 125,000 people turn out, so 600,000 was a terrific turnout (especially as Obama is arguing, we knew it would never count <snark>)

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for that info. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:24:55 PM EST
    And Hillary got 55% of that vote total.

    Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    MI voter here, too (none / 0) (#168)
    by janedw420 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    CNN reported the MAJORITY of Mi voters were Republican, possibly fueling the Limbaugh argument. I just eyeballed the returns...

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI

    [ Parent ]

    I am objecting to the (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:31:46 PM EST
    black and white judgementalism and dismissal of the argument that many stayed home because they thought the delegates would not be seated.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe I see where you're headed coigue (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:18 PM EST
    we've heard that argument before and I have to say it's the lamest of arguments.

    Much of life's outcomes are based on showing up. The outcome of elections is based entirely on showing up.

    Black and white judgement it is, participants in elections make the decision there is no gray area.

    If you are arguing that Obama or Edwards or Biden or Richardson voters stayed home and that the outcome is somehow not legitimate you are wrong in a legal sense and in a moral sense. Those four candidates forfeited and their forfeiture was for cynical reasons. It could be argued that some Clinton voters stayed home as well.

    There is no way of proving anything without evidence.  The only evidence available is that 600,000 people were actually interested enough to vote and 55% voted for Hillary Clinton, about 5% voted for either Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel and 40% voted Uncommitted.

    Participation is the rule in both life and elections. Awarding delegates to candidates who willfully withdrew is legally obscene and morally repugnant.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by tijeania on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:14:27 PM EST
    But I just don't know how you can preach about being 'morally right' when you refuse to even acknowledge that Obama would have never taken his name off the ballot if he wasn't told by the DNC that the election would not count.

    Your argument only holds up if everybody had perfect information. But they didn't. Nobody knew for certain how this would end up. Even now, today, nobody knows for certain. Much less on primary day in January.

    Obama was told the election would not count. Only after that did he take his name off the ballot. Only after that did he agree not to campaign in the state. Only after that did he agree to opening no offices and running no GOTV operation.

    Only after that did voters chose whether or not to vote in the Dem primary that they were told does not count, or to rather vote in the competitive GOP Primary featuring McCain against a "favorite son." Only after that did voter chose whether or not to stay home on a freezing Winters night or go stand in line to vote in a primary they were told didn't count.

    You cannot tell a candidate or a people that the election is of no consequence, then later treat it as legitimate.

    The metaphor "Fruit of a poisonous tree" applies here. (The metaphor itself, not the traditional exclusionary-clause meaning).

    All decisions made after it was ruled by official proceedings not to count are invalid.

    [ Parent ]

    Balderdash, Bu$hwa & Klaptrap (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by wurman on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    Nora McAlvanah, Huffington Post (link)

    Stripped of their delegates and access to candidates, Florida and Michigan held their primaries anyway. Barack Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot -- an argument his campaign will no doubt make this weekend in contending the election was invalid. But this was a strategic, albeit shortsighted, decision his campaign made.
    As it turns out, Michigan was not only punished, it was also pawned. According to several sources, Hillary Clinton was literally tricked into staying on the Michigan ballot by a last minute effort to embarrass the then-frontrunner before Iowa.

    Sources with Edwards, Dodd and Biden's campaigns-- speaking on the condition of anonymity-- said they discussed a plan, apparently floated by the Obama campaign, to privately tell Clinton's team they would remain on the ballot and at the last minute remove their names. Thus, Clinton would be the sole name on a renegade state's ballot. The lifeguards, of course, would not be pleased.

    Detroit News (link)

    Tuesday's move means not only will the candidates not make their pitch directly to Michigan, but the state's voters will not even have a chance to vote for many of them.

    Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who signed the bill setting the Jan. 15 primary date, said she was "very pleased that Sen. Hillary Clinton has chosen to keep her name on Michigan's presidential primary list.

    "I am deeply disappointed with the other Democratic candidates who chose to remove their names from Michigan's presidential primary ballot," she said.

    "There is no road to the White House that doesn't pass through Michigan, and Michigan voters will remember who chose to stay on the ballot and who chose not to."



    [ Parent ]
    I am arguing against (none / 0) (#184)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    the judgementalism I see here, nothing more.

    And one can make a hard decision without saying " we are deciding against you, iand it's your own damn fault" That lacks grace and, frankly, social skills.

    [ Parent ]

    Now now (none / 0) (#193)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:14 AM EST
    Awarding delegates to candidates who willfully withdrew is legally obscene and morally repugnant.

    And pretending an election that voters were told didn't count and in which candidates agreed not to participate was a legitimate election is not?

    Why are you (and others) acting as if what these candidates "willfully withdrew" from was anything but a spoiled election? How can you pretend that it was a valid election and should be taken at face value?

    [ Parent ]

    If they stayed home (none / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    because of that, well, I have nothing to say that supports that attitude.

    Frankly, for you to think voters care about delegates is pretty funny.

    [ Parent ]

    they stayed home because that is (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    what most potential voters do now.

    [ Parent ]
    I could also use as an excuse not to vote (none / 0) (#188)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    in sunday's primary in PR the "conventional wisdom" that Obama is going to take the nomination anyway. Whatever slim chance there is that my vote may make a difference, I show up to vote. I even show up to vote when I know for sure it will not make a difference. The right to vote is precious. Exercise it! Think of the millions and millions throughout the world that do not get that right.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you objecting (none / 0) (#86)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    Per Mich.gov. This primary was the third largest turnout in Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    No. All I want is (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    for people to recognize that some voters will be disenfranchized no matter the outcome here and that that is lamentable...NOT a reason to get all judgemental.

    [ Parent ]
    obama (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by isaac on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    disenfranchised his own voters

    [ Parent ]
    Here's something to chew on (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:51:53 PM EST
    Can you prove or provide any kind of evidence that supports the notion that more people who would have voted for Obama stayed home than those who would have voted for Hillary.

    Basic statistics says that, unless otherwise proven, the proportions stayed home as came to vote for each candidate.

    If Obama wants more than what that alludes to, he'd have to provide evidence that more of his supporters stayed home, shouldn't he?

    [ Parent ]

    we could save ourselves the parsing (none / 0) (#192)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:12 AM EST
    and the woulda coulda shoulda, and have a revote,

    Obama CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT. On that basis alone

    Hillary should be given some flexibility her way.

    It would be a reasonable solution. To
     Obama its all about him winning, to hell with the voter.

    I hope this doesn't get overlooked. seriously. Its an important step. We would be over this argument already and all would be satisfied. But no. Obama didn't want the results to show him losing which he would have done -- big.

    [ Parent ]

    Not much to chew on (none / 0) (#194)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:40:19 AM EST
    Fact of the matter is, we don't know whether more people who would have voted for Obama stayed home...

    ... or whether more people who would have voted for Clinton stayed home...

    ... or what would have happened if the candidates had campaigned.

    We just don't know.

    It was a spoiled election that for some reason is now supposed to, in some way, count.

    [ Parent ]

    Disenfranchise (none / 0) (#119)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:06:04 PM EST
    Main Entry:
        dis·en·fran·chise Listen to the pronunciation of disenfranchise
    Pronunciation:
        &#716;dis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
    Function:
        transitive verb
    Date:
        1664

    : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

    [ Parent ]

    ok bad choice of words (none / 0) (#199)
    by coigue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    some voters were "had" , and my point was merely that they should be afforded the dignity of their situation being recognized w/o harsh judgement.

    Am I clear now?

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    They were the legally constituted primaries of those states and no one had the authority to declare otherwise.

    Whether they would count for delegates was, of course, up in the air.  That doesn't change the fact that those were the legal primaries.

    Incidentally, every major newspaper in Florida encouraged Democrats to get out and vote because of the possibility that the results would end up counting in some fashion.  That's definitely the smarter course.  But either way, when an official election comes around there's no excuse for not voting.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    I've been asking this all along. What kind of savvy politician would leave their name off one ballot, especially when four other candidates remained on it? That would be the day I'd take a chance of missing out because I didn't put my name on a ballot. There are 50 states. What, we're just going to leave one off in the end? How inept.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#182)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    all i am asking for is consideration for those who lose out. It's not just one of the candidates, it's also people like that guy's wife...yes she made a mistake, but why come down so hard without any sensitivity and with so much judgement?

    [ Parent ]
    what about long lines (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    and too few voting machines? What about if you don't have an ID?

    No excuses? Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

    I cannot even see the moral highground from where your position is.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the original comment was some man's (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    wife didn't vote because she thought it wouldn't count...she chose not go vote...wasn't because of long lines or not enough machines, or no ID...and the consensus is you should just go vote no matter what anyone tells you.

    [ Parent ]
    believe what you want (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    but I am responding to this comment:

    when an official election comes around there's no excuse for not voting.

    Are we that black and white that we cannot even lament that some people made the grave error of believeing that their votes wouldn't count?

    Are we so partisan that we cannot at least say, I am sorry that happened, but we have to decide somehow?

    Do we have to just justify the decision by making snide prissy remarks like " too bad, you should vote no matter what"?

    Really?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    maybe there ARE excuses for not voting.  This person's wife didn't exercise any of them.

    She said "her vote wouldn't count" in the primary, so she didn't vote.  Apparently the other ballot measures were unimportant to her.  

    It was her choice IN THIS CASE not to vote.


    [ Parent ]

    None of that was reported (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    as occurring in the Michigan primary, from what I saw here, elsewhere, etc.  If you have evidence of voter suppression, pls. provide -- although, of course, that does not invalidate elections . . . or we could have President Gore, President Kerry, etc.

    And how does voter suppression, votes not cast, devalue the moral high ground to count the votes cast?

    [ Parent ]

    I was responding to Steve M 's comment (none / 0) (#79)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    when an official election comes around there's no excuse for not voting.

    This sort of black and white response does nothing to acknowledge that whereas we do need to compromise, we also should understand that some voters may be hurt by it.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you arguing (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    that this was a problem in the MI primary?

    Do you have verification for that?

    [ Parent ]

    see my response to Psst. (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:38:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Methinks it's right in front of you (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Lysis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    But you have no idea what the moral high ground actually looks like.

    Here's a hint.  Stand where you are and look up. High, high up.

    [ Parent ]

    because i did what that was so immoral? (none / 0) (#80)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    Hmmm?

    [ Parent ]
    What about long lines (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    If you truly want to vote, you wait in those long lines like the rest of us. I live in a district in MI that has only 8 voting machines, and one touch screen. If you've voted enough in the past, you know when it is and isn't too crowded and slide in then if you can. Otherwise get in there before work or wait afterward.

    As far as ID, even senior citizens know to get a legal ID when they no longer have driver's licenses. Just three years ago, I renewed my passport using my own camera photo. Here is a list of acceptable ID's in FL.

    U.S. Passports
    Debit/Credit Cards
    Military ID's
    Student ID's
    Retirement Center ID's
    Neighborhood Associations ID's
    Public assistance ID's

    Be responsible for yourself and quit whining.

    [ Parent ]

    Again (none / 0) (#84)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    that's not traditionally the stance on voting for the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't have to show any ID. (none / 0) (#146)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    Who shares the blame here?

    [ Parent ]
    not my point (none / 0) (#180)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:30 PM EST
    sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    You misunderstand me (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    That's not what I was saying.  I'm speaking more in the sense of what I would teach my kids than what our official policy should be.  Obviously we should try to make voting as straightforward and confusion-free as possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately, the more muddled (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    "they" keep things, the more "they" can manipulate everything. It's always been like that, but this year, it seems to have gone beyond that. I think there really is something in the "kool-aid"

    [ Parent ]
    sorry Steve M (none / 0) (#183)
    by coigue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:07:56 PM EST
    It's just that in general there was a pile-on of judegment of those who decided not to vote and I thought it was very out of character for Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    But if the governing body of the election (none / 0) (#190)
    by knowshon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:07 AM EST
    says the vote will not count, and the candidates agree, how can it be called 'official'.  If people are told by the Party that their votes will not be recognized, how can they be faulted for not voting?  

    'Legal' primaries?  I just held a household primary which violated no law.  My wife voted for Hillary bc she watched a Sex in the City premiere show, which I anticipated she would.  But my two cats voted for O bc they ate the wet food b4 the dry.

    The fact that the media told them to vote is a flimsy reason to justify the ultimate result.  They have still yet to be recognized as a branch of government or as a guiding force for political parties.

    [ Parent ]

    "Up in the air"? (none / 0) (#195)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:45 AM EST
    Whether they would count for delegates was, of course, up in the air.

    Umm, no. They would not count. That was the state of things at the time, not "we don't know if they will or won't count".

    [ Parent ]

    Will the number of delegates needed to clinch (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    change tommorrow? Or will the media continue to claim Obama needs 2026?

    the general consensus (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:42:46 PM EST
    is that the number will change.  All we know is that it will go up, we will know the number after the hearing tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    CNN's Crowley doesn't get this, even now (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    as she just reported again that even if Clinton gets all the MI and FL votes cast for her, Obama still is within only blah blah (40 something) votes of the number needed blah blah.  Such nonsense -- she is a senior political reporter for the world's best political network blah blah, and she still doesn't get that if even half of the FL and MI delegates are approved tomorrow, the total needed goes up by at least 100 -- and puts Obama that much farther from the goal?

    Crowley's reporting has been so bad on this campaign.  Another I used to respect, until just reading blogs made me better at this than she is.

    [ Parent ]

    i just turned her off fast. it was either (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    that or throw something at the tv. how can that woman hold a job? don't tell me, it would just make me madder.

    [ Parent ]
    Too many powdered donuts ;-) (none / 0) (#177)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On one of the earlier threads, I believe it was (none / 0) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST
    stated neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates...all up to the SD's, which won't really count until the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    And I am really looking forward to the PR (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    results...VIVA HILLARY!!!

    So am I, and (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:42:47 PM EST
    next time I have el dinero and tiempo for a vacation in the sun, that's were I come Puerto Rico!

    Put my money were my mouth is: VIVA HILLERITA

    [ Parent ]

    It Looks So Beautiful....the people are (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    beautiful and loving...And most important of all....there are many, many, many Hillary supporters there.

    [ Parent ]
    "Most important of all...." (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:23:45 PM EST
    you can't possibly really mean that, can you?

    Thank the sun god we vote by secret ballot...that's creepy.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, not if unions have their way** (none / 0) (#191)
    by knowshon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    nm

    [ Parent ]
    sorry I am not as sneaky as obamatrolls... (none / 0) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    We want Hillary to win and all votes for her are important in my book....GO HILLARY!

    [ Parent ]
    I say.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:33:34 PM EST
    all votes are important, no matter who for.

    Go Liberty, Equality, Justice!  

    Monkeywrench in '08!

    [ Parent ]

    So am I, and (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    next time I have el dinero and tiempo for a vacation in the sun, that's were I come Puerto Rico!

    Put my money were my mouth is: VIVA HILLERITA

    [ Parent ]

    That would net Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    111 delegates.  Jesus.  I can't believe FL is sellling out and Michigan is forwarding that ridiculous proposal.

    I believe Jeralyn has said this already (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:59:55 PM EST
    and I agreed with her then, and I agree now.

    What's Fair for MI and FL (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    As a Michigander, I like what this man has to say. I'm sick about giving Obama more than he's due. He's robbed enough delegates from all the caucuses as is. What really burns me up is that he passed on two chances to be on the ballot in MI and now wants an unfair stake in it?

    Hey folks, open thread comments closed but wanted (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:06:04 PM EST
    to say the Pfleger story is wall to wall on CNN Headline News right now.  Seriously.  I've seen it like five times in a the last hour.  

    Just now there was new footage of McCain denouncing Obama's comments.  The consensus:  It brings up the Wright controversy again.

    Last night Anderson Cooper actually covered the Alice Palmer story in some depth.  Wow.  Is the MSM worm starting to turn...?

    The next story is the "white women" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    one, about Obama's favorability among white women dropping 14 points since March....

    But just now they showed an "electoral map" supposedly showing Obama up over Clinton in various states - none of them large swing states - and then a map of Clinton over Obama against McCain.

    Their numbers looked A LOT different than those being reported by RCP or Pollster.com.  I really wonder where they get this stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    Difference is McCain entered into it (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:44:20 PM EST
    If it were just Hillary complaining it would get zero air time. This is the second time, at least, that McCain has saved a Hillary-bashing-by-Obama story from going down the memory hole.

    [ Parent ]
    You realize that Obama has spoken (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    out against McCain bashing yet has not once defended Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Eleanor....this WORM should be spinning by (none / 0) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    now.  Are we to believe the msm is seriously doing their job?

    [ Parent ]
    Campbell Brown is going to introduce us to (none / 0) (#78)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:36:47 PM EST
    Pflueger tonight at 8 p.m. EST...

    And did I just see obama is pushing an amnesty agenda?  Since when?  I would guess since he has had a problem with the hispanic vote...and Richardson was out there with him...wanna bet who wants to be VP?

    [ Parent ]

    amnesty huh? i predicted that already. (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    the aa community has never been in favor of that. oh well, more buses i guess.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly what i was thinking eleanor. (none / 0) (#134)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Another issue with Michigan... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by JustJennifer on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM EST
    the Dems who crossed over to vote for Romney.  I don't agree with doing this for any reason but I have heard they are complaining now.

    That goes back to (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    too bad - they made a choice to vote in the Republican primary and their votes legally counted - for the Republicans.  They don't get to vote 2 times.

    [ Parent ]
    they should sue Kos. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I remember when Olbermann mentioned it on TV (none / 0) (#179)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I get all my info on Olbermann here! (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:28:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, that was before he did the Hillary rant (none / 0) (#187)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:03 PM EST
    I stopped watching Countdown after that, too.

    [ Parent ]
    I was just going to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:23:17 PM EST
    mention that.

    Guess they didn't get the memo about voting uncommitted.

    Nice to see voting being taken seriously.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeh, just like their candidate (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    when he pushed the wrong button in the Illinois legislature, again and again and again and . . . he got do-overs.  Nuh uh, no do-overs in the polling booth.  If the idjits voted for Romney, they must bear the shame of it forever.  And shame, it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Choices Have Consequences (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    Too bad they made the wrong decision. Why should the voters who voted for either the candidates on the ballot or for uncommitted be penalized because some voters chose to play games with their vote?

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever gets Obama elected? (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by dianem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    No, actually, by that standard it would make more sense to count them. Except that a lot of voters who aren't watching the Florida/Michigan debate are paying close attention to the delegate count, and they won't be as impressed if Obama doesn't win by a significant margin. Things are already a bit too close for comfort. It's hard to argue that Obama is the unqualified winner when Clinton got nearly 50% of the vote. "Frontrunner" takes on an entirely different meaning when the race is this close.

    The only fair way of settling this would be to count Florida, declare a virtual tie, and create a joint ticket by pulling one name out of a hat. That won't happen, because, in spite of Clinton's success at pulling in votes, the DNC is terrified of the "Clinton Effect" diminishing their chances of winning in the fall, while they are hungry for all of the new voter's that Obama has promised them. I believed the Clinton effect would disqualify her until I watched her run such a classy campaign and win so many states. But Obama fans really believe the press releases about her being a racist monster who will destroy the party.

    you forgot about the (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cpinva on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    But Obama fans really believe the press releases about her being a racist monster who will destroy the party.

    sacrificing of babies and slaughtering of virgins, to bathe in their warm blood!

    this raises an interesting question: what will these people do, when it turns out that sen. obama (like most of us mere mortals) has feet of clay? will special counselors be made available, to help them recover?

    truly, some of these people remind me of cult members, which i'm pretty certain (at least, i think i am) isn't what sen. obama had in mind when he started.

    [ Parent ]

    then let the obama supporters grow up. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    let them get out there and gather more real information. if they still want to support their candidate in a civil manner, i say fine. go for it. if they want to opine on what a mean devil hillary is, then i don't care to listen to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Cultists (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    "isn't what sen. obama had in mind when he started"

    I'm not so sure. Votes are votes and maniacal supporters can be useful.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps, cpinva, this is what (none / 0) (#102)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    Obama had in mind? Scary, huh!! UGH

    [ Parent ]
    Happy to read this (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    First of all, I'm glad somebody is calling out this 69/59 stuff as total b.s.  It makes no sense.  

    As for uncommitted, well, to Obama I say, hoisted by your own pitard.  Why everyone has to acknowledge his little gambit, I don't know.  What is clear is a primary happened, and the same number of delegates as usual should go.  Unusually, some will go as "uncommitted."  Delegates are just representatives.  We know how little and how inaccurately they reflect the states they represent.  The delegates given to uncommitted, they should go to the convention uncommitted - they're delegates after all.  That's when they actually commit.  They can do as they please anyway, as the recent pledged delegate of Hillary's who defected to Obama shows masterfully.

    Why must this party go head over heels to reward Obama for a dumb political ploy?

    I can't even begin to imagine.. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by JustJennifer on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    the absolute uproar from the Obama camp if they didn't get any delegates from Michigan and Clinton got all of her's.  Oh my.  That would almost be hilarious and painful at the same time.

    I'm hoping he gets stripped of his FL (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:29:24 PM EST
    AND MI delegates. Well, he doesn't have any MI delegates, of course, and he should be stripped of his FL delegates for campaigning and  advertising in FL.

    [ Parent ]
    it is called growing up and facing reality. (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:25:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They voted for Hillary, she should get the votes (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Sunshine on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:38:41 PM EST
    Nobody voted for Obama in MI. so he shouldn't get and votes...  He took his name off the ballot not to get any votes, so he gets none...  In FL, it should be counted as voted...   This whole campaign, Obama has been getting votes through loopholes and now he wants to do it some more... He's as good at dirty tricks as Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, he just looks better doing it... Here in Texas Hillary got the most votes but Obama got as many deligates by overpowering the Clinton deligates in the caucus...  Hillary didn't train us (I was a deligate) in dirty tricks but Obama's group sure knew a few....  I think the SD's want to go to the convention, that will give them a little more time to try to figure out who Obama really is...

    Think about it (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Sunshine on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST
    The DNC is trying to figure out how many of Hillary's votes to give to Obama...

    Obama won't agree to this (3.66 / 3) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    Let's remember that despite what Clinton supporters may want, Obama and his supporters have other ideas. It's highly unreasonable to award delegates to Clinton from this essentially illegal election while Obama gets none before the convention. He won't agree. What's the point of continuing to propose this "solution?" If he does not agree in won't happen. Period.

    you know what? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    I think its time for Clinton to play hard ball.  She's been accused by the Obama campaign --and Obama herself -- of being divisive, and the media has treated her as if she were.

    Its time for Clinton to stop being all nicey nice, and GET divisive.  Tell the DNC that they have two choices -- she's the nominee, or she's running as an independent.  That she will not tolerate the kind of treatment she has gotten from the DNC, or the kind of crap that the Obama campaign has pulled while the DNC watched silently.

    Personally, considering how toxic Obama will be, I think she can win as an independent.

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama can't run as an independent? (1.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    She can't blackmail the DNC into giving her the nomination. It would never work and would destroy her political career.

    [ Parent ]
    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:37:20 PM EST
    I think she'd beat both Obama and McCain.

    Besides, your bloggers keep saying that by staying in the race, she's already destroyed her political career and certainly the DNC is her enemy.  What would she have to lose by running as an independent?  Tell me, what does she have to lose, really lose, by running as an independent?

    Answer, nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    This is delusional (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
    she would play a spoiler role only. She would only run as an indie to damage Obama, nothing more. She will lose badly to both McCain and Obama, but she will siphon most of her votes from Obama. This would only guarantee a McCain victory, as well as guarantee the destruction of Hillary's reputation and political future.

    [ Parent ]
    You've been threatening Hillary's future (none / 0) (#181)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    for weeks now.  Get back to your game of follow the loser.

    [ Parent ]
    qwatz (3.00 / 0) (#13)
    by 2liberal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    how is this solution fair to MI voters who wanted to vote for Obama?

    and who would choose the 'uncommited' delegates - i understand the governor of the state is a Clinton supporter.

    Were the delegates chosen during the primary election?  If so are their preferences known?

    they chose Uncommitted (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by ccpup on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:58:45 PM EST
    because Conyers and other Obama surrogates begged them to do so!

    Which, to most reasonable people, would constitute campaigning ... yet another instance of Obama promising one thing publicly and doing another in the dark, shadowy shadows.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    I heard the radio spots, it was in the newspapers, it was on billboards, it was on all the TV networks - vote uncommitted if you wanted to vote for Obama (yes, his name was specifically mentioned)

    [ Parent ]
    Don't blame the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by DWCG on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:04:46 PM EST
    Blame Obama.  Obama wasn't fair to his own voters by taking his name off the ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    they've had the option for month to do (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:27:13 PM EST
    something meaninful about this. what have they done? they let brazile run her mouth along with dean. then here come the senatorial group for obama. i call that doing nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Qwatz (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    Michigan voters who wanted to vote for Obama should have been asking way back then why they couldn't check the "Other" category that appeared along with "Uncommitted." Everyone here knows that is where the voter can write in the candidates name and be more specific.

    It's because Obama again chose not to fill out the paperwork as a write-in candidate, which he still could have done just 10 days before the primary.

    He missed not one but two chances to be on MI's ballot. It isn't like Hillary was the only one on there either. She had Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich for company. Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden stayed off.

    I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

    [ Parent ]

    didn't "stay off" (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    they purposely "TOOK OFF" their names from the ballot. why is it so hard for the obama followers to understand that he and he alone took away their option(s) to vote for him? and, obama's claim to delegates in michigan is SHAMEFUL.

    i have left the democratic party for good - FOREVER - because of the gaming, the manipulation, the dirty tricks of the party leaders in this primary season. not to mention their allowing sen. clinton to be so horribly maligned and slandered with nary a peep of protest. in a sane world, fla and mich would be fully seated with the leaders banned from the convention, obama gets nothing from michigan for not being on the ballot, and nothing from florida for campaigning there. unfortunately, there's been nothing sane about the whole process.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess Kucinich didn't get the memo about how (none / 0) (#45)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    against the rulz it was to keep his name on the ballot.  But then, he never takes an ethical stance.

    [ Parent ]
    Good one:)... (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:25:24 PM EST
    when you are as victimized by media bias as much as Dennis Kucinich, you take whatever measly votes ya can get.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess Kucinich (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by melro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:44:25 PM EST
    What about Dodd? He was on the ballot in MI, and has endorsed Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    Kucinich did try to take his name off the ballot, but his incompetent campaign bungled the paperwork and he was forced to stay on.

    [ Parent ]
    its not fair to you.... (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:52:23 PM EST
    but the guy you wanted to vote for took his name off the ballot.

    I would have liked to have voted for Al Gore here in Pennsylvania.  But his name wasn't on the ballot, so I voted for Hillary.

    Your preferred candidate decided that YOUR vote was less important to him that the vote of someone in Des Moines.  That his fault, not the DNCs, and its not their job to fix it for you.

    [ Parent ]

    Best yet (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Sunshine on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:08:21 PM EST
    You have to be on the ballot to get votes...   You say it best...

    [ Parent ]
    The uncommitteds are already elected (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    Obama supporters, and Hillary's, showed up at the county conventions to run for the uncommitted slots. My understanding is that most have gone to Obama supporters. Some are still officially uncommitted. Some are UAW members who are waiting for the UAW to endorse, if they ever do, before declaring. Don't worry, Obama has been playing the game all along in MI and will get, at a minimum, his share of delegates. Nobody begrudges him that. But the push to steal some of Hillary's delegates, or to "award" him the uncommitteds is what is crossing the line.

    [ Parent ]
    You want to talk fair (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    Another astoundingly lame point.

    2liberal, Obama took his name off the ballot.  If his supporters want to complain they should direct their complaints to Obama. Just as Edwards, Richardson and Biden supporters should address their respective candidates.

    Uncommitted means just that, uncommitted.  Preference is opposite uncommitted.  I would suggest you pick up a dictionary.

    The Uncommiitted delegates were selected at Congressional district conventions in April and what does Jennifer Granholm's support of Clinton have to do with anything?

    [ Parent ]

    How was it fair to MI voters ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:56:14 PM EST
    who wanted to vote for Obama?

    I think that's something you need to take up with Obama.

    He's the one wh