What's Fair for Michigan and Florida

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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. . .

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


    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.



    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.


    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.


    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>)


    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.



    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...



    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.

    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.


    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."

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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"?



    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.


    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?


    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.


    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?


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


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

    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.


    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.

    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?

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

    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.

    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"

    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.

    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.


    "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".


    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    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


    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.

    "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.


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

    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!

    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!


    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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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?


    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.

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

    they should sue Kos. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    I remember when Olbermann mentioned it on TV (none / 0) (#179)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    I get all my info on Olbermann here! (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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

    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.

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


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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)

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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...

    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.

    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?


    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 who chose to take his name off the ballot.


    Michigan primary was NOT a fair election (2.33 / 6) (#41)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    I'm an independent voter from Michigan and from the beginning I supported both candidates. I think both Hillary and Obama would make excellent nominees.

    One of the cornerstones of our democracy is that we have open, free, and fair elections.

    Unfortunately, because of a series of screwed up circumstances, the simple fact is that our primary was totally flawed and was in no way a fair, democratic election.

    I simply can not see how a reasonable, fair-minded person, who believes in our basic democratic principles, can possibly claim that the results of our primary should be used in any way.

    It's clear that if we'd had a real election, the results would have been totally different.

    In addition, it seems very dishonest to me that the Clinton camp completely changed its position once they started losing ground. Prior to the primary, Hillary said our primary "would not count for anything". Ickes voted for the sanctions that stripped Michigan of its delegates. And MacAuliffe said to Carl Levin, our senator, "Carl, take it to the bank. They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

    You DID have a REAL election. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM EST
    What on earth are you talking about?

    Yes. Quit feeling sorry for yourself and (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    feel sorry for those people in states that had caucuses where a few thousand activists decided the candidate for millions of other people in the state.

    what's unfair about caucuses (none / 0) (#52)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:21:44 PM EST
    They are open to everyone.

    So were your polling places (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:24:09 PM EST
    -- so you just negated your argument above against counting the votes from the legal, valid primary.  Thanks for saving us the trouble of going through this again, and again, and again. . . .

    Open polls does not mean the election was fair (2.33 / 3) (#77)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST
    You're being illogical. They had open polls in the old soviet union too, but that doesn't mean their elections were fair.

    The election was not a fair, democratic electon because:

    • all the names were not on the ballot.
    • the candidates were not allowed to campaign.
    • the voters were told that the results would be meaningless, by both the DNC and Hillary.

    See (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:46:13 PM EST
    this is what I don't get about Obamabots.  Just because you keep saying that it wasn't fair because Obama didn't have his name on the ballot doesn't make it true. I realize that you are taking a play out of Bush's book when you do that ("keep repeating something and the public will eventually buy it), but you are in a place where people have research skills, are smart enough not to believe you, and have proven you wrong even before you made your tired point.

    But if it makes you feel good - keep trying!  :)


    but you are ignoring the reason behind this (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    The whole reason that the candidates were asked to sign the pledge to not participate or to campaign was to support the DNC decision that the Michigan primary was not valid.

    Actually, I support Hillary.

    But I strongly believe our primary was totally flawed and it would be our mockery of our democracy to count it.

    So my support is not blind. It's quite clear that she and her top advisors completely changed their position on our primary when it became inconvenient.


    it just amazes me that some posters (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    on here rally behind obama and his supporters and yet they claim to have voted for hillary. i see nothing complimentary about her. they never come to her defense when she is being treated in the worst manner i have ever seen a candidate. and yet they say they support hillary. some support, some vote!

    Small correction (none / 0) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:20:43 PM EST
    I have noticed several new people keep adding the word 'participate' to the pledge in error.  Amazing how that happened all of a sudden isn't it.  Seems like people are trying to provide cover for Obama conspiring with the other candidates to pander to the other states and negate Clinton's win in MI.

    The pledge involved campaigning.  Which, BTW Obama violated in FL.


    I don't believe that's correct (none / 0) (#189)
    by shadow on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:17:29 AM EST
    In most news articles I read, I believe it specifically said "campaign or participate".

    I just googled and found a copy. It's interesting that it also includes the rationale.

    Four State Pledge Letter 2008
    Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
    August 31, 2007
    WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
    2008 nominating calendar;
    WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
    diversity of our party and our country;
    WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
    nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
    presidential nominee;
    WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
    the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
    nominating calendar.
    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
    election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
    Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
    rules and regulations of the DNC.


    No, your candidate was manipulative (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    and finally, that is becoming clear to more than only those of us here.  So much for your first point.  He broke it, he bought it.

    And your candidate also did not campaign in Guam, or American Samoa -- or even West Virginia, even though he was allowed to do so.  So much for your second point.  He blew it, he bought the bad numbers for him.

    As for your third point, a Washington voter addresses that best below.  And as for your trying to bring in caucuses when the topic here is states in which there were primaries, not caucuses -- just stop your thread-hijacking.  You could learn a lot by listening, by reading here including archives . . . and only then, typing.


    But.. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by JustJennifer on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    here is the kicker.  I live in Washington state.  We held a "doesn't count for anything primary" a few days after the caucus.  People still voted in the primary - a heck of a lot more than participated in the caucuses, even knowing that it wouldn't count.  For my precinct - 27 people showed up.  That's it.  

    I think there was a ton of confusion about how the process works in this state.  Just having a caucus is one thing but having both (like my home state of Texas - even worse there!) is fubar.


    We did NOT have a real election (3.00 / 4) (#65)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:28:37 PM EST
    1. All the candidates signed a pledge saying that they would not campaign or participate.
    2. No candidates campaigned here.
    3. Hillary was the only major candidate on the ballot.
    4. At the polling places the voters were explicitly told that the results of the democratic primary would not count.
    5. Prior to the primary, even Hillary said our election "would not count for anything".

    If we'd had real election, the results would have been totally different. Remember that before the campaign started, Hillary had a huge advantage, mostly because of name recognition.

    Like I said before, I like both Hillary and Obama. Unfortunately, our election was a joke. If you honestly believe in open, free, and fair elections, you would not count the results of our primary.


    It was certified by the Secretary of State (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    That's about as real as it gets.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM EST
    1. All the candidates signed a pledge saying that they would not campaign or participate.This did not mean their names wouldn't be on the ballot.

    2.  No candidates campaigned here.So - most years, candidates don't campaign in most states.  They still hold elections.

    3. Hillary was the only major candidate on the ballot.Yes, because Obama VOLUNTARILY removed his name to play games - not because of a pledge.

    4. At the polling places the voters were explicitly told that the results of the democratic primary would not count. No.  If everyone thought they really wouldn't count, Obama wouldn't have worked so hard to get his supporters to vote "uncommitted", nor would the media have pushed voters so hard to go vote.

    5. Prior to the primary, even Hillary said our election "would not count for anything".Again, so what? Obama said he would work to seat Florida. What's your point?

    I'm very serious (3.00 / 2) (#123)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    Hey, cmugirl. Thanks for the detailed reply. Unlike some others, you did respond to my specific points.

    I sense neither of us will change the others mind here. As a voter who takes our democracy very seriously, I honestly believe that our primary was so flawed that it should in no way count.

    As an independent who supports both Hillary and Obama, I feel like I have a fairly objective view here (although I'm sure everyone posting here thinks they're objective). By any chance, do you favor one candidate over the other? Is there any chance that it is affecting your viewpoint on the election?

    To me, if the DNC declares the election results will not be used and the candidates promise to not campaign or particiate, and then they do not campaign and the voters get a ballot with essentially one name on it - that's not a real election. It sounds more like Pyongyang to me.

    Again, I like Hillary but I do not think her position here is fair. If you pledge to not participate because the election does not count, how can you later say that it should count?


    Shadow (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    As many around here know, I support Hillary and will not vote for Obama.  But that doesn't mean I think 2 states should not have their votes counted.

    In this case, both Obama's and Hillary's arguments are political - Obama wants to award no delegates based on "the rules" , especially because he chose to take his name off the Michigan ballot.  Hillary, on the other hand wants to count the votes. In this case, however, even if it's political, Hillary's argument is the morally and ethically correct one, so Obama just looks silly trying to argue "the rules" as opposed to arguing for what is "right" (and a basic tenet of the Democratic Party).

    Voters don't care about delegates. They took the time to vote and this isn't the USSR - their votes should count - the rules be dam$ed.


    You better look again at whose name(s) (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    were on the Michigan ballot. Also, please do your homework. Check info free of what is supplied to you. See what happened in FL/MI, seek independent confirmation on your candidate's position(s) and qualifications. Then, think about what you've read and heard and seen, and make your "informed" decision on this election.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:54:14 PM EST
    Well said. I agree completely.

    If everyone followed your advice, we'd be a LOT better off.


    You're chattering now, Shadow (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    by repeating the same points, lengthily, again and again.  They weren't persuasive the first time.

    i guess i'm cold (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:25:31 PM EST
    no one has come up with a decent response to my basic point that the primary was fundamentally undemocratic

    Response (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    It's not fundamentally undemocratic if one (or more) candidate(s) tried to game the system to their advantage by removing their name from the ballot. Now that there's a chance that Obama's decision to game the system could backfire on him, he doesn't get to claim that it was unfair because his name wasn't on the ballot.  Get it?

    you are passionate for hillary (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:47:50 PM EST
    That's good. I like her too.

    But I honestly think you are missing the forest for the trees.

    The other candidates were not necessarily gaming the system when they removed their names. To me, they were just being consistent with their pledge to "not participate".

    And the reason they all were asked to make the pledge was to support the DNC position that the michigan delegates would not be seated since michigan chose to move up the primary.

    So if the voters are told it won't count and the candidates sign a pledge that supports that, I don't think it's a real election. Got it?

    I'm sure you disagree. But I'm glad you're passionate and actively involved. I hope you stay that way. If everyone took the time to stay informed and took their votes seriously, we'd all be a lot better off.


    Well, you could start with informing (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:14:18 PM EST
    yourself. We have been discussing these issues for months and the people here know what they are talking about. You don't.

    Reverse the situations (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    and I'm sure that everyone here would still  be leading the charge that the Florida and Michigan contests were completely legitimate.  Scratch that, they would have to line up behind Hillary Clinton who would have already conceded the nomination because the principal of assigning retroactive significance to an election that everyone agreed ahead of time was not legitimate is so important.


    (Adding that, yes, I support Obama but would happily vote for Clinton in the general election but have little patience for the intellectual dishonesty on display here.)


    What was unreal and unfair (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    about the election?  Could you not get to the polls?  Were there not real ballots, with numerous downticket candidates among them?

    Obama screwed over Michigan Dems.  As did Edwards.

    As posted by Steve M:  Michigan The Detroit News

    "In these early states, issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements. Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests, and this primary process will help ensure that's exactly what the American people get," said Bonior.

    If you want to represent real people, get them to actually vote for you.  Taking their names off the ballots was beyond ridiculous.  Not surprising it came back to bite them you know where.


    It was (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:29:01 PM EST
    No candidate is required to participate in any election they don't want to. It doesn't negate the election. It doesn't make it unfair.

    That is the election as it was held. Was it ideal? Of course not. No election is ever without flaws. Caucuses are even less fair than Michigan's primary. But if the choices are use the results from the only election held or arbitrarily assign delegates, I will chose use the election results every time.

    BTW, Boston? Do you even know what you are posting or when that quote was from. Here's a hint - the convention isn't in Boston this year.


    No need to be snide (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    The quote was from McAuliffe's book. It was in reference to when Michigan was trying to move up it's primary in 2004.

    Snide? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:50:11 PM EST
    That was in no way meant to be snide.

    Perhaps someone who says

    I simply can not see how a reasonable, fair-minded person, who believes in our basic democratic principles, can possibly claim that the results of our primary should be used in any way.

    and thereby claiming anyone who disagrees with them unreasonable, not fair-minded and undemocratic ought not to be so sensitive.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    The "here's a hint" bit sounded condescending to me.

    Obviously I feel strongly about this subject. As a Michigan voter who experienced the primary first-hand, I was very frustrated by how it played out. And I honestly think it shouldn't count, no matter who anyone supports.

    Of course I don't think that anyone who disagres with me is unreasonable. It's just that I find many of the posts here seem to focus on single points and fail to look at the big picture.

    So I just want to encourage everyone to honestly look at the entire process, with as independent a view as possible, before making up their mind.

    I've only been looking at this site for a week or so. It has a lot of interesting material but I haven't seen tht many good discussions.

    Just out of curiousity, is this essentially a pro-Hillary site? Are all Obama supporters trolls?


    troll rated... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    almost got taken in by this $4.00/hr axelrod troll....

    but they keep giving themselves away.  they can't help repeating the lies they've been told.  He're this guy's tell...

    In addition, it seems very dishonest to me that the Clinton camp completely changed its position once they started losing ground.

    this is what you get for $4.00/hr, I guess.  At least he's not spitting in my Big Mac...


    Which troll....there are many of them on this (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:13:58 PM EST
    site today...ready to gloat over perceived one upmanship by obama.  They are so transparent.

    give me some reasons (1.80 / 5) (#98)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    Like I said, I'm an independent Michigan voter who likes both Hillary and Obama.

    However, I feel very strongly that our primary was not a fair, democratic election (for reasons I posted earlier).

    I also think it was dishonest of the Clinton to campaign to change it's opinion about the validity of our primary, after the fact.

    I am quite certain that the reasons I gave are very accurate. Hillary did say our election "would not count for anything". Ickes did vote for the rules sanctioning our delegates. In 2004, McAuliffe told Senator Levin that a state could not move up its primary without being penalized.

    So, please tell me? How am I being in accurate or misleading?


    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    Did say as early as October (in the same interview everyone uses to say she said it wouldn't count)that  we needed to do something about Michigan and Florida because the Democratic Party couldn't write off two important states. She also came out for full seating in a press release in January.

    So Ickes voted for it  - so what? People are allowed to changed their minds

    And what does Terry MacAuliffe in 2004 have to do with anything?


    RIght (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    Oct 11 2007 HRC on New Hampshire Public Radio talking about the Michigan primary, "It's clear that this election isn't going to count for anything."

    Spin that.

    Lots of folk stayed home. It wasn't a record turn out. It was a DNC sanctioned contest, whatever the MI state bureaucracy has to say about it. Last time anyone checked, MI and FL state bureaucracies were not the Democratic Party. Had they played by the, how is that spelled here?, roolz then there'd be no present disaster.

    Counting Michigan as is a meritless idea.


    Lincoln wasn't on the ballot, y'know (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    in many states, nor did he campaign there.  I really, really want the Obamans to keep pushing their stupid points about their candidate not being on the ballot.  The Obamans would invalidate the election of Abraham Lincoln. :')

    as brilliant a point (3.00 / 3) (#124)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    as it's not

    you must realize that TODAY elections are conducted differently.

    This isn't the 19th century.

    MI screwed up, the Dem leaders there deserve the lion's share of the blame. It IS a disaster, though not one that Obama created, nor from which he particularly benefits.

    Just because I like facts, have settled on Obama in preference to HRC doesn't an Obama-bot make me. Really, grow up!!!!


    In this sense, no, elections are conducted (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    no differently.  You don't like some facts, I see -- not that fact and not many others you ignore, despite all the evidence to the contrary here.

    And I never, ever have used the term Obama-bot.  When you grow up, may you improve your reading comprehension.  Your problem with transference, probably not.


    missed again (none / 0) (#170)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    CC, I never claimed you called me anything, though you did say Obaman. Whatever, the point was that supporting Obama critically, as most folk I know do, seems not to be much on folks on this site's collective consciousness.

    It seems it's your reading comprehension that's at issue.

    But beyond the endless hyperpartisan back and forth, there's a real world with real problems not one of which is who the Dems chose to run against Bush III. Climate change to energy to name your pick.

    I'd be voting for HRC if she'd run a better campaign even though she's not my cuppa tea because it's the only responsible thing to do.

    Let's see what you chose to do.


    was not, it should read (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    flame on

    Finish the quote (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    Preferentially (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    I'd prefer to finish the primary according to the agreement ALL the candidates made back in the day.

    Enough said.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:27:11 PM EST
    Called out on the dishonest truncation of the quote, he wants to change the subject.

    Typical troll.


    your second half (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by FedUpLib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:20:00 PM EST
    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

    So how does the second part make any argument for seating the delegations as-is?  She didn't want to hurt her chances in the GE.  That has NOTHING to do with being worried about disenfranchising Primary voters in the Primary, she was pandering for the General.


    Heh (none / 0) (#161)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    It's an argument that ignoring MI and FL would hurt the interests of the Democratic Party.

    You and everyone else who truncates the quote know that the full context destroys your lame attempt at a gotcha, or else you wouldn't insist on pretending that that one sentence is the entire quote.  You're not fooling anyone here.


    Note (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    that in the full quote, she doesn't advocate counting this particular election nor does she speak in terms of moral outrage at not counting the vote.  She says it could pose a problem.  That's all. If she had said, "They say the votes won't count, but I believe that the contest is fair and will treat it as a legitimate contest" that would be something.  But she didn't.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#176)
    by tnthorpe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:23:48 PM EST
    it's obvious to just about everyone else, but here quoting HRC directly gets you called a, gasp, troll. Well, that certainly hurts.

    HRC OCT 11, New Hampshire PR, "I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know it's clear this election is not going to count for anything."

    Note that I'm not saying she's evil, bad, or any such nonsense. She IS contradicting herself with her present Zimbabwean hyperbole, however. I'm duly unimpressed.

    The idea that this unsanctioned primary counts--which was a huge mistake to create, yes a thousand times yes--is still without merit.


    You just said you're (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    an "independent voter" then you talked about "our primary".

    Please, you aren't fooling anyone


    what's with you people (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM EST
    I was hoping for a reasonable discussion here.


    I live in MI. I'm an independent. I usually vote for democrats. I think history will judge the Bush administration as a total disaster, perhaps one of the worst ever. I think Hillary and Obama would both make excellent presidents. Their positions on most issues are very similar but they have very different styles. Either would be WAY better than Bush or McCain.

    I would love to see a female and/or an african american president in my lifetime.


    You're a prime (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:54:02 PM EST
    example of the Obama trolls who frequent this site. Completely clueless.

    But if you feel so passionate you should go to that convention and march in protest, onward to Boston


    You have no idea who i am (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    The Michigan primary is a very complicated issue and it's not surprising that people are very passionate about it, since it impacts the election.

    Personally, I strongly believe that if one honestly reviews in detail all the twists and turns that led up to our primary, it's very difficult to claim that we had an honest democratic election whose results should be counted.

    Looking over your posts, you make some good points, but to me, they focus on only some of the specific issues, and miss the big picture. So I don't find them persuasive.

    But that's just me and I'm clueless. Give me a break. You're capable of more than simple trash talk.


    ugh... (none / 0) (#169)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    hillary explained herself why she initially "supported" the penalties. she was supporting the dnc which was trying to keep all of the states jumping ahead. once the elections were completed and the primary season begun, the "threat" of penalty was mute. for whatever reason she's decided to champion the peoples' votes now is really not the point because what she's doing is the right thing. whatever ones motives are for doing something, if that thing is the right thing, who gives a flying cr*p. furthermore, obvious obama follower, the clinton camp and michigan arrived at a solution which the obama camp worked very hard to shut down. so, y'know what? go to your room! no supper for you!! why? 1) for not doing your homework; and 2) for fibbing. now scoot!

    hey good for you (none / 0) (#174)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    You made me smile. I like your sense of humor. And it's good that you think people should do the right thing. I do too. Apparently there's some room here for people to honestly disagree. That's OK too. That's what america is all about. But I did my homework. I do not fib. But I will leave now. This place is is not that conducive to an open mind.

    Are there any recent polls for Puerto Rico? (none / 0) (#2)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:31:41 PM EST

    I believe the latest still has Hillary up by 13 (none / 0) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    Who's the pollster? (none / 0) (#17)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    Poll Tracker (none / 0) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    Almost forgot this too.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    Specious logic (none / 0) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    No one is suggesting that the primaries were illegal.  

    However the DNC has guidelines on how a state may apportion their delegates and when they can do so.  These 2 states violated those guidelines.  

    You can argue that the punishment was unreasonable but to suggest that MI and FL did not violate the DNC rules, is a bit silly.

    Like I said I'm fine with seating the delegates as is.  

    they "violated" the rules (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cpinva on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    You can argue that the punishment was unreasonable but to suggest that MI and FL did not violate the DNC rules, is a bit silly.

    the same way IA, NH and SC did. all three of those states received "waivers", which aren't even allowed for in the DNC's own "rules". to argue otherwise is, at best, disengenuous, at worst an outright lie.

    see, that's the great thing about "rules"; the people that have the authority to make them also have the authority to change them at their whim.

    i'll call your specious, and raise you one mendacious! :)

    i agree, seat them as is. sen. obama (and others) took a calculated political risk in voluntarily removing his name from the MI ballot, he's in no position to argue that he should receive any direct benefit from that now. tough cookies.


    Completely uncompelling (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    Whether other states violated the rules or not doesn't change the fact that MI and Fl did.  

    While they aren't going to be seated as-is.  Most likely a 50% reduction will be the ruling.  

    But even if they are seated as-is, she still can't win.  We would still be over a 100 delegates behind.  


    first off... (none / 0) (#97)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    Florida did not violate the rules.

    Secondly, its not really a "rule" unless its applied equally.  You can't have two people break the same rule, and then treat them differently.  

    and while I know that the Democratic Party isn't subject to "laws", one of the founding concepts of this nation is called EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.  Voters in two different states are being treated differently by the DNC.  It flies in the face of everything the Democratic Party stands for.

    (In fact, given that the Democratic Party has an automatic position on the ballot in most states, I bet that a pretty good federal lawsuit for violating the civil rights of Michigan citizens under equal protection clause could be submitted, especially since the two states that share Michigans' circumstances are OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE, and Michigan has a substantial non-white population... Jeralyn?)


    i would urge you... (none / 0) (#172)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    ...to do a little homework on how an actual primary and then convention works before you lose faith in hillary's chances.

    nothing is nothing until the gavel falls in august at the convention in denver.

    please do some historical research and find out how nominees have been decided at the convention. there are also plenty of opportunities to learn from other people willing to 'splain the whole process.

    i'm not being snarky, i promise... it's just so frustrating to read over and over again people discussing the process when they clearly do not know what the process is. many of us over the age of 50 actually studied civics in high school, and then, of course, we watched the conventions (both repub and dem) gavel to gavel on our rabbit-eared televisions. sadly, cnn, fox, msnbc... it's painfully obvious they need to do some homework as well.


    When was the last time (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    the delegate leader going into the convention wasn't the nominee?

    really? (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
    James Roosevelt, co-chair of the RBC was on TV today saying these states broke the law. At this point such language is not just sloppy, but deliberately inflammatory. There are no laws involved here. Some of these DNC members are actually fostering an environment wherein, even if everything is done perfectly by the rules, one side is going to freak out.

    actually, Nedra Pickler (none / 0) (#14)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:51:10 PM EST
    for AP reported that the FL and MI votes were illegal.  She is nutso, but just saying some people are suggesting it and reporting it!

    so how come nh and sc are favored children (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:42:24 PM EST
    and let's kick michigan and floria around. that doesn't fly at all.

    Here is LA Times: (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    on FL/MI.  Also, another article on line at LA Times says an informal poll of Clinton staffers reveals no one believes FL or MI delegates will be seated at 100%.


    In this article, Shay, who is on tomorrow's committee, is quoted.  Also, two finance chairs for Clinton state Obama should get some MI delegates.  

    What crap. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    I think she should boot these two (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    guys out ASAP.

    grrrrr Shay (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    I had emailed Shay previously over quotes where he got basic facts wrong. Never heard back from him. Makes me even angrier that people who can't take the time to learn the basic facts get to decide if my vote counts. How did he get to vote the first time and still have incorrect info for the appeal?

    I emailed him, too -- no reply, either. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:03:02 PM EST
    But then, these guys don't need me.  Prima Donna said so.

    What about punishing the leadership? (none / 0) (#64)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    Perhaps I'm being naive, but wouldn't it make more sense to "punish" the individuals in leadership positions (on all sides - both DNC and state organizations) that were responsible for creating the problem?

    There must be appropriate disciplinary actions that can be taken.

    Punishing the voters (even those Obama supporters that want to be punished) is a profoundly stupid strategy.

    how about let's punish the leaderhship (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    at the dnc. they took a screwed up situation and made a frigging nightmare with "i won't close my mouth" brazile and "i'll let you down everyway i can" dean. i say boot their sorry selves and let's set things right. the dems are arrogant right now with being not bush. but you think two more years of nancy getting more pearls and snob appeal is going to help the poor workers of this country? i don't think so. the repubs are planning on winning the wh and probably coming back into power in two years. good luck with dems! it didn't have to be. we could have had generations of democratic power, but now?

    Yes it would (none / 0) (#113)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    And that may be the outcome. Although I don't know what power the DNC has to punish individuals.

    Waivers (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    If the waivers were granted so that IA, NH, NV, and SC could maintain their "first window" status, why are MI and FL still considered in violation?

    The FL primary came after all of the above.  So it followed the intent if not the letter of the rules.

    And SC could have held their primary before MI, and been granted a waiver, but chose not to for whatever reason.

    If you accept the argument that Ickes made today on the conference call that waivers were granted so that IA, NH, NV, and SC "could take full advantage of their early timing status," then where is the real violation?

    It seems this point isn't made enough.  And, for me, it goes to the crux of the matter.

    Thanks, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#178)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:39:14 PM EST
    I like your site, but I think it's time to move on.

    I was hoping the dialog here would be more constructive, less partisan, less snarky. These are complex issues and they deserve a reasoned debate. Given the intensity of the campaigns, I guess it's not surprising that passions would be so high.

    The contenrious clamor seems a little ironic to me. As an independent, I believe this is the most critical election we've had in my lifetime. I think it's essential that we get a democrat in the white house to start undoing all the damage done by the bush administration. Whether it's Hillary or Obama, we need someone who will preserve our principles and ideals and someone who will restore our standing in the world.


    can we get a real statesman? (none / 0) (#196)
    by roxieu on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:30 AM EST
    On the overall issue: it's un-American to nominate a candidate on only 48 states.  The delegates should be awarded as appropriately split on the legally established voting dates.

    As to the dates: they were legally established by Florida and Michigan.  Voters had the choice -- either (a) vote, or (b) don't -- just like every election day.

    As to people staying at home by their own decision: if they stayed home thinking their votes wouldn't count -- they simultaneously and tacitly voiced total apathy on any local ballot measures.  If you don't even care about what goes on in your own backyard, well, that I guess speaks of a lot about a lot of Americans, no matter what state they live in.

    As to Obama pulling his name: he just told all of dem-MI that he believes local MI politics are so unimportant that voters won't show up at all if it's [just a local vote].  600,000 felt it was important enough to show up.

    As to people voting opposite party to boost up non-electable candidates: shame on every last one, no matter whether Republican or Democrat at heart.  I've heard of this more and more often in recent elections, and it just boggles my mind.  It's as though people actually believe no one in the opposite party could possibly have the exact same idea!

    I suppose we can always hope a few more Obama pastors could say really idiotic things about Hillary and America...

    Just my summed up two cents.

    A distinction of importance. (none / 0) (#198)
    by rgrayson on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    People are all worked up in support of their respective candidates, but they need to keep one thing in mind. The election that matters is the GENERAL ELECTION in November. This is the one where we choose the president. This is the one that you have a constitutional right to vote in.

    Everything else is a convoluted and complex system for choosing the candidates. The DNC is not a government organization. They are a private group, and they can choose their candidates any way they want to. Mr. Dean can pick his own kids. We can toss a dice. We can draw a card. We can take a vote of all the democratic governors. There is nothing that says the people have to be involved in it at all. The constitution does not call for political parties, it does not give us rules on how they may operate. So all of you that are crying about your rights and your right to vote in the primaries or the caucuses need to take a civics class. There is no voting right to vote in primary elections. (If there were, then all the Republicans could vote in them, too.)

    What we have is a whole bunch of greedy power grubbing cowardly people that are trying their best to set up the game in their favor.

    Whoever you support, you have to recognize that Mr. Obama as played by the rules. He has studied the rules. He has used the rules to his advantage in a lot of ways. Some of these might even seem to be unfair. But he didn't write the rules. Quit blaming him for that.

    Mrs. Clinton on the other had has stumbled in many cases because she and her group did not understand the rules. They seem to not have studied the rules. They seem to have accepted them without reading them too closely. Now that lack of preparation is coming back to bite them.

    As a result, Mr. Obama may well come out the winning candidate and this primary season will be a textbook case for what to do (and what not to do) if you are running for president.

    Should we reform the system. Sure. But this time around we have to go with the rules we agreed to in the beginning. And according to that agreement Florida and Michigan are out of luck.