http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/POLITICS01/803200382
Clinton turns up heat for do-over. But new primary looks unlikely with Obama camp balking and time short.
The Detroit News
Despite a quick visit from Hillary Clinton to make the case and pressure from other top Democrats, supporters of Barack Obama appeared no closer Wednesday to accepting plans for a do-over Democratic primary.
Supporters of the June 3 revote -- including a four-member committee of top Michigan Democrats that hatched the plan -- held out hope that the state Legislature would act on a bill to hold the new primary. But with time running short, the Obama campaign, which has little to gain and much potential for loss in a new vote, piled on the legal objections, and it remained unclear Wednesday night whether the proposal would even get an up-or-down vote in the Legislature. Ken Brock, chief of staff for Senate Democratic Leader Mark Schauer of Battle Creek, said it's up to Obama and Clinton to reach a deal.
Without action today, it's likely the idea would die, as lawmakers will head home for a two-week recess. Passing the bill after spring break wouldn't allow enough time for state and local elections officials to prepare for a June 3 vote, they say. Without a new vote, Michigan remains unsure of its place in the Democratic nomination race. Democratic leaders could pursue a purely party-run contest -- a vote-by-mail primary or party caucuses -- if the state-run primary fails. But it remains unclear whether the campaigns would agree, and significant logistical challenges would remain. The national party stripped Michigan of its convention delegates because it held its January primary earlier than its rules allowed.
Clinton, who won the Jan. 15 primary as well as a similarly controversial contest in Florida, rearranged her campaign schedule, making a Wednesday morning appearance before a small crowd of supporters at a downtown Detroit union hall. She avoided some of the heated rhetoric aides have used this week, but said denying Michigan a chance to vote would be "un-American" and made clear where she placed the blame for Michigan's predicament. "Senator Obama speaks passionately on the campaign trail about empowering the American people," Clinton said. "Today I'm asking him to match those words with actions."
Through its top attorney, the Obama campaign responded to Clinton's visit by raising a series of issues it said could invite lawsuits if a new primary went forward. His supporters in the Legislature said they believe there is not enough backing among Lansing Democrats to pass primary legislation. "There's not enough support," said Sen. Tupac Hunter of Detroit, Obama's Michigan co-chairman. "There aren't any moving pieces out there that I can see coming together to change the situation."
Still, there were some signs of life for the do-over plan:
• Two Clinton supporters, Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, said they had commitments from 10 Democratic donors to put up the $12 million in private money the new Michigan vote would require. Nine, including Corzine himself, a wealthy Wall Street executive before entering politics, gave money to Clinton this year.
The Obama campaign went on the attack. "This letter from some of Clinton's biggest campaign contributors eliminates any pretense that Clinton's efforts in Michigan are about anything other than an attempt to bankroll an election in which they appear more than happy to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters," spokesman Bill Burton said in a written statement. "Today's events are even more evidence that Clinton is willing to do absolutely anything to get elected."
• The Democratic National Committee issued public confirmation that the proposed primary would meet its guidelines. It was the DNC's decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for violating the party's scheduling rules, prompting the current scramble. Obama has said he'd accept any solution in Michigan that was approved by the DNC: "I want the Michgian delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated and however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I'm happy to abide by those rules," he told CNN on Wednesday. That seems at odds with his campaign's objections to the Michigan do-over approved by the DNC.
• The committee that drafted the new Michigan primary plan held conference calls with Democratic members of the state House and Senate. Though there were no signs the conversations moved many votes, the committee -- U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, both of Detroit, UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger and Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell of Dearborn -- issued a statement arguing that a do-over primary is the best chance to give Michigan a role in the campaign, and imploring legislators to vote on it.
But there were new signs of tension within the party. The Michigan chapter of the Change to Win labor union coalition, which backs Obama, took aim at the "Gang of Four" committee of top Democrats, accusing it of "unprecedented efforts" to pressure lawmakers into supporting the new vote. Hunter and Obama's other Michigan campaign co-chair, state Sen. Buzz Thomas of Detroit, expressed qualms about spending private money on a public election, as proposed in the legislation. Thomas issued a statement that the do-over primary bill is "riddled with problems that overwhelm any possible positive outcome." That echoes the objections that Robert Bauer, Obama's chief counsel, raised in a memo. Bauer said several issues would leave a redo primary open to court challenges. Among them is the fact that under DNC rules, voters who cast ballots in the January Republican contest, thinking the Democratic vote didn't matter, would be barred from voting in June.
Looks like FOTD has stolen RecycleMichael's computer!
[}:)]
The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted. Either count the earlier election or have a do-over.
The demcratic national committee is OK with the plan, The Governor of Michigan is OK with the plan. The top democratic leadership is OK (and came up with the plan), and the Hillary camp is OK with the plan to re-vote.
Obama stands in the way.
To not count every vote is un-American.
Trouble is, you do have to have that super-majority in the Michigan legislature to approve a do-over vote.
Michigan's county and city clerks are against a do-over. And if the legislature doesn't want it, there's nothing you can do. Lawmakers are leery about the estimated $12 million cost.
The ball's not in Obama's court.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/michigan-up-against-the-wall/index.html?ref=politics
So the democrats that voted in January will be disenfranchised under her plan. How can that be American? And the republicans that might have voted for one of the two democrats, if it mattered, will be disenfranchised. Again, how is that American? And it will be a privately funded election by supporters of one Candidate. Sounds more like Russia.
The fact is, there is no good answer to this problem (except that they should have followed the rules in the first place). There is an answer that will help Hillary, and of course that is what she wants.
If the Democrat Party in MI would not have played politics with its primary they would have had their votes count, right? Is that not what happened there and in Florida? And if that state does not count, why does Hillary tout that as a win when Obama was not on the ballot anyway? Rules is rules.
Michigan's insiders blew it for the stupid voters who thought they mattered.
Frankly, I think though that Obama looks scared and should go for the vote.
I like PM's vegetable story here.....
Hillary's gotta learn why rules are made and learn to live with the consequences in the game. How can someone like that have the integrity it takes to run the free world?
They knew the consequences in Michigan and did it anyhow.
The Clinton's didn't care because this was supposed to be a coronation tour for her not a hotly-contested primary.
Now they cry foul because some Clintoneering is in order.
TRUE^[:(]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
They knew the consequences in Michigan and did it anyhow.
The Clinton's didn't care because this was supposed to be a coronation tour for her not a hotly-contested primary.
Now they cry foul because some Clintoneering is in order.
We would be wise to remember that Conan is the epitome of a cynical Republican hack sowing division among Democrats in all of these threads looking at Clinton and Obama.
Democrats will be holding hands and focusing on our common enemy before long.
Not my fight, but I'm not a supporter of anyone who thinks they have the right to change the rules after the game is over. They all like, support, and help to set the rules, until things don't go in their favor.
Clintons
Gore
Kerry
Bush
Dean
It seems like a pattern.
I wonder how many recounts we will have after this election?
I say. . . Wah!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted. Either count the earlier election or have a do-over.
The demcratic national committee is OK with the plan, The Governor of Michigan is OK with the plan. The top democratic leadership is OK (and came up with the plan), and the Hillary camp is OK with the plan to re-vote.
Obama stands in the way.
To not count every vote is un-American.
You're right, they deserve to have their votes counted, and if I were a Michigan Democrat I would be furious with the officials that made the decision to disenfranchise me!
In fact, I would probably be mad enough to switch parties or move to another state, like beautiful OOOklahoma! "where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain!"
Does anyone, even you RM, think Clinton would be doing this if South Carolina was stripped of their delegates? Or any other state that Obama has a polling advantage in? Surely not. Everyone, EVERYONE knows this is a desperate ploy to try and narrow the gap and not based on principle.
Pretending it is principle based, there are clips all over of Clinton saying that those states will have to accept the consequences. She signed a pledge. Those states would not be counted and she would not compete.
Then she claims victory. Funny thing, when there is no competition there is no victory.
So here are the problems with it:
1) lacks integrity/goes against agreement
2) costly (though her donors will fund it)
3) potentially unfair or detrimental to Obama
4) false altruism (those poor, poor voters)
5) Futile. Statistically, even with those votes Obama still comes out 100 delegates ahead.
6) Internal: if it is "unAmerican" then the Democratic party is unAmerican. There is no disenfranchisement here, this is an internal party matter.
and 7) IRONIC
If Clinton would have stood on her "principles" back when she was saying they should be stripped this could have been avoided.
If the States would not have moved their primaries, they would have received unprecedented attention and this would have been avoided.
- - -
So... RM, do you really think Clinton is in this for the people? Would she willingly throw out her agreement if it benefited Obama? I can't truely fault her for trying, but her motives are not any more pure than his in this.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
If the Democrat Party in MI would not have played politics with its primary they would have had their votes count, right? Is that not what happened there and in Florida? And if that state does not count, why does Hillary tout that as a win when Obama was not on the ballot anyway? Rules is rules.
Michigan's insiders blew it for the stupid voters who thought they mattered.
I believe both the Florida and Michigan legislature are run by Rethuglican majority.
Frankly, I think though that Obama looks scared and should go for the vote.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted. Either count the earlier election or have a do-over.
The demcratic national committee is OK with the plan, The Governor of Michigan is OK with the plan. The top democratic leadership is OK (and came up with the plan), and the Hillary camp is OK with the plan to re-vote.
Obama stands in the way.
To not count every vote is un-American.
Gee, RM... "un-American"??? Yeah, way to "twist the truth like a Clinton"... hmmm... two can play that game... let's see... Clinton was the only candidate on the Michigan primary ballot... sounds kinda "communist" to me...
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/15633003/detail.html
quote:
One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Jan. 15 Republican primary from voting again.
That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.
------------------------------------------------
Michigan's Republican primary drew 867,271 voters, including 18,106 who voted "uncommitted." The Democratic primary drew 593,837 voters. Clinton won with 328,151 votes, or 55 percent; 237,762, or 40 percent, voted "uncommitted;" 21,708, or 4 percent, voted for Rep. Dennis Kucinich; 3,853, or less than 1 percent, voted for Sen. Christopher Dodd, and 2,363, or less than 1 percent, voted for former Sen. Mike Gravel.
According to exit polls, 7 percent of GOP primary voters said they were Democrats and 25 percent said they were independents or something else. That means nearly 61,000 people who voted in the GOP primary were Democrats, while more than 217,000 were independents.
hmmm... "Obstructionist Obama"????
Which voters in the state of Michigan are the disenfranchised voters if the Clinton machine gets its way and changes all the rules at the very end of a close nomination process?
"Who's zoomin' who" here???
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
- - -
So... RM, do you really think Clinton is in this for the people? Would she willingly throw out her agreement if it benefited Obama? I can't truely fault her for trying, but her motives are not any more pure than his in this.
I don't think anyone thinks that she's in this for the people CF. Even her apologists and most naive supporters accept the fact that she is fiercely ambitious, at the cost of anyone that gets in her way. Somehow they have internalized HER ambition and made it their own. Juggling, shifting, and smoothing the edges of their own moral packaging to create some kind of sloppy fit with Hillary.
I think, If elected, Hillary's supporters will be in for a long ride of internally justifying her actions for themselves and externally apologizing to others. That's too much intellectual/logical/emotional bending and twisting. It would give me a headache!
I guess I didn't communicate clearly before. I just seem to be diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
I don't care how they re-vote or count the first vote. I don't care if they go back to an open primary season, a caucus, or a phone-in/text message poll like they do for American Idol.
I know how all this happened. I know how they all pledged to not campaign there. I know how the party stripped them of their delegate status. Yes, there should be some consequences for their actions. But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election. If party leaders don't understand this, they deserve to be forced out.
Somebody needed to find a solution where the votes of the residents of Michigan are counted. The state party, the Governor, the democratic national committee and Hillary, after weeks of fighting about it, have come up with a plan. It is probably a flawed plan, but at this point, it is a viable plan.
Only Obama stands in the way.
He should agree to what every other party and campaign official has agreed to. Let the Michigan votes count or re-vote.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I guess I didn't communicate clearly before. I just seem to be diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
I don't care how they re-vote or count the first vote. I don't care if they go back to an open primary season, a caucus, or a phone-in/text message poll like they do for American Idol.
I know how all this happened. I know how they all pledged to not campaign there. I know how the party stripped them of their delegate status. Yes, there should be some consequences for their actions. But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election. If party leaders don't understand this, they deserve to be forced out.
Somebody needed to find a solution where the votes of the residents of Michigan are counted. The state party, the Governor, the democratic national committee and Hillary, after weeks of fighting about it, have come up with a plan. It is probably a flawed plan, but at this point, it is a viable plan.
Only Obama stands in the way.
He should agree to what every other party and campaign official has agreed to. Let the Michigan votes count or re-vote.
Here's the thing--you headed the thread with Obama being an obstructionest, as though a viable solution had been put forward and he is stopping it. Clinton's plan is flawed, and would result in litigation at best, and would undermine the democratic party most likely. He shouldn't support it. You can read Obama's attorney's letter here:
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-lawyer-questions-michigan-re-vote-plan
If she had suggested that everyone vote, that would be different. If she had suggested that it be publicly financed, that would be different. She didn't--she offered a plan that favored her, and now is acting as though Obama is obsttructionist by not supporting it.
He's offered an alternative--split the delegates in half. Why not mention that Hillary is being an obstructionist to that plan?
Here's what I would suggest. Strip both Florida and Michigan of superdelegates. After all, if the "party insiders" can't get it right, they shouldn't get a vote. No one is disfranchised there. Split the delegates in Michigan in half--that's most likely how it would have turned out if the vote had been legit back in January. As for Florida, make the case to seat the delegates at the party convention. That's probably the only one that has a shot.
quote:
But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election.
But no one stepped up and said this was the wrong penalty UNTIL it became clear that it would bennefit Clinton.
You are a man of convictions, but if you REALLY wanted Obama to win would you still be making this argument. If the answer is yes, then why did you not make that argument when they were initially stripped? Your candidate has obviously had a change of heart in the matter, the reason is clear.
It's politics, not altruism.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election.
But no one stepped up and said this was the wrong penalty UNTIL it became clear that it would bennefit Clinton.
You are a man of convictions, but if you REALLY wanted Obama to win would you still be making this argument. If the answer is yes, then why did you not make that argument when they were initially stripped? Your candidate has obviously had a change of heart in the matter, the reason is clear.
It's politics, not altruism.
Ouch! That light is bright when you shine it in our eyes!
Well, first of all, I just like to argue...
The national party rules say that those who voted in the first primary for republicans can't vote in a re-vote. Obama wants to change that rule. You can't say Hillary is trying to change the rules without admitting that Obama is also trying to change the rules.
Obama's people now say they will sue if anything that has now been agreed to by everybody else happens. This is a bad situation and everybody else is agreeing on a solution and Obama is threatening to sue. Some high ground there...(sarcasm off).
50/50? For what reason? What would that resolve besides reminding Michigan democrats that their votes didn't count? Who cares how you voted...we just divided down the middle.
Obama is in trouble. He is losing ground everyday and Hillary is doing everything she can to get back ahead. Yes, politics is a dirty business, but they have both worked too hard and begged too many of their friends for money to just quit now. The media have just started to ask questions of Obama and the scrutiny is showing in the polls. But all that is beside the point.
Just put yourself in the shoes of a Michigan voter. Try to not be an Obama or Hillary supporter and be undecided again. What would you want to happen? You would want your earlier vote to count or the opportunity to do it again.
Hillary & Obama
They are destroying each other. I take no joy in watching this. It's making quite a statement about the party!
Wow. Obama is in trouble? He's ahead by almost 150 pledged delegates, ahead in the popular vote. Superdelegates are flocking to Obama, and trickling to Clinton (or abandoning her). Today, we find out that Clinton wasn't so truthful about her role in the White House with NAFTA. And we are still waiting on those tax returns.
As far as party rules, you seem to be saying that it is ok to change the rules, but only so far as it benefits Clinton's campaign.
As for dividing the pledged delegates in half, you know as well as I that each states system of dividing delegates is as confusing as a calculus problem. You can lose the popular vote and win the most delegates. You don't have a right to one person one vote at the primary level. Dividing them in half is as fair as a privately financed vote that disenfranches a large portion of democrats.
No one said Obama would sue. But, putting myself in a Michigan's voters shoes, you can be darn sure I would sue if I was told I couldn't participate. For those who accepted the consequences, played by the rules, and recognized that their vote wouldn't count--those are the voters you seem to be ignoring.
I noticed you said nothing about the superdelegates. No wonder. What Clinton is really worried about is not the pledged delegates--she may pick up 30 or so pledged delegates with Florida and Michigan combined, and still be more than 100 behind Obama. Why she really wants those states to count is because of the superdelegates--she wants those superdelegates to overturn the vote of the people.
Superdelegates...there...now I have said it.
You think Hillary is the only one trying to win over the superdelegates? Obama can't win without them, either. Why do you Obama people act like Hillary is trying to do something that Obama is not?
If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by the end of May, will you say that Obama is trying to overturn the vote of the people?
RM, you still haven't admitted that the only reason Hillary is interested NOW and didn't care before is because it helps her. It has nothing to do with fairness, or being int he shoes of any voter, or anything else. It is a way for her to get closer to winning. All the other talking points by her and on here are ancillary to that goal, are you still pretending they are not?
quote:
Obama is in trouble. He is losing ground everyday and Hillary is doing everything she can to get back ahead.
Losing ground? She won Ohio, otherwise hasn't he won more delegates in each of the last 15 or so states? Didn't he outright when the last 2 votes? Doesn't he still hold more delegates, more states, and more popular vote? Didn't his delegate win in Texas and the follow small states negate her Ohio win?
I understand you are advocating for Clinton. But mathematically she needs to get nearly 65% of the remaining votes to edge him out in delegates (&/or popular vote). Among her widest victory in her home state of NY was with 57%. Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and Clinton only got 55% of the vote (read: 45% showed up to vote for "uncommitted" over Clinton). The only state she clear 60% was Arkansas, where she still fell short of 65%. But the bad news is conventional wisdom (as well as polls and demographics) suggest they split the remaining states.
Statistically, it is impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote. Even though Clinton counts Michigan votes in her popular vote tally (reminder: 55% of the vote, Obama NOT on the ballot with supporters having no incentive to show up), she still falls short. Even counting Florida Obama has a 500,000+ edge.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
So lets break it down:
Obama has more States
Obama has more popular votes
Obama has more delegates
Obama has more money
They will split the remaining delegates
So Obama goes into the convention +100 delegates absolute minimum. He will still have the lead if you pretend toss in Florida (49% Clinton) or Michigan (55% Clinton).
Where Clinton will argue that the will of the people doesn't really matter and she should be elected anyway. Which oddly enough, is the opposite of what she is arguing at the moment.
Before January: You broke the rules, you don't get to have your vote count.
Now: The people's voice must be heard!
Soon: The people are idiots, over turn their will and elect me!
Here, Slate.com puts it best:
quote:
All this being a long way of saying, Hillary's path to the nomination is not "narrow." It's barricaded. Yet still there seems to be a hesitation among the media to declare Clinton dead. Maybe it's her zombielike ability to rise again—first in New Hampshire, then in Nevada, then most recently in Texas and Ohio. But people have to understand there will be no knockout blow, no head shot. Rather it will be a long, slow exit that causes pain to everyone involved.
The question is, who is going to tell Hillary it's over? Certainly not Bill. Certainly not her aides. Only the superdelegates matter. Given that, Gov. Philip Bredesen's proposal for a superdelegate primary in June—a manufactured knockout blow—seems like a remarkably good idea.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/20/clinton-facing-obstructed-path-to-the-nomination.aspx
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Superdelegates...there...now I have said it.
You think Hillary is the only one trying to win over the superdelegates? Obama can't win without them, either. Why do you Obama people act like Hillary is trying to do something that Obama is not?
If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by the end of May, will you say that Obama is trying to overturn the vote of the people?
So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?
If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.
RM, you still haven't admitted that the only reason Hillary is interested NOW and didn't care before is because it helps her. It has nothing to do with fairness, or being int he shoes of any voter, or anything else. It is a way for her to get closer to winning. All the other talking points by her and on here are ancillary to that goal, are you still pretending they are not?
I admit it. I care more now because it helps my candidate. It doesn't mean I didn't care at all before.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?
If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.
No. Hillary is ahead in superdelegates and always has been. Of course you don't want them to count.
No, the rules allow for superdelegates in every state. I am not in favor of changing the rules to help Obama.
That is the kind of straight talk we need in the White House. You think like a woman...[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?
If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.
No. Hillary is ahead in superdelegates and always has been. Of course you don't want them to count.
No, the rules allow for superdelegates in every state. I am not in favor of changing the rules to help Obama.
So, let's summarize your points.
It's ok to change the rules, but only the rules that benefit Clinton.
We cannot disenfranchise the voters--I mean, we cannot disenfranchise the voters that voted for Hillary. The others, doesn't matter.
This is about having the people's voices heard, but actually its more about letting the political insiders be heard.
The politicians made the decision to violate the rules, so the voters shouldn't be punished. And the politicians, who make up the majority of superdelegates, shouldn't be punished either, because that will help Hillary.
Are you surprised that so many dislike Hillary because they see that she will do anything to get elected, even destroy the party?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
So, let's summarize your points.
It's ok to change the rules, but only the rules that benefit Clinton.
We cannot disenfranchise the voters--I mean, we cannot disenfranchise the voters that voted for Hillary. The others, doesn't matter.
This is about having the people's voices heard, but actually its more about letting the political insiders be heard.
The politicians made the decision to violate the rules, so the voters shouldn't be punished. And the politicians, who make up the majority of superdelegates, shouldn't be punished either, because that will help Hillary.
Are you surprised that so many dislike Hillary because they see that she will do anything to get elected, even destroy the party?
The Michigan democratic party and the national democratic committee made the rules and now have proposed changing their own rules. Hillary agrees and Obama doesn't.
I don't care if everybody votes or just the people who followed the rules of the primary vote. Just either count the previous vote or allow a re-vote. If superdelegates count, that would be following the rules. You want these rules to be changed to benefit Obama, not me.
Obama is stopping Michigan voters from being part of this election, yet your myopic view is that it is all Hillary's fault. What did Hillary do wrong here? She didn't campaign in Michigan, yet refused to take her name off the ballot. I think that was the right thing to do. Her name was on the ballot before the national committee decided to punish Michigan.
Obama is stopping the vote for pure political reasons, yet all I hear is that it is all Hillary's fault.
The Michigan State Legislature (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21delegates.html?ref=politics%22) just adjourned without acting on this matter...they considered it and decided not to act. These are the same people that started this mess in the first place. So, you can stop blaming Obama.
Do you think the legislature doesn't care about Michigan voters? Or is this a recognition of the fact that they made a bad bet and lost? They knew they couldn't "fix" this mess without disenfranchising some other group. Sometimes you don't get a "do-over". Sometimes it's "for real"...any kid knows that. Michigan was warned (//%22http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6959588.stm%22) by the national Democratic party. Yet, both state houses and Governor Granholm moved to advance the primary anyway. It's their screw-up, they know it and they are resigned to it.
pmcalk offers the only fair way to get the Michigan delegates seated at the convention, and that is to split them so that they do not tip the outcome in either candidates favor.
FYI, I'd be happy with either candidate. I would've been happy with Edwards, too.
Read the full article you posted, Mr. Chicken...
Clinton donors offered to pay the estimated $12 million cost of the revote, but Mr. Obama's allies in the Legislature blocked it for a variety of legal, technical and political reasons.
Sorry. Obama doesn't want democracy here.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Sorry. Obama doesn't want democracy here.
I read it...and bull. It would not have been a fair do-over.
Please explain how a re-vote in early June would not be fair to both candidates.
Obama has more money to spend. There is a large contingent of black voters in Detroit (50% of the population lives in the Detroit area) and a big college town in Ann Arbor. All these would seem to favor Obama.
Why would he oppose another election? It is because he knows he has lost momentum and will lose. Period.
Don't try to pivot. Before, you were concerned about democracy, and what would be fair to the voters. Now, you are asking what might be fair to the candidates.
I'm sticking with your previous observation. Would this do-over exclude people who voted in the previous primary? That's rhetorical. Yes, it would. And that's your explanation.
That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets.
I have said I don't care how or who they allow to vote. If the democrats who voted the first time for a republican vote again, I don't care. The fact that they are prohibited by party rules doesn't matter to me.
Just allow any kind of re-vote or count the earlier vote.
Obama is standing in the way. The Michigan voters should count and Obama doesn't want them to. His motives are all political and he cares more about his campaign chances than he does the Michigan voters. They won't forget.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets. I have said I don't care how or who they allow to vote.
Oh, please:
quote:
by RecycleMichael
"The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted."
"To not count every vote is un-American."
"Just put yourself in the shoes of a Michigan voter. Try to not be an Obama or Hillary supporter and be undecided again. What would you want to happen?"
"Obama doesn't want democracy here."
RM, you clearly tried to argue that this was an anti-democratic infringement on the rights of voters. Only when it was pointed out that a do-over was an equally anti-democratic solution that hurt
other voters, did you change your position.
No, Obama is standing in the way of THAT proposal, the one that doesn't allow everyone to vote. You are playing slide of hand here--only one proposal was on the table. No one offered to allow everyone to vote, probably because it would be too expensive. You might not care how many vote, but unfortunately, you are not a Michigan legislator. No one offered to publicly finance it. Clinton supporters offered up their suggestion, and it was rejected. Obama has offered up his, and I suspect that Clinton will reject his. We'll just have to wait to see what happens.
I agree that it is not over in Michigan.
The proposal that Obama's people blocked was not a perfect proposal, but it was agreed to by the democratic national committee, the state democratic party, the Governor of Michigan and the Hillary campaign.
Yes, Obama stopped only that particular proposal. He certainly has the right to offer another proposal to allow a re-vote.
But, remember, all these parties have been working on this for weeks and they all finally agreed, except for Obama's people.
There is no perfect way to allow a re-vote. But when any solution agreed to by all parties but one is stopped, there is no other way to describe it. Obama is an obstructionist to allowing the Michigan voters to have their ballots counted.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
But, remember, all these parties have been working on this for weeks and they all finally agreed, except for Obama's people.
There is no perfect way to allow a re-vote. But when any solution agreed to by all parties but one is stopped, there is no other way to describe it. Obama is an obstructionist to allowing the Michigan voters to have their ballots counted.
No, the Michigan legislature are not Obama's people. They are Michigan's people and, if they couldn't reach agreement, well...then so be it.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets.
[^][:D][8D][}:)][:)]
Has Borack commented on why he will not advocate a re-do in Michigan?
Does it appear the big democrats give a rats a#s about Floreeduh or Mishiegun? Hell no.
Bill Richardson just became Obama's ex offcio running mate. Minorities rule. Try beating these two. Mcaint gonna happen.....
Fascinating that the Boston Globe agrees with me that Obama is wrong...they actually say that Obama is working to stifle votes.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/fired_up_and_ready_for_a_nomination_battle/
Fired up and ready for a nomination battle
By Joan Vennochi
Globe Columnist / April 6, 2008
IN MASSACHUSETTS, prominent Hillary Clinton supporters are fired up and ready to go after prominent Barack Obama supporters.
Last week, a group of Democratic women who support Clinton rallied in front of the State House. They want the state's superdelegates - including Governor Deval Patrick and Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry - to support primary revotes in Michigan and Florida.
The men - all Obama supporters - are less than eager to take up their request. The women, lead by Senate President Therese Murray, have Clinton's self-interest on their side. But they also have principle. By disenfranchising voters in two states, the Democratic Party looks less than inclusive; and, Obama, the candidate who promises a different kind of politics, looks like he's practicing the same old, same old. That's wrong, and it's also shortsighted. If the Obama campaign works to stifle votes now, how can any Democratic nominee complain if Republicans do the same in November?
The national party is still trying to figure out how to handle more than 2 million votes cast by Florida and Michigan Democrats. After both states ignored party rules by scheduling their primaries when they did, the Democratic National Committee stripped their delegates. With Obama opting to stay off the ballot, Clinton won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan. She won 50 percent of the vote in Florida.
"The road to winning the White House goes through Michigan and that is why our voices need to be heard in selecting a Democratic nominee," Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said. "Nearly 600,000 people voted in the Jan. 15 Democratic primary and our votes must count and our delegates must be seated."
The party is wrangling over how delegates will be apportioned, with Obama forces working to keep Clinton's share as low as possible. The obvious remedy - a revote - was derailed. "The Obama people didn't want it to happen," said a Granholm aide. However, Clinton supporters in Massachusetts - especially female elected officials - aren't giving up. Clinton won the Massachusetts primary over Obama, despite his high-profile male supporters. Now, Clinton backers are pressuring the male political establishment to support revotes elsewhere.
The State House rally also included Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney; Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral; former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien; and former lieutenant governor Evelyn Murphy. They are threatening to withhold support for the party nominee, if they don't like the way the nominating process plays out.
"Without us, there is no party. And if we leave, that wouldn't be good," said Murray, according to a State House News Service report.
Earlier this year, Murray, the first woman to hold the Senate president's post, chastised Kennedy and other prominent men for abandoning Clinton to support Obama. "I don't want to be pushed aside anymore," said Murray. "I don't want to be patted on the head, saying, 'You did a good job on that, but now we got this young person, we got this attractive man, because you can't get elected because the media said you couldn't, because the polls said you couldn't. We're going to put this guy out front.' "
Kennedy backs a delegate-driven nomination, rather than one determined by superdelegates. It's a position of some irony, given his stance during the 1980 presidential campaign, when he and incumbent President Jimmy Carter battled through a nine-month primary season. Kennedy came into the Democratic Convention with fewer delegates than Carter, and pushed unsuccessfully for a rule to release delegates from their voting commitment. A few years later, the party embraced the rule that prevails today; so-called superdelegates can pledge their vote to whomever they prefer.
Kerry - the Democratic presidential nominee still haunted by how the votes were counted in Ohio in 2004 - told Clinton's female supporters he cares about fairness, but has yet to finalize a meeting with them. Patrick finally agreed to a one-hour meeting set for Thursday, after repeated requests from women who were among his staunchest supporters during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign.
Watch out, guys. Another revolution could be brewing in Massachusetts.
Meet the Depressed yesterday was amazing. Gov. Rendell was stupendously idiotic claiming Hillary was running against herself in Michigan. These people would be a dissaster running our country.