In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

"I'm very proud that as of today I have received more votes ... than anybody else," Clinton said. "It's a very close race, but if you count as I do the 2.3 million people who voted in Florida and Michigan..."

We all can agree that the situation with Michigan is a mess. That the DNC let this situation develop is a clear case of political malpractice that ultimately must be laid at the door of Dr. Dean.  But after the initial injury and as the consequences of such a festering anti Democratic wound caused by letting millions of Michigan Democrats be uncounted was understood, corrective surgery was offered, scheduled and paid for.   This plan to rejunivate the health of the gasping MI Dems was to hold a revote. Dr. Dean this time had the right judgment and along with the Governor of Michigan and its Congressional leaders, he supported the plan.  The problem was that the Obama campaign, pulled the plug and killed the revoting plan dead in its bed - while Michigan Democracy was well on the way to a recovery.

The Obama partisans response has been to repeat the strange and snide defense that "they didnt know that Obama had such awesome powers" to stop such a process by himself.  Well, nobody said he stopped it by himself.  He stopped it with the help of Obama loyal legislators in the Michigan assembly - who followed the instructions of the Obama campaign's attack dog lawyer, Bob Bauer, who had an entire laundry list of legalistic reasoning of why it was the RIGHT THING - to disenfranchise every single Michigan Democrat. (Bauer/Obama/Michigan - no revote for you - memo is here - http://www.rants.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2008/03/bauer-michigan-memo.pdf)

Why the Obama campaign stopped the Michigan revote is clear.  They thought a revote would help the Clinton campaign, at their expense.  But I NEVER understood that reasoning, being that a Clinton-Obama revote in that state possibly could be quite close. The Obama campaign's  repeated offer, the now-familiar call to split the Michigan and Florida delegations evenly between the two candidates is a snide and cynical joke.

In truth, I thought a Michigan revote might be fatal to Hillary's prospects to catch up in the delegate count.  And when they stopped it - I thought it was a huge mistake by the Obama campaign and now - a month later -that reality has become even clearer.  

It makes me wonder if Obama/Bauer/Axelrod both overthought AND underthought this revote. They obviously blocked it because they thought it was a Clinton ploy for advantage. But because the consequences of their act to block Michigan voters may now have the effect of seating the ENTIRE Michigan delegation (as originally voted in the state primary ) I wonder if in reality, did they just fall for the ol' "don't push me in that prickly bad brier patch" routine as played by Clinton's new and VERY SMART campaign team. (Sounds like something Doug Sosnick and Craig Smith and Ickes WOULD come up with) You see, the Obama campaign chose to actively work to disenfranchise the very votes that may be the ones that come back to end their campaign.  

It seems that the Obama campaign - as regards to Michigan  - have made it a "All" or "Nothing" choice.  The Obama campaign while deciding that they were going to push hard and pressure for the "Nothing" option, seems to have made it likely, if not inevitable, that the long term effect will be giving "All" to their opponent. The Obama campaign forced out the third choice of a party revote and left only the arguably unfair option to count the voters as voted or an unarguably untenable option to not count Michigan voters at all.  I think we can all agree that sometimes life is unfair, but it sure doesnt have to be "untenable".

The Michigan convention delegation has now been chosen, along with their superdelegates and all agree that eventually, they will be seated in Denver.  Personally, I dont see a way out of this mess that Obama created for himself that doesnt threaten to tar him as the candidate who
blocked free Democracy itself.  

The chickens may not have come home yet, but be sure, they will be roosting somewhere in the Convention hall in Denver in August.

--

An Editorial from today's Detroit News:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=/20080424/OPINION01/804240315/1 008

Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon
Susan J. Demas

If you punched your ballot for "uncommitted" in Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary to back Barack Obama, your vote might have essentially gone to Hillary Clinton anyway.

While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions.

This development naturally has been overshadowed by her big win Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. But the race for the Democratic nomination wasn't decided then and won't be by the remaining contests -- not North Carolina, Indiana or even Guam -- because the real fight is over delegates. And Michigan remains a key battleground.

On Aug. 25, Clinton will march into the national convention in Denver stronger than most people realize, thanks to her aggressive ground game in Michigan.

Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state's 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator's favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they're seated with full voting power.

That depends on the Democratic National Committee, which punished Michigan for leapfrogging the primary schedule. There is no deal yet to seat the delegation. But the Clinton camp is working overtime to ensure the elected slate is sent. Keep in mind that Clinton won 55 percent to uncommitted's 40 percent since Obama wasn't on the ballot. He has pushed for a 50-50 percent delegate split, but that proposal hasn't gained traction.

It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

"We wanted to pick people who would be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots," Blanchard says.

Michiganders for Obama, a ragtag group of new volunteers, triumphed in turnout Saturday but were steamrolled by the Clinton machine. Obama has proved to be a master of organization, but he made a tactical error not to plump up his skeletal apparatus in Michigan.

As a result, he will almost certainly fall short of the 36 uncommitted delegates selected. Volunteers argued that only Obama supporters should be uncommitted delegates, but they were outmaneuvered. About half of the uncommitted delegates reserved the right to vote for Clinton, depending on whom their unions eventually endorse.

While union officials flatly deny they're in the tank for Clinton, Obama supporters point out that United Auto Workers Legislative Coordinator Nadine Nosal was elected in the 8th District as an alternate Clinton delegate. That underscores the fact that Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last year, calling for higher federal fuel economy standards, went over with labor leaders like a lead balloon.

In May, the party's labor-heavy, Clinton-friendly central committee chooses the remaining 45 delegates, setting up a scenario of more uncommitted delegates switching to Clinton.

Given her narrow path to the nomination, Clinton and her aides have argued that pledged delegates are fair game to flip. Although they've since backed away from such statements, the Michigan delegate conventions show the Clinton delegate strategy is being set into motion. What this could mean is four very interesting days in Denver. Although the odds still favor Obama -- who leads in delegates, the popular vote and states won -- he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

If Clinton comes out on top in a floor war, we might well look back at the Michigan mêlée as the turning point.

Tags: chickens, Hillary, Michigan, obama, revote, Roosting (all tags)

Comments

166 Comments

I bet that most Michiganians would agree

that John Wesley Hardin [really] Was A Friend To The Poor...

After all Dylan is amazing.

Hey Mr. Tambourine Man play a song for me...

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 06:18AM | 0 recs
TLDR

haven't we been down this road before?

I am frankly tired of the discussion.  I am not an Obama nor a Clinton supporter but the Florida Michigan thing seems pathetic to me.  I didn't see Clinton belaboring this when she thought she was going to be the winner by super tuesday.

And if you start talking about disenfranchisement, move to California.  I don't think we have been decisive in a primary or GE in my lifetime.

by Sychotic1 2008-04-24 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at Jerome's diary

Jerome is very deluded and is leading Clinton supporters astray. Really silly arguments and I have no concern at all that any of this will fly. It'll be laughed at after the primary is over.

by Becky G 2008-04-24 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Becky

And why would the credentials committee seat them when the other states followed the rules?

It's like dealing with your kids. If you let them break the rules after repeated warnings and then threats of punishments, you have ZERO credibility.  Members of the credentials committee won't let that happen.

I know Clinton may try to press the case as part of her strategy to get the nomination in 2012.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
If they let some of your kids break the rules

with no punishment, but punish others for doing the same thing, how far above ZERO is your credibility?

by georgiapeach 2008-04-24 09:24AM | 0 recs
with---HIS MIND...MWUAHHHAAAHAAA! n/t

by bookish 2008-04-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: with---HIS MIND...MWUAHHHAAAHAAA! n/t

Oh, Bob...get a sense of humor.

by bookish 2008-04-24 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Becky
It's like dealing with your kids who are over 30 years old and are self-supporting...all you can do is disown them or refuse to see them, which is a very dysfunctional thing to do. Holding a national convention and not seating delegations from two important states is equally dysfunctional.
 
by Alice in Florida 2008-04-24 12:08PM | 0 recs
Other states broke the rules.

politicsmatters is not informed.

He asks, "And why would the credentials committee seat them when the other states followed the rules?"  Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all broke those same rules.  They just weren't punished for it.  This has been discussed quite a bit already.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Other states broke the rules.

heh yep

by switching sides 2008-04-24 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Other states broke the rules.

That's true - that one in particular rarely does.  And one cannot blame Clinton's campaign for playing this so shrewdly.  No one can claim she is gaming the system after she worked so hard to hold a revote.

I still think a revote is clearly the best solution for both parties.  But, if Barack wants to play a purely political game, I suppose that Hillary will meet him on that field instead.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 01:03PM | 0 recs
I think you mean

you mean goober, which means stupid person, air-headed, and slow.

Guibber doesn't have any meanings that are popular in any mainstream contexts unless you are referring to some weird Macaca type insult.

I stand by my comment about Dylan's songs I said.  I bet they are popular in Michigan especially those about gunslingers of the Old West

Also Johnny Cash has a good song about the same guy and how he wouldn't run...

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 06:42AM | 0 recs
The song

Hardin won't Run.

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 07:29AM | 0 recs
I apologize for my misunderstanding

and for my obnoxiousness upstream.  I was wrong in my thoughts about your identity.  

Yeah gibberish makes sense and I will agree my comments were that now.  I am going to uprate some of your comments that got TR'ed in the stream.

However, I am willing to have a discussion with you now.  I did a little research through OpenLeft and WMR and found out that of the uncommitted delegates 23 are strong Obama supporters 7 are weak (used to be Edwards) supporters and 1 is a UAW.  Clinton's delegation has some heavyweights.  I don't think it is as bad for Obama as the article makes it out to be, he will get at least 23 delegates out of MI (worst case scenario) and he is likely to get a decent number of the PLEO and at-large delegates.  The group that Obama should be upset about is the supers as most are in Clinton's camp due to the way MI came down.  I think Conyers is the only super in Obama's camp all of the rest are undecided or in Clinton's camp.

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: heres a song kossack

Why not write a diary that isn't just "guibberish" and insulting people?

by ragekage 2008-04-24 06:54AM | 0 recs
Was that to Student Guy or Grendel?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-24 07:54AM | 0 recs
How many times

has this guy been banned?

by MBNYC 2008-04-24 07:04AM | 0 recs
there is nothing in this diary

that suggests this guy should be banned.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-24 07:25AM | 0 recs
Other than

the wholesale disparagement being heaped on it, of course. But I'd say the resultant mockery is a net plus, overall.

Hey, the more inane sockpuppets the better from where I stand.

by MBNYC 2008-04-24 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Other than

If you see my post below, he's already using multiple ID's again.  He's got an account "The Judge Holden" that he isn't even trying to be sly about (or if he is, he's awful at it.)  He almost exclusively posts in his own diaries using that account, and it's actually pretty funny (ie pathetic) if you read the threads because he has conversations with himself in a few instances.  I'd notify the admins about it but I've gotta take off for the day.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-24 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Other than

hahaha wait this is Holden Caufield or whatever? That guy used to just cut and paste from Hillaryis44!!! I loved that guy. He was unintentionally hilarious every time.

He seems to be putting together better sentences now. Months of practice, I suppose!

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 10:45AM | 0 recs
Just insult him

Don't even bother with arguments with this guy.  I've tried against his John Wesley Hardin Was A Friend To The Poor alias and it annoying.  It is more fun to point out things like John Wesley Hardin Was A Friend To The Poor.

I think he had 3-4 accounts here.

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 07:27AM | 0 recs
Didn't he also

have that Thomas J Jefferson account? I remember when that freeper troll fleaflicker got banned, and he posted that ridiculous diary about "the disappeared".

by MBNYC 2008-04-24 07:31AM | 0 recs
So you

admit that I'm right?

by MBNYC 2008-04-24 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Just insult him

Oh, now I remember you.

Banned on Daily Kos for sockpuppetry. Can't have been otherwise, because your last comment was visible, so it wasn't the autoban.

by MBNYC 2008-04-24 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: heres a song kossack

You outrage that people don't take your arguments seriously would make a lot more sense if you have took other peoples arguments seriously.

In another diary you made the argument that Clinton has the most votes because it is important to take the voice of all voters seriously (let's just ignore the Obama supporters in Michigan... I mean we can't penalize FL and MI voters for decisions out of their control, unless they support Obama, because it was their decision to not have him on the ballot, right?)  But more importantly it ignores the people in those 4 caucus states, where people did go out and vote (they also did not choose the format of the vote).

Despite many people pointing out the flaws in your argument, you chose to ignore it.  You flip out if you think people aren't giving you proper respect, but ignore any one else argument and respond with insults or laughter.

When you treat everyone with contempt, than go insane that people don't study your ramblings.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-24 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: heres a song kossack

Yes, and you did not include those estimates in your diary and ignored anyone who pointed that out.

Glad you acknowledge they exist.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-24 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: But

No disagreement there...  I prefer primaries and I also think there should be a some sort of revote.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-24 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: But

Exit polls told me Obama would win California, I think, and many other things over the years that turned out not to be true.  And exit polls are never presented with their margins of error, which makes it really interesting to take people use them as if they are as accurate as the election results themselves (Florida notwithstanding).  

I don't think the popular vote is a knowable measure but here's what it is: Hillary's best hope.  The race was and is for delegates.  Like Rachel Maddow said, counting Michigan and Florida is like losing the Penant by a few games and then wanting to count the pre-season games.  

Here are the facts as we know them:

Clinton is behind and Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and will not make up the spread.

Clinton is behind and Obama is ahead in the popular vote and will not likely make up that spread.

Clinton has recognized the metrics haven't favored her for quite some time and has floated a) the important state totals b) the electoral vote total c) the primary state totals and probably a few others I can't remember or didn't pay attention to.

Based on Jerome's post and some others here, it appears Karl Rove is renting out THE Math.

by niksder 2008-04-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: But

The only measure is delegates.  The popular vote means as much as anything else to superdelegates, it just happens not to be a knowable metric, which makes this exercise kinda funny.  Maddow is a twit who has intelligently advocated for progressives and their issues.

At one point, when she wanted the votes of Iowa and N.H. voters, HRC said Michigan would not matter. And feel to address any of my earlier arguments with something other than the astute observation that Rachel Maddow is a twit.

You obviously can agree that results won't count and then insist upon counting them once they're in your favor.  It just strikes me as patently dishonest.  Of course, one man's dishonesty is another's tenacity.  

by niksder 2008-04-24 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Michiganians ?

I thought being born and raised in Michigan made me a Michigander.

by Dave B 2008-04-24 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I bet that most Michiganians would agree

its Michiganders.  

by badu 2008-04-24 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: heres a song kossack

If Clinton became the nominee by counting Michigan and Florida and somehow getting the superdelegates to side with her, you've just handed the white house back to the republicans.

The Obama voters, particularly blacks, will not so easily forgive that transgression. Especially with it happening in August and there being no time to heal that kind of wound.

You and the candidate you support are committing political suicide by pushing this absurdity, nothing more, nothing less.

by Yalin 2008-04-24 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I bet that most Michiganians would agree

That's a great link, thank you.

The irony of people accusing Hillary of only standing up for Michigan when it's convenient - reality is that she took a big political hit for standing up on behalf of Michigan.

I'm proud of her stand.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 01:14PM | 0 recs
It's Michiganders

Don't know why. Don't know when, but that's what we call ourselves.

by barnowl 2008-04-24 04:55PM | 0 recs
Not so much

Clinton doesn't have a secret weapon at this point.  

Michigan is a dead issue.  Get over with.  Superdelegates aren't going to be convinced to punish Obama for obeying the DNC.

Further, Obama was, in fact, right in bringing up legal problems with the re-vote.  Since when was obeying the law and shielding state governments from litigation wrong?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:26AM | 0 recs
Actually...

I'm hoping that those wonderful Michiganders disenfranchise their abominable state leaders that played games with their voting rights by ejecting them as they come up for re-election.

Democracy has a solution to your problem already.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

Yes and I hope those wonderful Iowans and New Hampshire voters disenfranchise their abominable state leaders that played games with their voting rights by ejecting them as they come up for re-election as well.

by Beet 2008-04-24 10:37AM | 0 recs
Oh, I see what you're saying

You're still on that "But IA & NH changed thier dates, too!" schtick.

As it turns out, they changed their dates in response to Michigan breaking the rules because they wanted to make sure that they got their traditional place in the primary line.  They fully had the support of the DNC when they changed their date.

This one is still Michigan's fault.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 10:48AM | 0 recs
heh! this is why i don't want obama for president.

this is why i don't want obama for president. he's too timid, and tries to delay and avoid when he should be acting decisively. in michigan, it cost him. tough luck, kiddo. if you can't stand up to the unions in michigan, the north koreans are gonna eat you for lunch.

It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

by campskunk 2008-04-24 06:28AM | 0 recs
Oh no!

I'm sure he can afford this "price in delegates" for doing the right thing.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:33AM | 0 recs
Michigan and pretty much everyone

The last thing we need is Michigan being sued in a class action lawsuit for illegitimate voting practices.  That would be disasterous for both the party and the faith of the electorate in government.

Do we really need more focus on electoral problems in this country, particularly on the Democratic side?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:48AM | 0 recs
We need to NOT dinsenfranchise whole states!

What is Obama afraid of with revotes in Michigan and Florida?

by architek 2008-04-24 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: We need to NOT dinsenfranchise whole states!

That mantra is getting ridiculous. Laughable, really.

by Becky G 2008-04-24 07:20AM | 0 recs
try answering the question

rather than completely nonresponsive comments.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-24 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: try answering the question

Hmm, yes. What is he afraid of, really?

by Caldonia 2008-04-24 08:44AM | 0 recs
I just told you

He, a consitutional law scholar, found areas that he disagreed with the plans presented.

He also had no power over the issue.  He doesn't control state legislatures; he's a senator from a different state.

You know, this probably could have been resolved if they just had caucuses.  I'm told it was cheaper, and I don't think the "vote in primary" restriction would have come into effect.

The Michigan and Florida folks could've been counted and seated already if Clinton hadn't blocked caucuses.

What is Clinton afraid of with caucuses in Michigan and Florida?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 10:21AM | 0 recs
Huh?

No, I'm talking about the voters who were disenfranchised because they voted in the Republican primary as they were told that their votes wouldn't count in the Democratic.

You know this, you're just being purposefully dense.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 10:18AM | 0 recs
I get it

You're just going to say ridiculous stuff until I concede that it's not worth my time.

I'll bite for a little longer.  Not all who voted in the Republican primary were Republicans.  It was an open primary, and Democrats who didn't think their vote would count voted for a Republican instead.  It's quite simple, and I know you understand this, since it was quite a big deal with a rival blog site.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 10:43AM | 0 recs
I'm still game

If those people "took off work, got a babysitter, gave up their lunch break, took time away from their families" to vote in a meaningless presidential primary (that they were told would be meaningless beforehand), then yes.  They were silly to do that.

I imagine there were downticket races that they were concerned with as well, however, so I don't think that they somehow were deprived of voting for Democrats.

The people who were mostly concerned with the presidential race, if they wanted to be heard, only had a say in the Republican race, through which they helped nominate Mitt Romney and extend the Republican decision a little longer while our candidates fought it out in an unexpectedly long Democratic primary season.  They also convinced Romney to blow more of his personal fortune.  I'd say it was a good move.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 11:28AM | 0 recs
And yet...

Were it not for monkeywrenching by over 100,000 Republicans, Clinton very well might have lost Texas's popular vote, which was one of her excuses for staying in the race.

Would you have her win in Texas erased if it meant preventing such monkeywrenching?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 12:09PM | 0 recs
How could that be?

Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's show, he was courting Rush's listeners.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.htm l
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s ite_030308/content/01125106.guest.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/06 the-limbaugh-effect-on-clintons-texas-w in

9% of the votes in Texas were from people who identified as Republican to exit pollers (there could've been more who didn't answer truthfully), that's 258,160.  Of those, about 47% went for Clinton, compared to the 75% of Republicans he was getting in previous contests.

That's 121,335 Republicans voting for Clinton.  The margin for victory was 101,029.

I'm not saying that Obama would have won had there been no interference, but it's quite possible that he would have.  Either way, he would have netted a whole lot more delegates out of the affair.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

If by "Clintonites put forth the plan and the money," you mean it was to be fully funded by 10 of her closest wealthy supporters, then yeah I understand why he wouldn't want that.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-03-19-michigan_N.htm

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-24 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

Sorry, but am I the only one who doesn't feel comfortable with an election funded by the candidate's closest friends?  No one else is nervous about that?  Really?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-24 06:50AM | 0 recs
Its better than NOTHING!

There is a big difference between funding something and 'fixing it', they would not RUN it, they would simply write a check to the state to handle the cost.

You Obama supporters really make me laugh sometimes.

by architek 2008-04-24 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Its better than NOTHING!

Right, so I am sure there would be no pressure on recounts or certifying votes.  I mean, we haven't had an issue on that since 2000.  

"7 years without a rigged election."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-24 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

What's wrong with buying elections?  They did it in the Soviet Union all the time.  Worked out fine for them.

by Capt America 2008-04-24 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

The offered to SPLIT the costs, weren't you paying attention? Would have solved your issue, but Obama wasn't having any of it.

by splashy 2008-04-24 09:32AM | 0 recs
Interesting

Sources for any of this?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-24 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

The main problem that the Obama campaign had with the Michigan revote was the HILLARY CAMPAIGN'S insistence that only people who voted the first time had the right to vote the second time.

Are you really defending that? Only people who had the means and the time available to go vote the first time, knowing it wouldn't matter, deserve to vote in a revote? Even though that stance disenfranchises TONS of voters?

Really?

Secondly, any potential revote got killed when the Michigan courts wouldn't release the names of the previous voters so that HILLARY could disallow everyone else.

Had HRC agreed to a full and complete revote, the Obama campaign would have been all for it.

by Darknesse 2008-04-24 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: heh! this is why i don't want obama for presid

Naturally no answers. Disenfranchisement, (like sexism) is awesome when applied to your opponent or his wife...

by Darknesse 2008-04-24 12:04PM | 0 recs
A window into how he'd govern

"he's too timid, and tries to delay and avoid when he should be acting decisively."

by catfish1 2008-04-24 06:37AM | 0 recs
He's a sellout, who would betray the sickest 20%

of the people in this country so he could CHEAPLY (not effectively) 'insure' the healthy 80% IN NAME ONLY, and he wouldn't even START trying to do that until 2012!

And THEN they try to blame his unpopularity on RACE!

by architek 2008-04-24 07:11AM | 0 recs
huh?

The Obama campaign stopped nothing.  Had the Michigan legislature approved a revote, he'd have had to show up.  I don't see how he had any veto power here.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 06:32AM | 0 recs
His allies in the leg

Voted it down.

by catfish1 2008-04-24 06:37AM | 0 recs
Obama isn't in the Michigan legislature

How would he vote it down?  

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: His allies in the leg

There was no vote, and it was blocked by Michigan Republicans. Do you honestly think the Michigan Republicans are Obama's allies? Really?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-24 07:06AM | 0 recs
Isn't it obvious?

Anyone who doesn't see the GOP-Obama connection is blind.

by architek 2008-04-24 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it obvious?

Is this a joke?

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: huh?

This is hilarious.  Obama's "mad dog lawyer," as you've described him elsewhere, did nothing but write a memo (not a brief) that served as a press release.  You should really try to get an understanding about how state government and the legal system work before you start making these hollow claims.

by rfahey22 2008-04-24 06:53AM | 0 recs
weird

Because when one googles it, you're the only one who calls him that.

And as you know, it's the MI/FL legislatures which "disenfranchised" voters.  Rules matter.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: weird

Because if google doesn't index it then it doesn't exist. You're a parody of the Internet generation.

Given that the states legislatures of MI and FL funded primaries where record numbers of Democrats voted, you have a peculiar notion of "disenfranchising."

by souvarine 2008-04-24 08:13AM | 0 recs
not done

Where's the "mad dog" quote?  Or evidence that Obama blocked a revote?

by Adam B 2008-04-24 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: amazing

You did no work, because it didn't prove your point.  Hell, George Steele wasn't even a 50s wrestler, but much later.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: huh?

And...you skipped right over the substantive part of my post.  Why am I not surprised?

by rfahey22 2008-04-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
I certainly read it.

And nothing in your diary demonstrates the point you're trying to prove: that Obama did kill the revote.  You've explained why Bob Bauer was opposed to it, but there are multiple links in the causal chain you've missed.

Tell us which Michigan legislators are loyal to Obama (and tell us how you know that) and show us how they blocked this.  Because, as you know, there was no actual vote on this.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 06:55AM | 0 recs
Not

A rebuttal!

by Adam B 2008-04-24 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Oy

Is that the best you can do?  

by interestedbystander 2008-04-24 12:51PM | 0 recs
Stop trying

haven't you learned anything? When BTD over at Talkleft uses the "C" word to describe the Obama sycophants you know reason and rationality has failed and failed big time. But for your information here is the Obama ally who basically blocked the MI revote: his name is Tupac Hunter.

State lawmakers looking at a Democratic presidential primary redo in Michigan appear to be locked in a standoff heading into a crucial week: Legislative leaders say the U.S. Sen. Barack Obama camp needs to agree to the repeat election before legislation is written, and Obama supporters say they must see the bill before signing off on the plan.

Whether Michigan has a do-over primary in June depends on resolving that issue.

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said Sunday that allies of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are bent on a do-over primary to enable their candidate to try to pull up to Obama in the presidential race. Hunter said he won't sign off on a repeat election unless he sees detailed legislation answering his concerns...

Hunter added that he isn't absolutely opposed to a proposed do-over contest in Michigan.

But he wants to see the money to pay for it up front and won't agree to legislation "with a promise from governors who are Clinton supporters that they'll raise the money at some point and meanwhile Michigan taxpayers have to put the money out first. The money has to be in the treasury first. That's just fiscally prudent."

by tarheel74 2008-04-24 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop trying

Thank you for actually getting this to a factual level, because it does look like Hunter did want to work this out.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 08:01AM | 0 recs
Typical of him

Hunter was being disingenuous. First he said this:

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path.

"We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

Obama told CNN last night he has "some concerns" about vote by mail, but added of the Michigan-Florida quandary, "I'm sure it will get sorted out."

The Clinton camp favors do-overs.

then he said this:

But Michigan state Sen. Tupac Hunter, a major Obama supporter, says an "overwhelming majority" of members who support both candidates "find something or the other wrong with it and cannot support it in its current form. A new vote, he added, "does not look likely."

"From where I sit, there are no floating pieces to this," said Hunter -- nothing that can be changed that wouldn't require a major alteration or abandonment of the current proposal. "I'm not sure how feasible it is at this point. ... There's nothing I've seen or heard that would lead me to believe that there's going to be an agreement."

So no he was not trying to work this out, not in good faith.

by tarheel74 2008-04-24 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

How is that not a good faith effort?  Read that whole article:

But in an exclusive interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, the Illinois senator hit back at Clinton's claims that he is standing in the way of revotes in Florida and Michigan.

"Sen. Clinton, I have to say on this, has been completely disingenuous. She said, when she was still trying to compete with the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count," he said.

"Then, as soon as she got into trouble politically and it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having them count, suddenly she's extraordinarily concerned with the voters there."

"I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics," he added. "I want the Michigan 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."

by Adam B 2008-04-24 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

asking for a 50-50 split. That is vote-stealing. Obama did not win 50% either in Florida or in MI....and he then did not want a revote because he would have lost. So any attempt to seat delegates is in bad faith and to say or act otherwise is completely disingenuous.

by tarheel74 2008-04-24 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

No one campaigned in Florida -- how is that a reflection of anything?  (Because if campaigning really doesn't matter, why is Hillary still doing it?)

by Adam B 2008-04-24 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

if anything Obama campaigned in Florida, i.e. he had ads on Florida air through MSNBC. So claiming that he did not campaign at all and he was not interested in FL is again not true.

by tarheel74 2008-04-24 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

Did her ads running in the Mobile, AL market also constitute campaigning in FL?

by Adam B 2008-04-24 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

His ads ran in Florida, the last I checked Alabama and Florida are not the same.

by tarheel74 2008-04-24 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

Mobile, AL's tv market broadcasts into the Florida panhandle.

by Adam B 2008-04-24 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical of him

The panhandle is a very small, less populated part of Florida. Most of the people are around Gainsville and the southern part.

So, to compare ads on MSNBC to ads run in Mobile is ludicrous. The amount of people reached is probably 100 to 1. I wouldn't swear on that figure, but if you have ever BEEN in Florida you would see the panhandle is not nearly as populated.

by splashy 2008-04-24 09:41AM | 0 recs
by catfish1 2008-04-24 06:39AM | 0 recs
Way worse than sniper fire

Dude was probably thinking of Minnesota.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:44AM | 0 recs
Or Missouri

Starts with the Mi sound too.

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Or Missouri

Yeah, either one, though Minnesota is probably more along the state demographics he was thinking of.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-24 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama says he won Michigan

That's interesting.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 12:27PM | 0 recs
He's a FIGHTER!

Funny how the Hillary campaign goes on about how Hillary is such a fighter. And I'm sure that if Hillary was leading now and Obama was crying about disenfranchisement, we'd be hearing Hillary spouting off about how he's whining about the rules and how in the GE, nobody is going to change the rules for him.

Well, guess what.  He's a FIGHTER!  He's OUR GUY!  You go guy!

by MikeyB 2008-04-24 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a FIGHTER!

as he should be, but not at the expense of the voters having their voices heard.  your candidate has said he would seat the delegates once he secured the nomination effectively making democracy only a principle that favours your own ambitions.  sad.

by canadian gal 2008-04-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a FIGHTER!

Come on, let's not be ignorant here.  Everybody is happy to not count certain voters when it works to their advantage.  Hillary focused on big states, hoping that the voters of the smaller states would be effectively disenfranchised.  Her campaign has made bad decisions, and now they're trying to back track.  Is that how she would run the country?  I hear she wants to take back her vote on giving the Pres. authority to attack Iraq.  Sorry, no do-overs.  We're all adults now. Or as you HRC folks like to do: Our guy is WINNING!  You go guy!

by MikeyB 2008-04-24 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a FIGHTER!

You mean a fighter against the voters by not letting their votes be counted? Not the kind of fighter I want.

by splashy 2008-04-24 09:48AM | 0 recs
Not impressed.

You're wrong, MikeyB.  Some of us actually walk the walk.  I have been involved in electoral reform since long before this primary began.  The right of "one person, one vote" is sacred to me.  I would never compromise that value simply for the sake of one politician's ambition.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

Funny, most polls I've seen show Obama beating McCain in MI, and Clinton losing to McCain. That's what the EC maps on the homepage show. Of course MyDD and Jerome Armstrong are notoriously biased toward Obama, but even so, it appears the voters of Michigan don't know they've been "disenfranchised". Maybe they know what the word means.

Though I suppose if we were going to cancel the primaries in NC, IN, MT and OR, there might be some point to this.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

The smallest, by far, of the three states I mentioned?

We'll see.

It's over, but if that will make you all feel better: Congratulations.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-24 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

That's amazing - stuffing ballot-boxes and tossing votes into basements is a fine art perfected on the east coast.  Didn't know that Montanans were so good at it.

by Mostly 2008-04-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home
Ha, I'll believe it when I see it. HRC doesn't have a chance in the Rockies. Have fun telling libertarian-leaning western Democrats, the ones who elect people like Tester and yes, Schweitzer, that Clinton is the better choice because she'll force them to buy health insurance, though. Maybe if you milk 'bitter-gate' and collude with the media to keep it in the news you'll keep it close, but a win is pretty far fetched.
by leftneck 2008-04-24 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

You're so full of crap, "latte bars in Butte" my god disphits shouldn't write authoritatively about things they know nothing about, Jesus Christ, Hillary is going to get whooped here, she might, I repeat might have some chance in Butte, and split Billings, you know if she wazsn't Hillary and thus hated by most Dems here, is Missoula she'll be lucky to get 30% of the vote.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-24 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens

Gee golly miss molly!  Will Hillary's chickens lay an egg???  LOL.

by Spanky 2008-04-24 06:54AM | 0 recs
Big Mistake

If this issue blows up at the convention, this will hurt Obama severly during the general election, should Obama be the nominee. Not only will his support erode in Michigan, but Clinton supporters will not see Obama as a fair player and will either not vote or vote for McCain in the general election.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-24 07:14AM | 0 recs
Who's the unity candidate?

Democrats cannot win without MI and FL. They must be enfranchised NOW.

by nonwhiteperson 2008-04-24 07:17AM | 0 recs
Yawn.

More misnomers coming from someone trying to hide their Hillary partisanship in pro-democracy rhetoric.  Their is no right to vote in a primary, and the only external rules parties need to respect are non-discrimination statutes.

by corph 2008-04-24 07:22AM | 0 recs
Apart from my misspelling

"there", I don't see the inconsistency.  Since there is no right to vote in a primary, people who don't get to vote cannot be "disenfranchised".  They do have a right to vote for their state legislatures, and petition them to abide by DNC rules in order to have a say in the national nomination process.

Anyway, it's all moot.  I don't believe enough uncommitted (and therefore non-Hillary-aid-drinking) supers will buy the argument that invalid election results should determine the will of the people.  And the credentials appeal is going nowhere.

by corph 2008-04-24 08:51AM | 0 recs
You really don't know what

you're talking about.

The Michigan convention delegation has now been chosen, along with their superdelegates and all agree that eventually, they will be seated in Denver.  Personally, I dont see a way out of this mess that Obama created for himself that doesnt threaten to tar him as the candidate who
blocked free Democracy itself.

Ooh, the delegation has been chosen!  Obama's doomed!

No one cares about the official delegation seating unless it influences the outcome.  And it can't, because Obama delegates will control the floor vote.  Unless Clinton has already passed him, in which case it's also moot.  There is no point in arguing over MI seating, except as some sort of desperate ploy to elicit sympathy from uncommitted supers.  All of whom know the party rules better than you do.

by corph 2008-04-24 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You really don't know what

Were you hero-worshipping Harold Ickes when he voted for a full strip of the Michigan and Florida delegations?

by Mostly 2008-04-24 08:10AM | 0 recs
Since everyone kept arguing the point

I talked to a superdelegate I know who'se on the credentials committee.  I called the DNC offices and read through the rules.  It's confusing, but ultimately whatever the cred. committee decides can be appealed by a minority and goes to a floor vote (without FL and MI).  I'm absolutely sure that vote would be along partisan lines if it can influence the outcome in any way.  If you think that means I don't know anything, bully for you.

Sure, both candidates can agree to a face-saving scenario that seats the delegations without them influencing the outcome.  But that's not what we're talking about here. Unless Ickes' secret plan involves planting mole Clinton supporters among Obama delegates or blackmailing them or something, he ain't getting the votes.  He's probably floating that "plan" just to keep supporter's morale up.  It reminds me of the people who tried to flip electors for Gore in 2000.  

And cut it out with the "disenfranchise" misnomer again.  If you've been to 5 conventions, you should know better than to use that word.

by corph 2008-04-24 09:04AM | 0 recs
I know who they are, Seymour

(mostly Clinton supporters).  Doesn't matter, they don't have the final say.  The floor does.  Go ahead and believe an Obama delegate majority will vote to hand over the nomination to Clinton.

And yes, you have the right to say "disenfranchise" as much as you like, only it doesn't make the term any more applicable.  You probably complained about being "disenfranchised" the last time you were banned too.

by corph 2008-04-24 11:01AM | 0 recs
Good for you.

Yeah see, I'm using the same account as a month ago because I haven't been banned yet, despite my supporting Obama and the site owner supporting Clinton.

And yet you have... I wonder why?  Could it be your spamming of nonsense and calling people who know more than you "nerds"?

by corph 2008-04-24 11:23AM | 0 recs
Why, if Hillary is such a hero to Michigan, is she

...polling so poorly there against McCain?

From pollster.com:

McCain vs. Clinton
McCain - 45.7%
Clinton - 40.5%

McCain vs. Obama
McCain - 41.2%
Obama - 42.5%

Whatever happens with the Michigan delegation doesn't appear to be having an effect on general election numbers. Right now, Hillary loses to McCain and Obama beats him.
 

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 07:45AM | 0 recs
That's the poll of polls.

It is not a single poll. She trails McCain in Michigan while Obama leads.

But carry on with your narrative that touts Hillary as the Savior of Democracy© (except in states she didn't win - those don't count).

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
The Clintons saved the Democratic Party?

Is that why we lost the House and the Senate while Bill was president?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 09:36AM | 0 recs
No, those are your choices.

The fact is the Democrats lost the House and the Senate under the "leadership" and the DLC braintrust, including Al From, Bruce Reed and, over at the DNC, Terry McAuliffe.

Live with it.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 09:46AM | 0 recs
They drove the party off a cliff.

Sorry. That's what happened.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 09:55AM | 0 recs
Terry's only goal was to match the Republicans in

... fundraising. To do that, he sold out the party to the same corporate interests that funded the Republicans Party. Except these big business interests always viewed Terry and the DNC as the "little brother" to their real friends in the Republican Party.

And Bill Clinton fostered that sell-out, sinking the party. Bill's signing of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, for example, created the very behemoths in the media that he now decries for their unfavorable treatment of his wife.

Ironic, that.

Bill helped create the monsters he now whines about.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-24 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: They drove the party off a cliff.

Actually...it's not all policy. There are structural reasons why you lose seats as well.

And we lost a ton because Clinton botched nearly everything 1993-1994.

We lost the presidency because he's a moral failure.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: They drove the party off a cliff.

Excuse me?

We lost the presidency in 2000 because Bill Clinton tainted the Democratic brand with his morally reprehensible behavior.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: They drove the party off a cliff.

I love the party. And I'm not too blinded by love of the Clintons to look at the big picture.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Its Springtime

Man, you are going to be livid, come June.  

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 05:56PM | 0 recs
Rec'd, Tipped, and TRs for all the stalkers.

I haven't read the TOS, or FAQ, or Mission Statement, etc., lately.  So, someone tell me if it is permissible to stalk diarists, and personally attack them, while ignoring the substance of the diary?

If so, I'll consider taking those TRs back.

But as the diarist points out, that kind of behavior is soooooooooooooooo Daily Kos.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-24 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

Just wanted to point out to anyone that isn't aware of it already, if you're having conversations with Grendel was misunderstood and/or The Judge Holden, you're talking with the same person.  This diarist has already gotten busted once by the admins for using at least 5 ID's at the same time.

Old nicknames:
Pretty Boy Floyd the Outlaw
John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor
Thomas J Jefferson
Seymour Glass
Holden Caulfield

New nicknames (so far):
Grendel was misunderstood
The Judge Holden

Don't feed the trolls!

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-24 08:07AM | 0 recs
As the Obama supporters say...

link?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-24 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are

LOL

I find your hounding of this guy very amusing.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-24 11:11AM | 0 recs
lol @ "...or historic people"


by talktomei 2008-04-24 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

My FAVORITE sentence from the editorial:

he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

Um....no.......um.........didn't one candidate lose 11 contests in a row??

by feliks 2008-04-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

um....there was only 1 primary this week.

by feliks 2008-04-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

Maybe it was from Texas and Ohio, back when the fawning, pro-Obama media assigned a win to Clinton in a state where Obama (eventually) received more delegates?

by leftneck 2008-04-24 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

So far Obama has gained three superdelegates this week, Clinton one. Meanwhile Clinton supporter Bayh is out there trying to prevent others from announcing.

Who looks more confident about what party leaders think?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-24 08:20AM | 0 recs
Not buying it

The only proposal that was floated in MI would have disqualified a demograohic that skews heavily to Obama-- namely, voters who cast ballots in the Republican contest without knowledge that there would be an official Dem primary or that their Republican vote would disqualify them from it.  I understand that not having a valid vote is unfair and unfortunate, but forcing Obama to accept any old plan--regardless of how prejudicial it is to his chances-- is just as unfair.  Obama had nothing to do with the sanctions and shouldn't be forced to accept a biased revote b/c of the shortsightedness of the state parties and legislatures.  

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-24 08:27AM | 0 recs
Obama is thinking...

... that he'll do better in the General against McCain than Hillary will.

And the current polling supports his opinion.

From pollster.com:

   McCain vs. Clinton
    McCain - 45.7%
    Clinton - 40.5%

   McCain vs. Obama
    McCain - 41.2%
    Obama - 42.5%

by tbetz 2008-04-24 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is thinking...

It's electronic brown-shirting.
I find it troubling.

It is in complete contradiction of the FAQ of this website -
But if you post something that is sarcastic or profoundly challenging to the Obama meme, then you get troll rated.  In addition, if you check some of their ratings history, you will see that the more egregious offenders troll a dozen or more people per day.  (That's one of the few design advantages of DKos - the 5 per day limit.)

by johnnygunn 2008-04-24 09:40AM | 0 recs
The last Democrat to lose Michigan

was named Michael Stanley Dukakis in 1988, and look how well he did that year. He also lost Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all of which we have not lost since 1988. What is Obama thinking?

by DiamondJay 2008-04-24 08:39AM | 0 recs
Obama is thinking...

... that he'll do better in the General in Michigan than Hillary will.

And the current polling supports his opinion.

From pollster.com:

   McCain vs. Clinton
    McCain - 45.7%
    Clinton - 40.5%

   McCain vs. Obama
    McCain - 41.2%
    Obama - 42.5%

Once Hillary is no longer a factor, Obama's numbers can only rise further.

by tbetz 2008-04-24 09:06AM | 0 recs
Clinton refused redo also

NOTE that Clinton refused a Michigan redo unless the only people who could vote were the people who already voted.

What kind of election is that?  Many people stayed home cause their candidate wasn't on the ballot.  The Clinton rule seems SO fair...sigh...I give up with the crazy Clintonistas.

by ckd5555 2008-04-24 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Chickens

Also:

Since Obama of his own volition took his name off the MI ballot, he should accept responsibility for his choice and live with the consequences.  Personally, I don't think he deserves the Uncommitted votes.  His name is Obama, not Uncommited.  His choice; he can live with it.
 

by moevaughn 2008-04-24 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Chickens

Oh, Bull... the election wasn't supposed to count and you know it...  Any arguments for Hillary in that regard is essentially cheating....

by LordMike 2008-04-24 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Chickens

I want them to be seated (even though that situation calls for the Obama voters to be disenfranchised, but I guess you don't care about them)....

They will be seated... even with this ridiculous "new math", Obama will still win in the end...  even with 70% of the delegates seated in MI....  

by LordMike 2008-04-24 10:59AM | 0 recs
Obama's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Excellent.

by LindaSFNM 2008-04-24 09:16AM | 0 recs
Whatever

Desperation is not becoming or attractive.

If the lady would've won super tuesday and a host of other states, as so many predicted would happen, we wouldn't be having this repetitive conversation now would we?

Her campaign was forgettable and she couldn't raise funds. That's what happened.

whine, whine.. boo-hoo.

by april34fff 2008-04-24 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Bwakk, bwakk, bwakk - -

This is wonderful news!

You know, Obama really outfoxed Clinton in the caucuses on Super Tuesday.  I think the Clinton campaign failed to realize that caucus delegates in Idaho were far easier prizes than primary delegates in Ohio.  

But now the Michigan delegates are at stake.  And, yes, Obama clearly acted as he did to cozy up to Iowa voters.  It was a political move with political risks.  If Hillary is able to get the vast majority of Michigan delegates - - it's just the way the political cookie crumbles.

Speaking of crumbling -
A Clinton Michigan delegation will be tough to seat UNLESS
Unless Clinton wins big in the last few primaries.  Then the supers will be looking for a way to increase Clintons delegate total so that they can say that she leads in both the popular vote and the delegate count.

So, thanks again.
The avenue is Michigan Avenue.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-24 09:47AM | 0 recs
The damage is done, and can not...

... be undone.  Hillary has proven that she can't be trusted even to manage a national political campaign, much less a nation.

Sort of like how sockpuppet morphing trolls can never regain any credibility under their old pseudonyms, so they must contiunally create new ones.

by tbetz 2008-04-24 10:41AM | 0 recs
Hillary is a leader only for natural followers.

Sheep.  They will do whatever she says;  that's the only way she can get away with constantly moving the goalposts.  Hillary's followers are willing to pretend that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Obama supporters would have abandoned him long ago if he had showed them as much disrespect as Hillary has showed her followers.  And therein lies the difference between us.

by tbetz 2008-04-24 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

After the 2000 race how can we seriously consider not counting, or at least allowing revotes, for both states?  Strong arming party leaders, and I am including both Obama and Clinton, will not bode well in November.  Calling for one or the other candidate to concede before all primaries are held does not bode well for November.  Coercing super delegates to make the final decision on the nominee does not bode well for November.  All sides need to sit down and form some sense of unity if either hopes to win over the other's constituencies.  If not, McCain is going to look like a better choice to many of the voters and that does not bode well for November.  

by Pat J 2008-04-24 10:48AM | 0 recs
Not Dr. Dean


   Or Obama or Clinton. This is the fault of the MI politicians that decided that their wishes and their demands were more important than the DNC's and the Democratic Party's.

  This is not Howard Dean's fault. His position was perfectly reasonable. It also bears mentioning that, had MI pols not been so arrogant and snobbish toward Dean, they'd have had a much bigger say in the nomination battle.

  Much bigger!! You reap what you sew!!

by southernman 2008-04-24 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Dr. Dean


    They knew it when they came out to vote. Since they came to vote anyway, that shows they didn't mind making a symbolic gesture.

   That's all it was. But calling it disenfranchisement is ridiculous. they either supported their pols decision, therefore accepting the consequences...or they didn't and came out to vote anyway.

  Either way, it was a perfectly fair situation...now trying to say we should count it as is (and especially the stupidity of Clinton saying the popular vote should count there even though Obama was not on the ballot) is just absurd.

by southernman 2008-04-24 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Dr. Dean

   They knew what was up. They voted anyway. Kudos. It's not like they didn't know their votes wouldn't be counted. They knew...and by voting..they signaled they didn't care. Good for them. It wasn't their fault. I just hope they force out the people that rendered their vote symbolic...the state party officials.
by southernman 2008-04-24 04:04PM | 0 recs
Not so

Dean's position was unreasonable for several reasons. Iowa and New Hampshire also violated the rules in the exact same manner as MI and FL.  Yet, they were not punished in anyway.  Furthermore, DNC rules suggest the punishment for violating the primary calendar (which in theory should be applied to MI, FL, IA and NH all equally) is to cut delegates in half.

To pretend they do not exist is patently absurd.

Lastly, it bears mention that most of us reap what we sow.  It would be odd to suggest that we take that which we have knitted. ;)

by bobbank 2008-04-24 12:58PM | 0 recs
Hillary's stance


   in Michigan was ridiculous. She only wanted those who participated the first time to vote in the new election (which guaranteed her 55%).

  Why the hell would Obama agree to an election with a pre-determined outcome?

by southernman 2008-04-24 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: what?


   Several news stories. By the time she backed off from that nonsense, there was very little time to pull off a re-vote.

  It was a shrewd political play. Only offer scenarios that Obama was certain to reject, then play the PR game (which I admit Clinton does much better than Obama).

  nice strategy. But also a dishonest one, to say the least.

by southernman 2008-04-24 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: what?

Cite one of your stories.

And also explain how, even if that were true, that it would somehow guarantee her x% of the vote, since all of those people would be free to cast their votes however they liked.

by bobbank 2008-04-24 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: what?


   Not at first. You are correct after Clinton officials were forced to back down. Her first attempt was to have only those who voted  in the Dem primary the first time vote in the re-vote.

  She's concerned about the right to vote? My ass!!

by southernman 2008-04-24 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: what?


  I'm not wrong there and that is what I said.

 She first tried that ridiculous stunt and backed down.

  I admit, it's a hell of a strategy. Claiming to be for the right to vote, while only offering scenarios that are blatantly unfair and sure to be rejected.

  Good strategy, but let's not kid ourselves. It's dishonest too!

by southernman 2008-04-24 09:23PM | 0 recs
Laughable

"... this mess that Obama created for himself that doesnt threaten to tar him as the candidate who
blocked free Democracy itself."

Drama much?

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: tis

Oh, I'll be laughing after those states get seated and it still doesn't change who's ahead and who's behind.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: SURE! YOU BET!

Hey.  I'm not the one who thinks second place is first place.  Tell me, in Hillaryland, did the Patriots win last February?

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: SURE! YOU BET!

Right.  I read that.  IF you include the distorted elections in Fl and MI, and IF one was to assume that none of those who voted for 'uncommitted' in MI would have voted for Obama, and IF you exclude caucuses, then I suppose she would be ahead.  IF that comforts you on cold nights, then I say embrace it.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: SURE! YOU BET!

I'm certain they'll be seated.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-24 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: In Michigan, Obama's Chickens are Coming Home

Joe Montana has won more Super Bowls than Michael Jordan, so that makes Montana the best basketball player ever!

by Rumproast 2008-04-24 12:39PM | 0 recs
Great diary!

Great diary!

by switching sides 2008-04-24 12:42PM | 0 recs
Here's the big issue that no one's mentioning

The revote plan that we're debating here, that Obama somehow allegedly magically blocked, would never have worked in the first place.

The revote plan required voting records from the first illegitimate election; otherwise there would be no way to restrict voting.

Providing access to said voting records was declared unconstitutional.

Mind you, this is one of those awful, nasty things that Obama's magical superlawyer had in the wondermemo -- that restricting voting based on the first primary was a Really Bad Idea. Turns out, it was a Really Bad Idea. Imagine that.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-24 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: lord

Here you go.

This was pretty widely reported and diaried at the time. Sorry you missed it.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-24 07:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------