Michigan's civil disobedience

[bain_sidhe]

Having to organize my thoughts to repond to posts on the Michigan "breaking the rules/candidate pull-out" issue has helped me clarify my thinking on this.

When protestors engage in civil disobedience, they know that they'll have to pay the consequences of breaking the law, but they think their cause is worth paying that price. The more I see on this issue, the more I think that Michigan's state Dem leaders made the right choice.

Yes, we Michiganders will pay, but if the furor breaks the lock that Iowa and New Hampshire currently have on our nominating process, it's worth it. IMHO.

Unfortunately, it's now time for Keith, so I can't tend to this thread until later... so it'll probably drop like a stone. Still, I wanted to get that thought out there.

[cobalt1999]

1. That's been my feeling with Florida

Did they go about it the best way? No.

Did they finally listen to the people in this state? Yes.

If it destroys the primary setup we currently have, I'm all for it even if there is some short term pain. There is wide-spread support in the state for the early move and that isn't going away, so I expect changes by 2012.

My only regret is they didn't jump ahead and break the system in 2004.

[bain_sidhe]

2. Yes, it won't be this cycle

but all the anger and upset of 2004 got us...what? They *promised* reform, but when all the bloviating was done, we ended up with Iowa and New Hampshire still having the stranglehold on the nominating process. Maybe this will cause the party to *actually* change the process, instead of pretending to listen and then going back to the same old system that, in essence, disenfranchises all the states not named "Iowa" or "New Hampshire".

[hedgehog]

3. The irony is that in past elections, the money was limited, so it

was win early or drop out. This year, there is plenty of money for campaigning. The problem now is that there is no time to campaign!

[bain_sidhe]

4. Good point!

At this stage in 2003, John Kerry was almost broke and financing his campaign with a mortgage on his house.

Now, Obama and Clinton are raising a couple of dozen million each quarter, and Edwards is the "poor boy" who only raised the high single digits.

And, apparently, there are only a few states "worth" spending it in.