If it were true that the Obama campaign intentionally is trying to kill FL and MI revotes

[Tom Rinaldo]

in order to prevent any chance of Clinton winning undisputed primaries in both of those states, what do you think of that as a political strategy? Is it good hard politics, playing the game as well as it can legally be played to win, and therefor to be admired? Or is it putting self serving political interests ahead of the Democratic Party's need to go into the General Election with our best chance of winning both states in November?

Is it playing by the rules to use legal means to block revotes now, and no one has a right to complain about it now because FL and MI had a chance to get it right the first time and didn't, or is it a policy based on winning by blocking the ability of Democrats in those states to have their votes and voices heard, a form of voter disenfranchisement since the DNC said it had no problem with re-votes taking place in both of those states?

My question is triggered by seeing yet another thread started here today about the NYT David Brooks column which claims that time is about up for Hillary Clinton, making a case for why she should drop out. Lots of Obama supporters have used that column as support for their contention that Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning and needs to quit the race. Yet one of the main talking points that Brooks used to reach his conclusion, his second point presented in fact, was this. With Hillary Clinton being unable to secure re-votes in FL and MI that might put those States, their popular votes, and the majority of their delegates into her undisputed column, she was running out of options to enter the Democratic convention with the type of support she needs to make a solid argument for why she should be the nominee.

Brooks clearly states that Barack Obama's campaign killed revote plans for both FL and MI. He does not equivocate:

"Second, Obama's lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes."
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8696144

I would not use a quote from a Brooks column to frame my question were that same column not already repeatedly being used by Obama supporters to advance their own position. But in this case Brooks wasn't making an intellectual argument, he was making a matter of fact specific pronouncement, that Obama's lawyers killed the revotes, not just a wishy washy comment about Obama's campaign not fully cooperating in efforts to seek FL and MI revotes.

So the questions then are these. Do you reject Brook's assertion that Obama's lawyer's killed re-votes in Florida and Michigan (and if so why) and if not, how do you feel about that?

[Maddy McCall]

1. Rec...

If DU had a "recommend every thread by TomRinaldo" option, I'd have it checked.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Thanks Maddy, we can PM Skinner

and see if it can rig something up for us so that we both automatically REc each other's threads :)

I tried to pose these questions in the least biased way possible, and I think the subject is a good one for discussion whether or not folks think Obama is working to kill off chances for revotes in FL and MI. Obviously it is not just Clinton who thinks that he is, but even for those who reject or doubt Obama's campaign has that as a tactic, what if he did? Would it be dirty politics? Would it be falling short of some standard people should expect from Obama based on his professed ideals, or would it be evidence that Obama knows how to win in politics and thus is a strong candidate for Democrats to choose to run for President?

[Tellurian]

135. Excellent point, Tom

Amazing the clamor against HRC fighting for their votes yet the double standard applied by the Obama Camp who would block the voices of the people disenfranchised by (the FL Legislature) and the Obama's lawyers is fine with his supporters.

Although Dean did let it slip, the Fl and MI vote will be addressed after the nominee is chosen. That I didn't know.

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. If true, it's nothing Clinton's lawyers would not have done in the same situation.

That's my opinion. Also I think there were a lot of concerns about ensuring that the voting would be done right, and if those concerns couldn't be addressed to both parties' satisfaction as well as the DNC's and the states themselves, I think it's unfair to put it all on Obama's shoulders because his camp raised legitimate concerns that they had.

Aside from that, I personally think that as long as Clinton were to agree that Obama should get the Uncommitted vote in MI, I would really just not care whether MI and FL were counted or not. They would only add 56 to Clinton's total (plus 11 superdelegates). He'll win anyway.

From what I've seen, I don't think Clinton would agree though. She wants to fight for every possible delegate so she'd never agree to let all the Uncommitteds go to Obama when she had the chance to take some of them away from him.

"The last shall be first and the first shall be last." I think that since MI and FL tried to be first in violation of the rules, they should be last. They should be counted IF and ONLY IF they make no difference to the outcome of the race. The vote in those states should not be allowed to be counted in the official delegate totals at this critical time or any time before the remaining states vote and change the entire momentum and possibly the outcome of the race.

[flor de jasmim]

3. I REJECT IT, and here's a portion of why:

Obama said he was in favor of following the rules as set down by the DNC, but his concerns were the following:

a) how to hold a revote and still include the mmilitary and overseas votes
b) how to re-enfranchise the Democratic voters who voted Republican in January because of the situation then
(there were other reasons but I can't remember them at the moment
c) concerns over who was going to be paying for it (Clinton's financial backers had offered to raise the money!)

Remember that Obama is a constitutional scholar - I believe his concerns are legitimate. Now, it is not for the candidates themselves to find the solutions, despite what Hillary may think. So statements that she has made that he just didn't "do enough" to find a solution are deceitful.

Let us also not forget that it was Hillary who tried to "disenfranchise" voters after the fact in all the states who did not vote for her ("it was a caucus state, so it wasn't as important or democratic as a primary"). How can she simultaneously say both that some states are more important than others ("we can't win without MI and FL") and that ALL votes should be heard??

A final word - given the momentum that Obama has enjoyed since January, and considering the money he has to mount a campaign both in FL and MI, does anyone honestly believe that the races wouldn't be much closer now than they were in January??? The total number of delegates that Hillary would ultimately gain would probably be substantially lower than she thinks, anyway, particularly in light of her "misstatements" on several issues.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. You're being too generous.

Hillary never wanted a re-vote in the first place. Her credibility has been shown to be non-existent. She is playing politics with MI and FL, and making it look as though she's their champion and wants a re-vote so she can paint Obama as being against it and make him look bad. If it actually got close to becoming a reality, her lawyers would find something wrong, reject it, and then blame the Obama camp for the impasse.

Hillary wants this to stay in limbo so she can keep bringing it up and using it as an excuse to stay in the race to the Convention, where she can start a bloody battle and possibly prevail by whatever means she can.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. What she may have wanted before is subject to debate

But Hillary Clinton accepted a specific revote plan for Michigan that the DNC approved. I have no doubt that she likes to position herself as a champion of MI and FL voters for any number of reasonss. Supporting revotes in both of those states now, in my opinion, is a good reason because it sound both politically and morally, it is the path of maximum enfranchisement. The DNC is officially on record saying revotes are a proper way to resolve the delegate disputes in both states. Obama can just as clearly win favor in FL and MI by championing them as Clinton can. If that is an effective way to curry favor in FL and MI, at least with some voters there, as the current front runner for the Democratic nomination for President, currying some favor with some FL and MI voters might make some sense for Obama.

[FlyingSquirrel]

24. Any re-vote should meet with the approval of ALL parties, should it not?

I think you're just following along with Clinton in trying to make it seem like Obama should just accept whatever she wants or he's the bad guy.

By the way your sig line is a bit high. (Didn't hear any objection from Maddy on yours - but she went to the trouble of actually posting her own thread when an Obama supporter's sig line was too tall.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. My OP didn't even challenge the right of one party to veto simply because

it would not be politically self serving to change the status quo. I allowed for the possibiltiy that it was the best course for a politician to follow at that point. Obviously I understand that there is no agreement without agreement by all concerned.

[bvar22]

131. Didn't Hillary REJECT a specific revote plan that the DNC approved.

Wasn't the original caucus plan approved by Obama and the DNC?

[anamandujano]

12. Your characterization of her comment on caucuses is disingenuous at best.

To say that a caucus of less than 10k is not comparable to a primary where over a million vote is not disenfranchising anyone. It's telling the truth.

If Obama thought he could win revotes in Florida and Michigan, he'd be there in a heartbeat. Spare us your math, guesstimating how many delegates Hillary would pick up. That's not what our democracy is about. We vote to find that out.

He loves the non-representational caucuses so his concern for military and overseas is pure crap, but we never expect anything else from him anymore.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Clinton may not be a big fan of caucuses, I'm not either, but

she isn't challenging the right of those states who use them to have their delegations seated at the Democratic Convention. She isn't arguing that all those caucus state results don't count and they need to hold primaries by June instead. The delegates selected by each caucus will be seated, Clinton is not disenfranchising anyone. At most she is pursuing a talking point with Super Delegates about what factors they might want to consider in determining who they will vote for.

Perhaps Obama would do much better in new primaries held in FL and MI, perhaps not, that is hardly relevent to the point though. Currently the Democrats who voted in both states do not have their views directly represented via delegates selected who will be seated in Dnever. 48 other states will, via whatever methods each state uses to seat delegations. New votes, new campaigns in both states would meet DNC requirements and it would stop all the arguments over the earlier contests held in them.

As to the specific concerns raised, I know that the DNC signed off on the Michigan planned revote, and the DNC is not exactly a hot bed of support for Hillary Clinton. I read some stories here posted from local coverage in Michigan before the State Legislature went on recess where Demoratic legislative leaders were pleading with the Obama camp to meet with them to hash out specific concerns but could not get Obama's camp to follow through in any timely manner to respond to requests for meetings with them for that purpose. I suspect it is that type of passive resistance that Brooks meant when he said that Obama's lawyers killed revote plans. Obama was able to distance himself from the implications of resisting new elections, but he didn't press his team ot negotiate seriously, instead letting the clock run out.

And it is a bit misleading to pretend that Obama does not have supporters inside of both Michingan and Florida who he has influence with that he could either urge that an agreement be reached or urge that it killed there so he doesn't have to take the blame. Agreements can be killed through stalling and a flurry of reservations raised that never get prioritized to be worked out. That is what lawyers do best, raise procedural objections that drag out lawsuits to the point where the other side has to settle or just runs out of time and money to pursue the matter further.

If it were important enough to Obama for revotes to take place I believe the details could be worked out. Clinton has the motivation and the DNC did not stand in the way. Instead he kept floating caucuses and 50/50 splits rather than new primaries to replace the old ones, but Florida and Michigan are primary states.

[loyalsister]

126. Exactly

I think there may be a problem with the last candidates standing holding their own election.
I am under the impression that he has a two part agenda.
1. No doubt he wants to win.
2. He wants to the delegates to be seated by following rules and he has consitantly said that he wants it to be fair for both candidates.
This says to me he has a healthy respect for laws and rules and voters who would have cast their votes for the other candidates. Why should those candidates be erased?

[Umbram]

4. I can never understand HRC supporters positions on this matter.

According to HRC supporters, it is voter disenfranchisement to follow party rules by excluding these states.

Yet it is perfectly fine to encourage pledged delegates (representing the will of the voters) to switch sides, thereby disenfranchising the majority of voters who back those pledged delegates (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html).

What that means to me is the following:

-The will of the voters only matters when it favors Clinton.
-The party rules only matter when they favor Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. It is simply a lie to say that Clinton encouraged pledged delegates to switch side

It is the type of spinning lie that has overwhelmed DU the last few months. Show me a single quote where Hillary Clinton ENCOURAGED pledged delegates to switch sides. There are none.

We can certainly debate the meaning and significance of what she did say, and we may not agree on that, but why is it so hard to start discussions based on what one of our candidates actually said rather than our own spin? Based on what Clinton actually said, here is my spin, lol:

Her campaign in fact has already pledged not to raid pledged delegates. I would not support her lobbying pledged delegates, nor would I support Obama doing it. But though there was a little back and forth about this months ago, how one side may be forced to if the other side did first, both campaigns claim they are not going to do this.

The thing is, this isn't something that can safely be done in secret - it would involve talking to people with known associations to the other side for either candidate to attempt it, which let's just say is risky. It is controversial enough when either campaign tries to get a super delegate to change sides after they endorsed. It is not going to happen nor has anyone proposed doing it.

I think Hillary was making a point about how out of line it is to assume that Super Delegates must vote to follow the lead of whoever has the most pledged delegates, since even the pledged delegates are legally free to change their minds.

This simply is not somewhere Hillary would want to go, even if you do not trust her. That can of worms would much more likely work against her than for her. She has no reason to believe that she would get more conversions than Barack would, especially if people got angry at her, as they certrainly would, if she initiated trying to win conversions of pledged delegates.

[Umbram]

15. Who is spinning?

"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

What is the innocent explanation for these statements, exactly?

[anamandujano]

29. She has obviously studied the rules. That does not mean she intends

to poach.

Get it? Got it? Good.

[Umbram]

37. Well, I'll have to take your word for it

If you say that the nominees spend their time on multiple occaions waxing on about the intricacies of election laws just for the hell of it, with absolutely no agenda or motive whatsoever, then so be it.

I'm sure that in the middle of the Wright controversy a comment from Ickes like the following is purely innocent:


"I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention."

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I challenged the spin that she encouraged delegates to switch sides

I asked for a quote that shows her doing so. You did not provide one either. And I had the decency to call my own opinion on this spin just to be a good role model. I gave it above, if you disagree with it, fine.

[Umbram]

42. Everything in GD:P is spin

You gave me yours - I'm giving you mine. Both are the products of biased individuals pretending to be somewhat objective.

I simply don't believe that a campaign on multiple occasions via multiple messengers, during the opposing candidate's worst scandal yet, innocently throws out these sorts of statements.

"I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention." -Ickes

Candidates don't just, out of boredom, discuss their philosophical views on what it means to be a pledged delegate. Clinton's not going to just come out and say "Look, I've been reading some Sarte - and I think we are all using bad faith in transforming these delegates into objects - I mean, lets remember they are people with free will."

[lapfog_1]

38. Then WHY does she bring it up?

Yes, we got it, those are the rules... but since, according to YOU, no one is planning to do any conversion of pledged delegates, WHY does she bring it up, now nearly on a daily basis?

She made the point weeks ago that it was possible... but why bring it up again and again?

Idle conversation? I don't think so.

Besides, we all know how truthful she is about her actions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. My opinion (and hence my answer) is in post #10. You are free of course to have another n/t

[lapfog_1]

43. So you believe she is using an explanation of the rules

about one class of delegates to explain the rules, duties, and responsibilities of a completely different class of delegate?

Really?

That's like explaining the behavior of oxygen by talking about hydrogen... yes, both are elements and gasses... but the nature of how they interact with other atoms is completely different.

According to Hillary, all delegates are the same... so why bother with primaries at all? Why not just pick 4000 Democrats and say "you pick us a candidate now"?

She lost the race. She knows she lost it. She didn't even "win" mini-Tuesday. The math is not only not in her favor, I believe that Obama could STAY on vacation until June and still win this. The math is prohibitive. That's why she pins her hopes on pledged delegates converting, along with a massive super delegate selection of her as the nominee... it's her only chance. And it ain't going to happen, m'kay?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Do you think Hillary Clinton could convince more delegates pledged to Obama

to switch to her than he could convince Clinton pledged delegates to switch to him? Obama people are pretty loyal, and they already have the argument going for them that he is ahead in pledged delegates. Who is going to defect to the side that is behind and why? And like I said, even if a few did, how much outrage do you think that would bring? The only switching I've seen is Clinton Super Delegates switching to Obama. If Clinton initiated a campaing of trying to steal pledged delegates do you doubt for an instant that the Obama campaign would retaliate? Under those circumstances he would be holding all the cards - feelings would be so negative to Hillary that she would bleed far more pledged delegates than him.

But here have already been numerous threads started on the topic you wanted to debate here instead of the one I raised in my OP. I have given several responses to this anyway. But it is not the topic I raised.

[lapfog_1]

49. I already responded to your OP

as to why MI isn't happening. But if it makes you feel better to blame Obama, go for it.

Personally, if I had been Dean, I would have said to both states "These are the rules, everyone agreed to them, you knew what would happen if you didn't follow the rules, so sad, too bad... keep your delegates home and don't BOTHER talking to us about a re-vote of any kind as you are now de-certified. Period." That's how people deal with each other all the time in the real world.

But then I'm kind of a stickler for rules and such.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't also reply to the OP

Sorry if it seemed that way.

[Tatiana]

70. Oh come on. It's reasonable to conclude Clinton is going after pledged delegates,

as evidenced by her http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/14/the-battle-for-iowa-continues.aspx">robocalls in Iowa.

You're right, this sort of thing can't be done in secret, which is why some convention atendees came out and said they thought the Clinton campaign was pursuing them. Actually, I don't see a problem with it. She has to make up the deficit somehow.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Caucuses as always are screwy

In many caucus states the actual delegates have not even been chosen yet, it just got kicked up to higher level conventions of delegates to sort out who actually will be the much smaller number of delegates going to Denver, and the Obama forces are always thrilled if they can out politic Clinton in those. Don't get me started on caucuses. Obama has already gotten more delegates out of states where he lost the popular vote due how caucuses work. It's in the rules so he isn't cheating.

[Lucinda]

18. Dean always intended to seat the delegates. The problem

occurred when everyone realized that the nom wasn't going to be settled Super Tuesday as they thought it would, and that the delegates would actually matter. Thats when all sides started scrambling.


From CNN:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/07/se.01.html
ROBERTS: Debbie Dingell, you pushed for this early Michigan primary. How are you feeling now about the whole thing?

DINGELL: That the fight is the right fight. And if we haven't proven that the presidential nominating system is broken in the Democratic Party, I don't think we ever will.

And that's what we were about. We are about saying two small states should not dominate the presidential nominating system. We have tried for 20 years to change the system. Sometimes, a little civil disobedience is necessary to change it. We probably didn't know that the consequences would be so serious. But we are...

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: You were warned, though, weren't you, many times about the consequences?

DINGELL: But you know what? This is the one thing that I want to say.

ROBERTS: OK.

DINGELL: Nobody thought we would be here, including the two presidential candidates and Howard Dean, who came to Michigan and Florida, by the way, and said, they're going to seat your delegations.

more at link....

Obama is trying very hard to keep the delegates from counting. There is no way to sugar-coat the situation and I don't think it's going to play very well with the voters.

[anamandujano]

28. His strategy will not play well, you are correct.

[FlyingSquirrel]

31. There's no way to sugar-coat the fact that Hillary was the only one on the ballot

in Michigan.

Now is there?

Go on, respond "They didn't HAVE to take their names off the ballot." in a whiny tone.

THAT is something that TRULY stretches credibility. Hillary made a choice to stay on the ballot and play a little game. It reminds me of when she waited till the last moment on a crucial vote in the Senate, and when Obama finally entered the room and made his move then she came in and made hers.

Pathetic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Long ago I wrote that Michigan was F_ed. That is exactly why a revote makes absolute sense

Revotes let us stop rehashing all the old arguments. If either campaign is too attached to the old fights over the original FL and MI primaries to let go of them now, they can always use those fights as campaign attacks against the other side in new FL and MI primary campaigns.

Revotes solve all the problems. They are forward looking. I thought Obama wanted to leave the politics of division in the past?

[MNDemNY]

76. Actually, yes, Obama and Edwards REMOVed their names from the ballot

They did this as a "strategy" to deny Clinton a "victory" in Michigan. Their choice.

[sybylla]

90. Your post shows a lack o knowledge of how the delegates are selected and seated

First of all, Howard Dean has no say. The DNC Rules Committee has the only say in the matter. And the rules day that they could have left each state have half of their delegates, but because Democrats in Florida voted almost as a body to support moving the primary, they were stripped of them all. Because Michigan Democratic Party Leadership refused to back down from the revised primary date that they could have argued the Republican legislature foisted on them, they lost all their delegates. In both cases, because of these responses by the two states involved, the DNC made the agreement with ALL candidates not to participate in the two primaries.

Not participating means that any vote taken is not a natural and honest reflection of the voters intent in that state. You can't select delegates by vote if the vote taken doesn't reflect the intent of the voters of that state. Howard could never seat those delegates because those delegates could not be selected.

Lastly, it remains the DNC"s decision. Courts have long held that the parties have the right to determine their slate of candidates by their own rules without interference. It doesn't matter how many lawyers the candidates can cram into one room. If the DNC doesn't approve of the delegate selection plan for each state, it doesn't go forward. The lawyers can influence how the plan is put together, but they can't prevent it from happening - no matter how much the poorly informed media tries to portray it another way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. Yes, and for example in MI the DNC approved of the revote plan to go forward

but only on the condition that both candidates approved it. Clinton did, Obama didn't. That's where those lawyers come in.

[sybylla]

112. So you're agreeing it's the DNC's decision?

You see, bending the rules should require the permission of the candidates involved.

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. First it is not bending rules if the DNC sanctions it

It is their rule book we play by and they wrote it. Two I never suggested both candidates did not need to agree. I asked a question about why Obama has not agreed. I think the OP was clear.

[Lucinda]

106. Your post shows a lack of knowledge of who Dr. Dean is and how the DNC works

If you don't think that Dean was speaking FOR the DNC when he initially told FL and MI that the delegates would be seated.

[sybylla]

115. You see, that's the difference right there

Dr. Dean was speaking FOR the DNC.

He is not the DNC.

The "C" in DNC stands for COMMITTEE. He doesn't get to make the decisions, but he does get to enforce them. He also gets to act as their agent with the press and convey the "sense" of the committee - you know, like when he speaks FOR the committee.

And I'll expect a link to substantiate the your claim of Howard Dean's initial support for seating delegates as well as the context (time, place, the rest of the interview/speech) it was said in.

Thanks for playing.

[Lucinda]

119. What nonsense. Dr Dean wouldn't be wandering off making statements

to two states without the DNC having come to a consensus about how to handle the situation.

The real problem was that no one was prepared for the fact that the addition of the delegates would actually mean anything. They all assumed the nom would be decided before it the delegations were seated.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

124. I think you understand their position just fine. - nt

[lapfog_1]

6. The devil is in the details...

Re-votes are not always re-votes.

HRC and her minions were trying to CHANGE THE RULES of the potential redo of the Michigan primary. Not only were there concerns about how the private donors going to pay for it, but then there were questions about how such a privately funded election going to be run.

In addition, there was this feature of the MI re-vote that disallowed many people from participating, people like independents AND democrats that voted in the open primary for the republicans there instead of the Democrats (lest we think that Oxycontin boy thinks up all this stuff, we thought it up first and tried to influence the repuke primary since the democratic one wasn't going to count). The upshot was that Clinton's supporters were never intending to have a true re-vote, only one that was slanted from the get go to Hillary.

Obama played by the rules, removed his name from the ballot in Michigan, as did Edwards and most of the other Democratic candidates... it's too bad that Michigan leaders did what they did, but they knew the rules going in and shouldn't blame DNC or Obama or Clinton for the outcome. Hillary should have removed her name as well, since she agreed beforehand to not PARTICIPATE in the primary (not simply don't campaign). She signed on to that pledge before the primary season started.

As for Florida, I think a redo of the primary was already excluded by a number of parties, all that was on the table was a firehouse caucus, to which Hillary would not agree. I don't see why that should be Obama's fault now.

If, in the next few weeks, Reid's "things happening" actually happen... and the Super delegates declare in mass for Obama and end Hillary's campaign (as been hinted about for many weeks now) then perhaps the delegations from Michigan and Florida will be seated anyway.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. The question raised is whether the Obama campaign had a real interest

in working out agreements in Florida and Michigan for revotes there. It is obvious to most why Clinton is motivated to have new primaries held, primaries that she feels she can win in June to close out the primary season with a run of victories. It is just as obvious, or it should be, why Obama has the opposite motivation. Until I posted this thread no Obama supporters were arguing about the contents of David Brook's column where he said the failure to secure revotes in FL and MI near mortally wounded Clinton's campaign. He also clearly stated that Obama's lawyers killed the revotes, and he is much friendlier in outlook to Obama than to Clinton.

It is not difficult to kill an intiative by proposing countless amendments and then not making the time needed available to seriously negotiate over them, allowing the clock to run out and thereby preserving an advantageous status quo. That is classic political and legal strategy. It leaves less obvious fingerprints than simply saying No.

I suspect part of the problem reaching agreements in Florida is that Obama has plenty of supporters in Florida Democratic politics who liked leaving matters exactly the way they were because that played to Obama's advantage. But the case for that is clearer to make in Michigan. Again reports I saw indicated that attempts to get Obama representatives to respond in a timely matter to negotiations about the issues they were raising were continually frustrated before the clock ran out on the legislative session in Michigan adjoining for a scheduled recess.

[anamandujano]

7. I didn't know that he had actively prevented the revotes. I thought

he had just run down the clock, like he does in debates when he doesn't know what the fuk he's talking about.

This is another famous Obama hypocrisy. He talks about the grass roots but prevents them from having a voice.

I loathe that guy. He is a true monster.

[Umbram]

8. Not that you are worth responding to, but...

If there was a revote, how would they have a voice?

Clinton has already declared that their voice can be changed by lobbying their pledged delegates away.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. She wasn't worth responding to, click the red x

[anamandujano]

16. See post #10.

[Umbram]

22. See post #15. What are we doing, law review footnotes? (nt)

[maximusveritas]

14. Hillary rejected the idea of a caucus revote

so it's quite disingenuous to claim that it was just Obama blocking a revote. He blocked proposals that he felt would be unfair to him and she blocked proposals she felt would be unfair to her.
In the end, the only way to settle this was to come to a compromise. Obama was ready to negotiate and she wasn't, so she should get most of the blame.

[anamandujano]

17. A caucus where he could send his thugs to win.

[Umbram]

20. This is an adult discussion - the playground is elsewhere. (nt)

[anamandujano]

30. Sorry, but that's how he does it.

[Lucinda]

19. A caucus doesn't allow everyone to participate. Neither state is a caucus states.

It would be very unfair. Why would Obama not want everyone to participate?

[maximusveritas]

33. The proposals Hillary supported would also not allow everyone to participate

They would not allow people who voted in the Republican primary (thinking the Democratic primary wouldn't matter) to vote in the new primary. A mail-in vote opens up all avenues of possible fraud if not handled properly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Excuse me but weren't OBama supporters handing out mail in vote forms

by the hundreds of thousands in all of the early voting states? I remember all the glee being expressed here at DU over huge surge in early voting in some states where the Obama campaign was pushing that.

Every system has potential flaws. Lord knows that caucuses do.

The DNC was fine with the Michigan plan. You realize that all those Limbaugh Republicans who had a real Republican race going on at the time of the first MI primary, who voted Republican then, would be shut out of gaming the new Michigan primary for Clinton under the rules proposed, don't you?

And are you really claiming that it is less disenfranchising to allow no Michigan voter wishs to count because the first primary was ruled invalid, then it is to let voters have a new one that counts that doesn't let a minority of people vote in both partie's primaries this year (half of Michingan's GOP delegates elected will get seated)?

The reports I read at the time seemed to indicate that the Obama camp threw up some concerns and then never seriously responded to efforts to hash them out, preferring to let the clock run out on Miohigan's legislative session. That would be totally consistent with what David Brooks claims.

[stillcool]

71. Don't we all know what happened by now?

An Invalid Election was held. People voted for those candidates they had to choose from. How can another election take place, where those who chose to vote for one of the candidates they had the option of voting for would be excluded? A re-vote, would have to be a re-vote. Not a partial re-vote.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html
January 9, 2008
By Peter Slevin
CHICAGO -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same.

A fresh poll suggests that running nearly unopposed will not mean winning nearly 100 percent of the vote.

The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------
They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.

"People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can't cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots," said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers's chief of staff. "We know we've got to educate the voters in a hurry."
Following Michigan law, local clerks are allowing voters a chance to redo their ballots.

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. None of your long string of stories deal with a revote

To my mind, if anything, they only support the DNC position that Florida and Michigan should hold DNC sanctioned revotes in both states if they want a say in having delegates seated. The DNC sanctioned the plan that Clinton agreed to for a revote in Michigan. Obama would not agree.

[stillcool]

105. All of my long string of stories...

point out the "Fact" that the Michigan and Florida elections were not sanctioned. The votes would not count. Please provide the quotes from the Obama Campaign which stated they would not agree to a "DNC sanctioned" re-vote? Please provide the information that states that the Michigan Democratic Party's plan for a re-vote was agreed to by the Michigan Democratic Party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. The DNC made a statement about the potential MI revote agreement

I am packing to head out the door in a moment and won't have time to do a search until later today. Feel free to beat me to it.

No State Democratic Party will reach agreement on a plan that one of the candidates opposes.

And we all know about the problems with the first MI and FL primaries, that is why revotes are being talked about in the first place.

[Usrename]

130. You're full of it now!

The state would have to submit a plan to the DNC rules committee for approval. They can't aprove a Hillary plan. It doesn't work that way. Michigan never submitted any plan. This has very little to do with Obama.

How do you explain the fact that Hillary wants the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people?

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Revote has a literal meaning. It means a do over.

It just so happens that both Michigan and Florida were primary states in 2008. Their problem wasn't that they didn't choose delegates via caucuses, their problem was that they held their votes too soon. If they held caucuses too early and had those results thrown out, then a revote would mean holding new caucuses. If that were the case and Hillary Clinton was demanding that revotes took place via primaries, she would be ridiculed non stop here for that. Well the opposite is true now. There is no excuse for changing the rules both states operate under in mid stream - there is a lot to be said though for letting them fix their early mistake, as the DNC reccomends, by letting them do it right now.

I supect that Obama's strategy is to stall stall stall and then bring back a caucus proposal again when there no longer is enough time to organize an actual primary. There still is time to organize primaries so it is too early for Obama to reach an agreement.

I remind you, Clinton and the DNC both accepted a proposal for a new Michigan primary. And after seeing Obama supporters so gleeful to quote the column by David Brooks this week, I remind you also that he clearly pins the cvurrent collapse of efforts to have revotes in MI and FL on Obama's lawyers killing them.

[quakerboy]

21. IF it were true that

Hillary Clinton refused to eat breakfast without grated puppy mixed in, what would you think of that?

Yup. Hypotheticals trying to start unfounded rumors are great. I really enjoy this game of "who can shoot themselves in the foot first".

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Clinton and the DNC reached agreement on a Michigan revote

Obama refused to sign on. That is a fact. Brooks claims that Obama's lawyers worked to kill revotes in Florida and Michigan. Clinton's campaign thinks so also, but Brooks is no friend of Clinton's campaign and Obama supporters have been citing his opinions all week to support their own read. This is not just a silly hypothetical, it is a legitimate issue.

I can't tell you how many times the argument gets raised by Obama supporters that Hillary Clinton is guilty of some form of hard ball politics being played, without evidence, simply because she is the one who stands to benefit from it. Do you deny that Obama stands to benefit by blocking revotes in Florida and Michigan?

[quakerboy]

129. Michigan

I surely do deny that. Setting aside any super delegates(I believe that those 2 states should not get any supers no matter what the outcome), I have no doubt that Obama would come even in Michigan, if not slightly pass Senator Clinton by, likely aiding him slightly in the delegate count and possibly also in the popular vote.

Florida I am less sure of. But the key thing that I note is timing. As long as Senator Clinton needed the supposed moral victory's that those 2 states initial votes provided her, we didn't hear any of this. In fact, all the pressure was to "seat them as is despite any rules". Now that she needs major Delegate and or pv victories in them to even have a remote chance of having an argument to sway the delegates to her side, she is all for a re-vote. Or, in all reality, I find it doubtful she gives a rats arse about a re vote, but she is all in favor of having any stick no matter how rotten to beat Obama over the head with.

The time for this was months ago. And months ago, when there was time to deal with any issues, and tensions were lower, It was Senator Clinton's supporters who blocked anything, apparently in the belief that they could ram through the initial illegitimate votes. Oops. At this point, I see it all as political kabuki. There are no winners in either state. The states, with heavy DLC influence and the repubs on the sidelines cheering, played chicken with the rest of the country, and they lost. Maybe next time people will see how stupid it is and work to find a solution in a timely fashion.

Edited to add (not)

[blogslut]

23. The Michigan primary was ruled unconstitutional

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/26/politics/horserace/entry3971086.shtml

I'm all for a 50/50 split of the delegates for Michigan. I think the same 50/50 split should be applied to Florida.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. How conveneint to Obma that would be

He last the Florida primary by several hundred thousand votes. I'm sure all those voters would be tickled pink with your proposal.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. If true, another example of poor political instincts by Obama

He can survive losses in Florida and Michigan. It wouldn't change the delegate lead and probably not the popular vote bottom line.

Obama loses a handful of net delegates. He absorbs the theme of Hillary winning big states. Big deal. Another case of the handlers being paranoid and fearing the worst case scenario. Meanwhile, Obama's case actually gains in legitimacy when there are no asterisks and he's still ahead in delegate count. No doubt Florida would be closer than January. Michigan could be a coin flip.

You've got to grasp the big picture and not instinctively overreact to anything that seems threatening. Obama is 80% on the market sites right now, to win the nomination. Does anyone seriously believe that would change dramatically, if re-votes were immediately certified in Michigan and Florida. LOL. If so, I suggest you stay away from speculation. It would dip a few percent.

I've been in Miami since December 13. Don't let anyone underestimate the anger and disbelief that the primary votes won't be counted and the delegates seated. It's a classic case of no one reads the fine print. Floridians don't care why it happened, or who is responsible. They voted and want/expect those numbers to mean something. I hear it and see it on talk radio, editorials and local TV. Sampling opinion in places like restaurants and golf courses produces blunt replies.

I wouldn't be concerned if this state tilted 10 points our way, but since it's about 2 point red compared to the nation itself, we're sliding further and further away from the vital 26 electoral votes by shunning Florida. "Screw you, you didn't count our votes" is a fairly basic and memorable thought, planted in public discourse. Even if it impacts just 1 or 2% we probably can't overcome that in '08.

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. And what if Obama agrees to revote where military doesn't get to vote

and then gets attacked on that issue in the GE? "He didn't care whether soldiers got to vote" or worse, "He didn't WANT soldiers to be able to vote".

Maybe Obama was looking a bit further down the line than just winning the nomination.

Does that compute?

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Not when the laternative is 1.7 million Florida Democrats not getting to vote instead

Efforts could be made to get as many military votes counted as possible. In every election there are problems getting all the military vote in and counted. This is a chronic problem but the disenfranchisement of 1.7 million Democratic voters is an accute one. This is not playing the way you suggest in Florida. There will be a lot more people upset by the lack of a revote than would be upset by having a revote that some soldiers might have trouble getting their ballots in for.

You do realize of course that Obama has proposed a caucus in Michigan for example. Very few of our soldiers stationed overseas get to attend Democratic caucuses. Obama has never had a problem with that before.

[izzybeans]

89. Weird this wound up in the wrong place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. The DNC said they would only sanction revotes if both candidates approved them

Pretty clear cut. And like pretty much all Democrats, Dems in the state houses are split up into camps now, some pro Obama and some pro Clinton, and I for one am not so naive to believe that if Obama made it known that he really didn't want revotes that his supporters in those legislatures would invest any energy into making them happen anyway, against his true wishs.

[izzybeans]

93. Sorry this was a response to something else.

I'm not sure why it wound up here.

I understand what the DNC has suggested. Both candidates had to work to an agreement, yet the states could easily forced their hand.

It's a shame that Republicans in the state legislatures have muddled the primary, and by design.

The blame here lies at their feet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. If Democrats can't say, and this includes the candidates, that...

...they have made a maximum effort to do the best they can to fix the problem, then they share in some of the blame.

P.S. I often accidently post at the wrong point of a thread. It's an easy error to make.

[izzybeans]

101. Appears there still is some movement in FL.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/obama-reaches-o.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. Without details I will start out choosing to be hopeful

that those initiatives will develop into a plan that both campaigns, the Florida Sate Democratic Party and the DNC can agree on. Fingers crossed because there is too little information in that report to have any idea if any reasonable to both sides ideas are being proposed.

[izzybeans]

104. I hope so too.

All this is going on behind the scenes so fingers are crossed indeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Exactly. Very well stated on all counts. Thank you. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

26. Why is breaking the rules everyone elses fault?

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. The DNC clearly stated that by holding revotes Florida and Michigan would come into compliance

with all DNC rules regarding delegate selection. They even encouraged that option. We are talking about pursuing a fair legitimate solution. Florida and Michigan are currently being punished for breaking the rules initially.

[Hissyspit]

35. "Second, Obama's lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan."

What is this based on? Does anyone have any evidence that this is true? I'm not saying it is not. I just have not seen any documentation of this. Everyone in this thread and the OP is saying: If this was true.

[Apollo11]

47. without trawling google

I think the Michigan case is pretty clear from all the articles I have read. There was a plan for a re-vote that was approved by the State party, by the DNC and by the Clinton campaign. The re-vote in Michigan would be going ahead, were it not for the objections / lack of agreement from the side of the Obama campaign.

So I think it is fair to say that Team Obama has prevented a re-vote in Michigan.

As far as I can understand it, the situation in Florida is more complex.

[Hissyspit]

59. Thanks, but objections and lack of agreement does not necessarily mean

strategy to prevent. I guess I would like something more concrete. I don't have time to Google either. I need to get some sleep.

I dunno. I just am not seeing this as voter disenchantment. The states should have say in when their primaries occur, but the parties get to set their rules and everyone knew the rules going in.

[DesEtoiles]

41. not true

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Well thanks for the succinct argument anyway n/t

[bowens43]

57. this was decided before the primaries started.

hillary wants to cheat and steal election by changing the rules to which she agreed , after the fact. If Obam's actions prevent hillary from cheating and stealing the election, good for him and good for America.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. The DNC sanctions revotes. How then can it be cheating to hold them? n/t

[indimuse]

60. wow. only 8 now nine..rec's

very telling. Thanks TR for this post. You are right on, and Obama finds it necessary to use the legal system to disenfranchise voters again( hence Chicago),As well ripping apart the Dem's.
I feel HIllary has a good case re: FL...Obama's name WAS on the ballot, I SAW IT! I did not vote for him,I voted for Hillary along with 56% of voters in FL. Neither campaign here, though Obama ran National ads. I feel she should get 56% of the SD'S. To me this would be right and fair.

MI...is another story. K&R

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. I posted this in the middle of the night, lol

People have been very generous with R's so far considering. One reason why this matters to me is that I believe how FL and MI are handled now has serous implications for Democratic chances to win in Novemeber, regardless of who our nominee is. I doubt McCain will be a pushover.

[indimuse]

62. YOur'e right...

LQQK at us...(the Dem's) the RW is eating this up, we're doing a good job for them! They couldn't be prouder of how we tear each other aprt.

[enid602]

63. re-votes

My thoughts on re-votes have changed little since 2000. they're expensive, frustrating and tedious but need to be done.

[izzybeans]

64. State legislatures killed the revotes, place blame where the lies begin and end.

Now who controls those state legislatures?

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. If either candidate wanted to kill any chance for a revote

they certainly have enough willing Democratic allies in either State Legislature who could make sure one way or another that no deal got done.

I will gladly blame the legislatures AFTER Obama and Clinton designate high level negotiators to prioritize reaching agreement, working with the DNC, on revote plans for both states. The DNC reps can be the honest brokers vouching that both campaigns are seriously working to find a way out of this mess, and not just throwing up roadblocks to an agreement, or trying to run out the clock with stalling tactics. I know that Clinton and the DNC earlier agreed to a plan regarding Michigan. To me it looks like Clinton is motivated and Obama isn't.

If the candidates agreed on a plan and pushed their backers in the legislatures of Michigan and Florida to approve it, I believe there would no longer be any problems getting those plans passed. But if Republicans blocked it at that point, at least all the Democrats, including both campaigns, could say they really tried.

[izzybeans]

86. Michigan could of brought the issue to the table for a vote

the need for the candidates to sign on is a canard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. The DNC made it a prerequisite that both candidates agreed

before they would sanction a new primary, so no, you are wrong. And Obama has senough upporters in the State legislature to prevent any chance of passage if he didn't want it to pass, but that was secondary given the DNC position.

[Justitia]

66. But, it's NOT true. Just another bullshit LIE from the Clinton Machine because they're desperate.

Their campaign is in its death throes and they are trying to take the entire Party down with them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Thank you also for your consise presentation of your opinion

complete with your best arguments in favor of it.

[stillcool]

67. It would be really nice...

if you could produce any facts to back up yours and Mr. Brook's claims. The words said or written by the Obama Campaign or surrogates would be really nice. The only thing that I have seen are questions about the fairness of the Michigan re-vote because a re-vote, would not allow all people to participate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. For one thing

Obama supporters have used Brooks to back up their arguments about Clinton for most of this week, so clearly he is not biased in favor of Clinton when he makes that statement. For another the DNC, and ultimately it is DNC rules we are talking about, backed the Michigan revote plan that Obama refused to sign on to. Clinton has made this a high priority, undoubtedly because revotes serve her political needs, but Obama did not invest any real political capital in working out an agreement that would allow Democrats in both Florida and Michigan to have DNC sanctioned revotes. Brooks reaffirmed that and the Obama camp made no effort to correct that high profile NYT syndicated column charge. And to me it's obvious that's because they do NOT serve his political needs. The fact that Obama doesn't come right out and say that he won't approve of revote primaries doesn't mean that it hasn't been in his power and interests and ability to block them.

At this point the burden of proof for me shifts to Obama, he clearly has the most to gain by blocking revotes. In other posts I mentioned valid ways in which he could change that perception for the better.

The Obama arguments ring hollow to me. I am bothered by local media reports from Michigan that it was near impossible for those trying there at the state level to work out an agreement finding it hard to get timely responses from Obama's people. When Obama people suggest dividing up the delegates 50/50 instead I think that reveals his true agenda. No winner, no loser, no popular votes tallied. I think the latter is also why Obama's camp keeps trying to push solutions urging holding new caucuses instead of redoing the primaries. Clinton couldn't use caucus results from Florida or Michigan to catch up to Obama in the overall popular vote tally, and new caucuses would for once and for all wipe out those popular vote deficits Obama had in Florida and Michigan the first time around, like his several hundred thousand shortfall in Florida.

Caucuses by nature and design always restrict the number of people who are able to participate 5 to 10 fold over primaries, so I don't buy Obama's concern in that regard. And nowadays it is an Obama camp talking point that Hillary Clinton is only winning states like Texas because of all the Republicans who are crossing over because Rush Limbaugh told them to. Well under the Michigan plan that the DNC and Clinton agreed to, those out of luck Rush Republicans already shot their wads voting for Romney the first time, so they would not be able to skew the primary toward Clinton in a revote. Obama should be happy.

[stillcool]

107. I don't want to know what ..

Obama "supporters" do, think, or say. I want to know the factual information that gives credence to the suppositions David Brooks and you state. I have not seen any information that the Michigan Democratic Party has come up with a plan that they themselves have agreed on. I have not seen any 're-vote' plan that does not have legal ramifications inherent in it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Each candidate has too many Party allies in each State for a plan to be agreed upon

unless both candidates are satisfied with it. That is simply reality, especially since the DNC won't sanction a plan that both candidates don't sign off on. I haven't seen any plan period in 21st century America that doesn't have legal ramnifications inherent in it, yet somehow we struggle on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. So very few posters if any are willing to argue in favor

of derailing chances for DNC sanctioned revotes in Florida and Michigan as an acceptable conscious partisan tactic to help secure the Democratic nomination. That essentially was the core question of my OP. That leaves Obama supporters with the sole option of arguing that, contrary to Brooks observation, Obama did not have his campaign (his lawyers) prevent revotes in both states. I say that the evidence points to a different conclusion. If it was important enough to Obama to make revotes happen ongoing high level negotiations would have taken place with both campaigns and the DNC to make it happen.

Obama hasn't even tried to pretend he has that type of committment to finding any solution other than 50/50 splits, which would in no way even pretend to be based on literal voter preferences in either state, or possibly to caucuses, even though both Michigan and Florida chose primaries as their preferred means to select delegates.

Arguments about disenfranchisement of some voters under some primary schemes fall flat when the alternative is disenfranchisement of all voters with no revotes scheduled, or caucuses that by their very nature make if difficult for a broad range of voters (including the members of our Armed Forces for whom concern has been voiced by the Obama camp) to participate in them compared to primaries.

[stahbrett]

74. The MI and FL delegates WILL BE SEATED

Why do people think that MI and FL delegates will NOT be seated at the convention?

There's no need for a re-vote in order for them to be seated. The powers-that-be in MI and FL screwed up, and are now trying to lay the blame on everyone other than themselves.

The key is that the MI and FL delegates will NOT be allowed to play a decisive role in the nomination process. So once Hillary concedes the nomination, this whole matter will be resolved before the convention. I recommend penalizing MI and FL 50% or 75% of their delegates (or make each delegate vote worth 50% or 25% of a normal delegate), and seat FL "as-is" based on their faulty election, and split MI 50/50 (or give Hillary her 55%, and Obama the "uncommitted" vote).

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. The DNC itself supports revotes. Let the people have a vote that counts

rather than invent some new screwy formular. It is fine with the DNC and it is a better example democracy in action that would make all the past divisive arguments about both states irrelevent history, with both candidates on the ballot and competing equally.

[stahbrett]

83. It's too late for revotes

At least that is what the folks in MI and FL are saying.

The people will be represented at the convention by delegates - whether Hillary and Obama have a few more or less delegates than a hypothetical revote would give them is the only real question, and that difference is NOT going to change the outcome of the nomination process anyway, so why have millions of dollars spent AGAIN on primary elections in these two states when instead the focus can and should shift to the general election campaign ASAP? The fat lady is already singing, in other words... the Clinton campaign just has earplugs in their ears at the moment.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. They are saying that I believe because where there is not the will

...there is not the way. And it has been obvious for a while now that there has not been the will, and now I think I know why. It could be done if both campaigns joined in urging their supporters to find a way of making it happen. June is not yet literally around the corner. If a sincere effort was made and the money couldn't be raised, or if REPUBLICANS blocked it, we would be much better off than we are today. I gave my reasons why I think it still matters regardless of Clinton's odds in a response to ProSense.

[stahbrett]

109. It would be a waste of time and money

That time and money would be better spent on the general election campaign.

So Michigan and Florida politicians screwed the proverbial pooch by trying to bully the DNC - they dared the DNC to punish them, and the DNC did so. Had the elections NOT been moved, Michigan and Florida could have played a HUGE role in the nomination, but instead they will get their delegates, but they will not play a huge role in the nomination process. That sounds fair to me... it's not as if every single state ever plays a huge role in the nomination process anyway. So they get delegates at the convention, the whining, moaning, and teeth-gnashing will go away, and we can focus on the general election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. The latest plans called for private contributers to fund primaries

for the Democratic Party. These contributions are not bound by the same campaign finance laws that restrict contributions given to candidates. Raising designated money for them would not detract from the campaigns. And of course we may not agree on what is or is not worth it and why.

[stahbrett]

120. What are these latest plans? Got a link to them?

My understanding is that the re-vote idea is dead.

But for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume that isn't the case - so some private contributors pay the expenses of new elections. Who pays for the candidates to campaign in those states?

And when I say it's not worth it to have re-votes, I'm looking at the big picture:

1) Hillary will not be able to wipe out the pledged delegate lead that Obama has had (since Iowa, by the way - Obama has had the lead in pledged delegates from start to finish).

2) Re-votes would be more likely to drag out the nomination process into June, rather than letting Obama focus completely on McCain.

3) It would take some of the heat and criticism away from the idiots in Michigan and Florida who supported moving up their elections in violation of party rules (that they themselves approved).

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. Now I literally am running out the door

I will log back on in the evening. The Michigan plan specifically called for private donors to fund the State Primary revote. That was part of the proposed deal that Clinton and the DNC signed off on. At the moment that plan is dead, but politics at this level is like the New Testement, sometimes the dead rise up and live again, if new life gets breathed into them.

For those with single track linear thinking that begins and ends with "whoever is ahead in pledged delegates when the primaries are over, no matter how short of the overall majority of delegates they need to win the nomination they are, they automatically should be granted the nomination" the chances of Clinton catching up completely there are very slim under any circumstances. So we may not have anything to talk about.

Those aren't the rules for winning the nomination though. The chances for Clinton to catch up and pass Obama in the popular vote count is higher with Florida and Michigan involved. That is still plausible. Obama has had three chances to put Clinton away in this race so far; NH, Super Tuesday, and TX and/or OH. He'll get more chances before June, starting with PA, no matter what gets scheduled regarding FL and MI. He can end it early. But if Hillary keeps winning primaries there is good reason to take this to June, even if you would rather that were not the case.

And I'll leave it to the DNC to decide whether their sanctioning revotes in FL and MI is undercutting their own imposed punishment for breaking their rules intially. There will not be new primaries unless the DNC sanctions them.

[dailykoff]

75. So Brooks is a fine source as long as he's lying about Obama.

Typical Clinton hypocrisy. :crazy:

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. No, the hypocrisy is I just took the exact same Brooks column that Obama supporters have touted

Do a search and find out yourself and you will see how Obama supporters have gotten threads based on this exact column onto the greatest list here at DU. You can start with this one, it's only the most recent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5264332

More threads were posted on it by Obama supporters when this column originally was published in the NYT before some of the regional papers like the one above picked it up on syndication.

[ProSense]

80. This is such a ridiculous and desperate argument. What would a revote mean?

Actual Popular Vote Total
Obama 13,355,239 (+717,276)
Hillary 12,637,963


FL
Obama 576,214
Hillary 870,986
Total votes 1,447,200

Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama 13,931,453 (+422,504)
Hillary 13,508,949


MI
Clinton 328,151
Uncommitted 237,762

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI)
Obama 13,931,453 (+94,195)
Clinton 13,837,258

Let's say Obama got the uncommitted MI votes

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI)
Obama 14,169,215 (+331,957)
Clinton 13,837,258

In these scenarios Obama is clearly ahead, even with no MI votes going to him.

What would a revote mean? Is the implication that Hillary would get more than 58% of the MI and 60% of the FL vote as indicated above?

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. For one thing it would mean we let the people of those states vote AND

have their votes counted. Revotes are the best solution, but counting the original votes is better than not counting any votes cast in those states. A record breaking 1.7 million Democrats came out to vote in Florida in this year's primary. Not all Democratic voters in Florida or Michigan are upset that they did not get a direct say in who our candidate will be, but some are. Both states are key to Democrats in November and this mess the way it is is not helping us.

If Obama is as strong as his supporters think he is he has nothing to fear by facing the voters in those two states in a direct campaign. He certainly has more money than Clinton does to campaign. One thing it would do if he were to work with Clinton to make it happen is undercut a lot of the bitterness many Clinton supporters are starting to feel toward Obama. It would very much be a show of good faith to let those revotes happen. This honestly is one of the major issues that I hold against Obama. You may think that crazy or foolish but it is the truth and I am sure that I am not alone about this. I see him as playing petty partisan politics at the expense of hurting Democrats chances in November. It will not help him unify the Party behind him if he wins to have Democrats like me, let alone folks in those two states, feel that way about him, and it tarnishs the image he tries to project of himself as being above hard ball politics. Not useful.

And yes, if Clinton wins big in PA and Indianna, and WV, there is a risk she could catch Obama in popular votes if FL and MI either are counted or have revotes. I think it is precisely that concern that motivated Obama to have his campaign, and local allies, quitely throw up roadblocks to revotes happening. It is short sighted. Let him simply defeat Hillary Clinton with all of our nation's Democrats having a chance to have their votes counted if he is the candidate his supporters think he is. He can easily finish her off before then anyway if he wins PA and NC, but if Obama agrees to revotes before then his slate will be clean, with a lot of resentment against him wiped away.

[ProSense]

84. From your OP: "in order to prevent any chance of Clinton winning" That's BS! Hillary cannot win with

a revote in MI and FL. In fact, a revote would boost Obama's lead!

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. That is your opinion and not everyone shares it

but if so that would be great in a way, even for a Clinton supporter like me, because it would resolve any lingering issues about how the race was won and help clear the path to more cohesive unity.

And for what it is worth Brooks made the killing of revotes reason number two for why Clinton's chances for the nomination took a hit. He doesn't share your opinion either.

[ProSense]

94. David "When the Magic Fades" Brooks doesn't share my opinon? Really? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Untill I posted this thread

most Obama supporters were quite pleased to share the opinions Brooks wrote in the column I quoted from. Were it not for an Obama supporter thread doing just that, I would not have caught the quote I cited.

[ProSense]

99. What does that have to do with me and my opinion? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Supporting documentation that Brooks was not exactly in a pro Hillary mood the day

he wrote what he wrote, and a general reminder that it is a little late for many Obama supporters (not necessarily you) to dismiss the contents of that column due to who wrote it, since it didn't stop them from hyping his column before I highlighted that one quote.

[MethuenProgressive]

81. A black man working for the disenfranchisement of so many black voters?

Wasn't Obama taught anything at about our Civil Rights movement in that exclusive private prep school he attended in Hawaii?

[LWolf]

97. Neither blocking a revote,

nor accepting what outcome occurred during the first vote, when too many weren't on the ballot, is a clean, acceptable strategy.

Regardless of how the situation evolved, the bottom line is that voters in those two states have been sidelined. That's not democratic, and it's not acceptable.

A revote is the only way I see to remedy the situation; the votes can then be legal, happening after the early schedule, and voters' voices will be heard.

[UALRBSofL]

98. Yes I think Obama is trying to kill the MI/FL votes

because it's in his best interest. Just like I think Hillary wants them counted because it's in her best interest. However I have a theory about Michigan and Florida that Obama should consider. I'll post it on a new thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. I agree with you, but there is an interested third party to take into account

and that is the Democratic voters in MI and FL, and they are best served by being able to have their votes counted to choose their own delegates which swings the advantage in this political tug of war to Clinton. If she were only holding out to have the origingal results honored without being open to full revotes it would seem more murky to me, especially regarding Michigan.

[zulchzulu]

113. This sad sack of crap is evident that some think rules are only an option

Q:
Who wanted to break the rules and change the dates of their primary dates in 2008 and were warned many times that their delegates would not count if they broke the rules?

A:
The State Democratic Party officials in Florida and Michigan decided that they were going to change the dates of the primary KNOWING that their races would not count.

What candidate signed the Four State pledge in September agreeing that the first four states would be the ones that count? Hillary Clinton (as well as other candidates besides Gravel and Kucinich) agreed to the terms of the agreement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. We are discussing revotes that the DNC says would fullfill their rules

We are discussing revotes that the DNC would be happy to have take place. The DNC would rather not leave matters where they are, they just won't sanction the original primaries. The DNC position is "Keep trying until you do it right", not "We don't want to seat delegates from MI and FL."

You are changing the subject and avoiding the original questions raised. Your question has nothing to do with a DNC sanctioned revote.

[PoliticalAmazon]

114. If it's true that Hillary kills puppies for fun...

These "if it's true" posts are a political ploy to link the targeted politician to the premise of the "if it's true" statement.

If people read the candidate's name and the "if it's true" action close together often enough, even with the fake modifier "if it's true," they begin to link the opponent to the action.

It's a cheap, Rovian tactic, and I am not surprised at all that it is being used against Obama. It's just Hillary-Clinton's Bush-blowing style.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Show me the dead puppy Clinton is alleged to have killed

It's easy to find the dead MI revote plan. And unlike hypothetical puppies and kittens, what happens in Florida and Michigan really does effect our chance of electing a Democratic President in 2008. It is a real issue.

[madfloridian]

122. Tom, there is no need for rules.

And it is okay for Clinton's big donors to threaten Dean and Pelosi.

And it is okay for Obama to have abided by the rules about FL and MI, and now to say enough is enough.

Hillary is going to be the nominee but it will be done on the dead bodies of the rest of the party.

Quite frankly, you surprise me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. MF, I was about to log off but

a very quick shorter than I would like to give you out of respect reply.

I read Chairperson Dean say that if Florida and Michigan wanted to have their delegates seated the way to do it was to schedule new primaries or caucuses that the DNC would be able to sanction, otherwise they would not be seated unless the rules committee voted in their favor. I prefer that the rules committee not even have to consider a challenge. I prefer new DNC sanctioned revotes in both states. I think by far that is the best of poor choices, and one the DNC itself raised as an option. I see no problem therefor in advocating for that to happen.

[madfloridian]

125. Here is my reply to you. I took a lot of time to write this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1942

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. This thread was only about revotes

I know that you don't trust Hillary Clinton, I know the arguments over what happened with the original Florida and Michigan primaries. This isn't about the latter, and the matter of revotes has pros and cons independent of whether you trust Hillary Clinton. It isn't about supporting or fighting against Howard Dean either. The DNC proposed revotes as a way to resolve seating FL and MI delegates.

The DNC approved the Michigan revote plan:

From NBC's Mark Murray
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee co-chairs Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt issued the following memo to members of the committee:

"We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/783313.aspx

[elixir]

127. Minor change: Obama did not follow the rules of MI and FL when he took his name off the ballot.

the pledge reads:

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

He had the ability to fundraise and keep his name on the ballot. He chose those options.

It also appears he doesn't follow rules by the fact that he ran national TV advertisements in Florida during the period in question. A simple fix could block out that state and keep him within "da rules".

You can parse this six ways til Sunday, but, Obama, like the good ol' politician he is, saw an opportunity to keep Clinton out of the race and went for it. I think he's banking on the expectation that, should she lose the nomination, Sen. Clinton will throw her support and by proxy her superdelegates behind Obama and all will be forgiven. Should this happen FL and MI will probably forget some of the damage...then again, maybe not.

If I were in his shoes I imagine I might have done the same thing.

[redqueen]

128. .

:thumbsup:

[LisaM]

132. I think Obama's trying to run out the clock, because these are both states she could win.

I also think it's ridiculous to worry about people who crossed over to vote Republican. Just because you can't vote in your own primary doesn't mean you should get to go mess around with someone else's. That's just too bad.

[David Zephyr]

133. It was hyperbole by Brooks. Nothing more.

Your post and the question you pose merit discussion. David Brooks' comment was a stupid one and filled with hubris. I don't blame you for being ticked off. I am, too.

The blame for the entire mess is with the Republican Governor and State House in Florida and with the Democratic Governor and Democrats in Michigan who, understandably, got caught up in the movement by so many states to push up their primary calendars to have more say, more impact. This happened right here in California, too. I understand the sentiment. I was tired of our gigantic progressive state being near last in having any say in who ran the country.

The problem was, in these two lone examples, is that they went beyond pushing up the primaries, they brazenly violated the rules...the rules agreed to in writing by all Democratic candidates beforehand. Long before Obama was even a blip on the radar, Tom.

I wish that Florida and Michigan could come up with a plan to vote either in a full blown primary, a mail-in primary, or in a caucus (as Michigan had always had).

I don't think that the national party should put out twenty to thirty million dollars from precious funds (we are falling behind the GOP of late) to award those that willfully broke the rules of a very serious election.

Obama's lawyers, from everything I read brought up many of the potential problems as the primaries were re-presented including, but not limited to, disallowing bonefide Democrats who voted in the Republican primary because they accepted the national party's directive that their votes in the Democratic primary would not count. How do you not allow those life-long Democrats to vote? This is just one of many, many problems that even Hillary's lawyers also acknowledged. How do you do it?

If Obama's lawyers had truly "killed re-votes" I would be upset, but your question was, correctly, asking how we felt about "Brook's assertion" and my answer is to you that it was pure hyperbole and stupid for him to have said it. Why? Because it was not true.

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. This is TRULY the big Obama gamble; killing the Michigan revote may expedite his path to the Dem nom

Brook isn't the only non Clintonite who thinks Obama's political game plan called for blocking a Michigan revote:


From Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
*** Running out the clock? It appears the Michigan re-vote legislation is hanging by a thread. Clinton is traveling to the state today to try and bring more attention to the fact that it isn't her campaign that is standing in the way of re-vote. Her desire to make this case is obvious: Clinton needs these do-over contests in Florida and Michigan -- and needs to win them by big margins -- to convince superdelegates that she should be the nominee. The question is: Will primary voters in other states care about this issue? (Or will they see this as pure politics, given the fact that Clinton never spoke up about Michigan and Florida until right before the South Carolina primary?) The Obama campaign appears to be gambling that they won't. After all, no matter how long you’ve served in the Senate, you know this one truism about American politics: It’s always easier to do nothing. This is good politics for Clinton if there is a re-vote or if she's the nominee, because while Florida is a battleground in the general, Dems have a path to 270 electoral votes without it. Michigan, on the other hand, is an absolute electoral vote necessisity for the Dems. This is TRULY the big Obama gamble; killing the Michigan revote may expedite his path to the Dem nomination, but he's got real work to do if he’s the nominee. By the way, by going to Michigan today, isn't Clinton sending the message that without a re-vote, her chances at the nomination are much more remote?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/782907.aspx

[grantcart]

134. I believe that the Clintons wanted the hard rule to help set up a national primary

and discuss it in more depth here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5290035



There isn't going to be a revote for many reasons legal and financial.

We will have a nominee and his rules committee will find a face saving way for the delegation to be included. Obama will

make a major effort in Michigan and Florida shades towards McCain (defense, age, demographics, popular republican governors) anyway.

[ronnykmarshall]

136. If it's the best for Him and His message then it's ok.

We must allow the new name of the Burbank Airport take root at all cost. If we fail then putting on a new outfit will die.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

137. That's how Obama operates AND HOW HE WON HIS iL SENATE SEAT...HE SUED

ALL 5 of the other Dems that were running and had thel AA illiminated and ran UNopposed!