Next Up: MI & FL

While the next actual primary contest is Puerto Rico on June 1, clearly Hillary Clinton sees the May 31 DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting as her next opportunity to net a large cache of delegates and to bolster the foundation of her popular vote argument. At every opportunity during a swing through Florida today, Clinton seemed to put the pressure on the Rules Committee members.

At a campaign stop, Senator Clinton likened not seating Florida's delegates to thwarting the will of the people, a la the 2000 recount.

At an appearance on Wednesday afternoon in Palm Beach County, Mrs. Clinton sharply argued that the party should seat the Florida delegates at the convention. [...]

"The outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people, nothing more, nothing less," Mrs. Clinton said at a retirement community in Palm Beach County. [...]

"The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear -- if any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished," Mrs. Clinton said.

Clinton also told The AP that she would take the cause of seating Michigan and Florida to the convention if the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee rules against seating the delegations.

Asked whether she would support the states if they appeal an unfavorable rules committee decision to the convention floor, the former first lady replied:

"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

"I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it's really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I'll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do."

Does she really intend to take it to the convention? Probably not. Realistically, no matter what the ruling of the Rules Committee is, it's not going to change the fact that Barack Obama is virtually assured to be the nominee. But an affirmative ruling accomplishes several things. For one, it brings closure to Hillary Clinton's fight for the enfranchisement of those states -- giving her a moral victory to end on -- and takes part of the asterisk off her inclusion of MI & FL in her popular vote tally, which could be important in arguing for the VP slot if she's so inclined. As for the DNC, it would allow them to end this historic primary process with all 50 states having had a say, thus mitigating any residual bitterness that might remain among voters in those states. And finally, it would allow Barack Obama to claim an untainted nomination win, having achieved it even with the results of two of our largest states -- not to mention Clinton strongholds -- factored in.

Greg Sargent feels a satisfactory result will come out of the RBC meeting on the 31st and at this point I'm inclined to agree.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic nomination (all tags)



I wouldn't call MI a Clinton strong hold

the two candidates poll fairly evenly there.

by Student Guy 2008-05-21 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't call MI a Clinton strong hold

It's called myth making

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't call MI a Clinton strong hold

Unfortunately, with Michigan's economic distress and past voting history being what they are, both Democrats should be leading comfortably there by 10 points.  The DNC has turned Michigan into a disaster this year.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't call MI a Clinton strong hold

It was a disaster made by the state parties as well.  Why some people here continue to blame only the DNC is baffling.  It just shows willful ignorance.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-21 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't call MI a Clinton strong hold

There comes a point where you have to stop throwing tomatos at the voters and state parties in Michigan and Florida if you really want their 17 and 27 electoral votes respectively in the fall.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 10:14PM | 0 recs
walk a mile in our great idea

Tell the Democratic National Committee: Don't Walk Away From Our Winning Base! Walk A Mile In Our Shoes.
Send a pair of shoes to the DNC TODAY deadline May 26th 2008
Request that the DNC donate the shoes to women's shelters & recycle packaging.
What You Can Do TODAY:

1. Mail a pair of your shoes representing your walk in life to the DNC at the address below.

2. Send Virtual Shoes, an image of a pair of shoes representing your walk in life, to the DNC. OR CLICK HERE, then Cut-n-paste full text in blue box at left, and cut-n-paste the name of your shoe from poll list at left, into the DNC email.

3. Vote in The First Ever Poll To Let You Speak With Your Shoes! on this Web site so we can tell the media how many of us want to be heard.

Where / Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee , 430 S. Capitol St. SE , Washington, DC 20003

Talk the Walk - Help us keep count of shoes, to report to the DNC
Include a printout of this Web page inside your package.
All shoes must be sent to arrive delivered by no later than May 30th, 2008, Before the May 31st committee meeting. If you are using USPS Priority Mail for example, they should be mailed no later than May 26th.
All email virtual shoes should be sent to arrive as soon as possible and by midnight May 30th, 2008.

Email the DNC at: DNC Issues Email Page

by suzieg 2008-05-22 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: walk a mile in our great idea

yeah, have fun with all those shoes getting searched for anthrax and being held for two weeks before they are released.

Why not do something more constructive with the 10$ shipping fee like donating it to a local food shelf?

by kasjogren 2008-05-22 07:17AM | 0 recs
not getting behind a re-vote plan

was one of Obama's biggest mistakes during the past six months, and I fear we will pay for it in the general (in MI--he never would have had a prayer in FL).

How bad does it look for Senator Respect Empower Include not to get behind some solution that would have allowed Michigan and Florida voters to weigh in during this nominating contest? Those voters deserved a real campaign and a real election. It's not their fault that the state party leaders and/or state legislatures screwed around with the DNC rules.

By the way, my brother in Broward County was one of those Democrats who normally votes in every primary election, but didn't bother in January because he figured it wouldn't count.

I wish there had been a re-vote in both states.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 06:55PM | 0 recs
if "wishes" and "buts" ...

...were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

I'll bet Hillary "wishes" she had campaigned in somne of those small insignificant states that gave Obama his delegate lead.

Can't re-wish the rules. Obama played it correctly - rules work in his favor.

You gotta admit - Obama's team hasn't missed many strategy calls...OK - New Hampshire, but not many since then.

by Goober Pea 2008-05-21 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: if "wishes" and "buts" ...

New Hampshire was a fluke.. unseasonably warm weather increased turnout amongst Hillary's demographic.  I guess Hillary supporters would say that God interevened! ;-)

by LordMike 2008-05-21 07:22PM | 0 recs
if he loses MI in the general

we are all screwed.

I find it really interesting how some Obama supporters love how he's all about empowering the people, but they also love certain undemocratic rules that work in his favor.

I wrote a bunch of diaries last year that were critical of the Iowa caucus system, not because I had any idea who would benefit from caucuses, but because I thought they were undemocratic.

If Obama stands for giving people a voice, he should not have been playing hardball on shutting out FL and MI. McCain could very well carry MI.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: if he loses MI in the general

Is he really playing hardball? My understanding is that they're offering to work out a deal to seat a portion of the delegates. Seating all of them would be somewhat undemocratic since only one candidate was on the ballot in Michigan while the other candidate said explicitly that the vote will count for nothing, which is what Floridians were told as well. Is it your opinion that all of the delegates from that sort of election ought to be given the same weight as delegates from states where the election was performed in accordance with the rules as well as in accordance with democratic norms of the sort that are understood even by Pakistanis these days, if not by all Clinton supporters?

by Barrett Brown 2008-05-21 07:39PM | 0 recs
I would have preferred a re-vote

that would have allowed a real campaign and a real election in both states.

Barring that, some compromise was in order. And by compromise I don't mean seating the delegates 50-50, as Obama's camp proposed, which is the same things as not counting the votes in those states at all.

I believe Chris Bowers suggested a decent compromise: ryId=5429

If I were in charge, I would seat Florida's pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I would have preferred a re-vote

The problem with that route is that, instead of simply splitting the delegates between the two candidates in an election in which only one was on the ballot, it gives a bunch more delegates to the only candidate who was on the ballot. So, of the two compromises, one (Obama's) nullifies the effect of the votes in Michigan, and the other gives all of the votes that Hillary got to Hillary, while the other gives Obama a bunch of votes (everyone who voted for "none of the above") that he did not receive, as many of those votes were for Edwards. This not only unfairly punishes Obama for not having his name on the ballot, but also unfairly and undemocratically assigns Obama the votes of people who did not vote for him (even if an unknown portion of those would have liked to vote for him).

This does not strike me as the sort of solution to the problem that one ought to think up and go, "Eureka!" Will all due respect to Chris Bowers, of course...

by Barrett Brown 2008-05-21 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I would have preferred a re-vote

Of course, they didn't vote for him, but they did vote for uncommitted. In the state convention, I believe he got the overwhelming majority of the uncommitteds (and the rest went to Edwards or stayed uncommitted, given that Edwards has endorsed him, it doesn't seem particularly undemocratic if Obama gets Edwards delegates).

by letterc 2008-05-22 12:40AM | 0 recs
so you opposed Hillary before you supported Hillar

so you opposed Hillary before you supported Hillary - I see.

because Hillary was against the vote counting in Michigan, before she was for counting the vote in michigan.

Hillary was against the primary vote, before she was for the re-vote.

Just say you don't like "Senator Respect Empower" as you refer to him.  Just say it.  

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:40PM | 0 recs
I don't like Clinton or Obama

as I have said innumerable times in comments here and at DKos. That is no secret.

I have been quite critical of Clinton and Obama at Bleeding Heartland, where I spout most of my opinions. My Obamaskepticism at Bleeding Heartland doesn't seems to bother the commenters there, who mostly support Obama. It's mainly at DKos where people immediately start calling me a Hillary shill or some other name.

Regarding Michigan and Florida, neither campaign has acted in a principled manner (and while we're at it, my candidate Edwards also acted stupidly by taking his name off the MI ballot).

My point is that we cannot afford to write off MI in the general. By not getting behind a re-vote plan in MI, Obama has made his job harder in that state, in my opinion.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:51PM | 0 recs
what's your nickname for Hillary?

do you have a similar nick name for Hillary, like you do for Obama?

I've only been here for 4 weeks, do you ever post your Clinton skepticisms here?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: what's your nickname for Hillary?

desmoinesdem was a sometimes harsh but usually fair critic of Hillary Clinton. And our best source of on-the-ground information about what was happening in Iowa during the run-up to the primary, specifically Obama's remarkable organizing efforts. I thought she would go for Obama once Edwards dropped out.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 08:15PM | 0 recs
I argued with Clinton supporters

regularly here for most of 2007. Since Edwards dropped out I have focused more of my writing time on Bleeding Heartland and less at this sie.

I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to be familiar with my comment history, but I do get annoyed by the knee-jerk reactions of some Obama fans who assume I must be a "shill" for Hillary.

If she were the presumptive nominee and had done something stupid that jeopardized her chances of winning MI and FL in the general, I would not hesitate to say so.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: what's your nickname for Hillary?

desmoinesdem has a decent track record at mydd. dont lump her in with some of the other Hillary supporters on mYDD.

by Pravin 2008-05-21 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: what's your nickname for Hillary?

Al, I think I hear your fellow Obamaites calling you back to DailyObama, better run now.

by muggle 2008-05-21 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't like Clinton or Obama

Why do folks assume that we'll be "writing off" MI and FL in the general??

Every single person who voted in those states KNEW THAT THEIR VOTES WOULDN'T COUNT. Hillary is portraying them as angry and disenfranchised, but they're not. They'll vote along with the rest of us in November, and the primaries will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on their numbers or their preferences.

People seem to be losing track of the fact that all this injustice and disenfranchisement is Hillary's own invention.

by jedley 2008-05-22 01:29AM | 0 recs
Last August Hillary Wanted Florida Shut Out

12 Clinton operatives were unanimus for UN- SEATING the Florida delegation

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Last August Hillary Wanted Florida Shut Out
Do you think people like a certain frequent pro Hillary diary writing lady would even care to read these comments and reply?
It's like we are talking to a wall. We put up these comments debunking a lot of crap, and then we see a new diary pop up about Michigan.
by Pravin 2008-05-21 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Last August Hillary Wanted Florida Shut Out

How dare you bring facts into this. This is an Obama bashathon. Get with the program. Keep reality out of this!

by kitebro 2008-05-22 09:43AM | 0 recs
Are you mad at Edwards?

Mad at Edwards for endorsing "senator respect empower" ?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:20PM | 0 recs
endorsements mean nothing to me

and it's clear to me that Edwards had no strong preference between Obama and Clinton. If he had, he would have endorsed one of the two in February.

His speech endorsing Obama was fairly generic and could have been used to endorse Clinton if she were winning the nomination.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:34PM | 0 recs
Oh, okay - you not angry at him. Good.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you mad at Edwards?

No.  Given that Hillary was ahead Kentucky by 28 points before Edwards came in to "help Obama appeal to working class whites," I think it's hard to find any part of Hill's 35 point landslide on which to be annoyed with Edwards.  He either hurt Obama in Kentucky or had no effect.  Funny, but I remember the same thing happening as a result of his association with some guy named Kerry a few years back.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 07:42PM | 0 recs
Oh man, your right

Hillary won the endorsement by losing the endorsement.

Obamas lost the endorsement by winning the endorsement.

I hope Elizabeth see this.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh man, your right

Obama won the endorsement; Hillary won the state.  By 35% points.  Unprecedented for a "front runner" to be so soundly repudiated by any state in a primary process.

by BPK80 2008-05-21 08:40PM | 0 recs
you realize that's Bill Kristol's talking point

Kristol started that talking point.

I have to wonder if a Clinton supporters like taylor marsh lifted it from him, or she sent it to him, cuz Kristol, of course he didn't mention Huckabee winning Kansas 60-24 and Arkansas by 41 pts, and Romney beating McSame in Utah by 85 points, and in Colorado by 41 points.

Gawd, the grief I would receive, if I cited a debunked anti-hillary talking point, started by Bill Kristol.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 09:35PM | 0 recs

I don't get "talking points" from talking heads.  A lot of the realities of this election are clear enough that we can all glean them from our own observations, mine included.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 10:16PM | 0 recs
I get it - you're in actuality Bill Kristol


I was wondering what your user ID was, Bill.

Bill, can you introduce me to Martha MacCallum?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Insignificant

So it isn't taht you are parroting talking points, it is just that you demonstrate your own personal ignorance by being unaware that what you claim is unprecedented actually happened to the Republican nominee this year 4 different times.


by letterc 2008-05-22 12:46AM | 0 recs
endorsements almost never move voters

They drive the media narrative--that is their sole purpose.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:52PM | 0 recs
But in Michigan

I hear that a re-vote would not have been able to follow DNC rules in regards to preventing Republican primary voters from voting in the Democratic primary. Mainly because the list of Republican primary voters would not be available for some reason or another.

Ultimately the big mistake was on the part of the Michigan Democrats, who couldn't settle for February 5th and tried to cut in line.

by RBH 2008-05-21 07:24PM | 0 recs
February 9

I believe Michigan was originally scheduled for February 9.

I understand your point, but either way Obama should have advocated for a re-vote. It looks stupid for him to say all the voters in MI should be punished because party elites made a mistake.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:36PM | 0 recs

 The re-vote would have disenfranchised even more so because of the semi-open primary system in Michigan. A re-vote would have been a mess.  I agree, all Michigan had to do was wait until February 5th like everyone else and they still would have had a say.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-21 07:38PM | 0 recs
In theory, yes

I would have loved a re-vote. The first election was a sham. But a re-vote is a lot harder than it seems.  The most effective and cheap way to do a revote would have been a caucus. Michigan has a history of caucuses. But Florida does not, and Hillary wouldn't allow a caucus. Then you had the issue of the Voting Rights Act, which would require Bush Administration officials to sign off on the Florida election. That would have been too late - July at the earliest. And finally there was the money question. Nobody ever resolved how the elections would be funded. There were vague offers by Hillary supporters to fund it but that just sounded too Banana Republicish to take seriously.

The only way a re-vote would have been possible is if Hillary had agreed to it back in early February. But instead she insisted for a month that the original votes should count and lost valuable planning time. By April Obama had a legitimate right worry about hastily arranged vote-in ballots.

by elrod 2008-05-21 07:37PM | 0 recs
a caucus would have been a total disaster

The system is bad enough in states like Iowa, that have a tradition of running caucuses.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: a caucus would have been a total disaster

A caucus in FL or MI would not have had to be an Iowa style caucus with long meetings and no secret ballots, just a re-vote run by the party instead of the state. The idea of a fire station primary in MI was floated, but shot down by several different interested parties.

by letterc 2008-05-22 12:50AM | 0 recs
It was up tothe State Party their members said no

when State Party leaders asked party members for their input on a re-do.

Making Obama into the bad guy just won't fly.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: not getting behind a re-vote plan

There's a word for this argument - "lie."  Clinton presented a "re-vote" plan whose effect would've been to ensure that the same voters who didn't get a chance to vote for Obama the first time would be the only ones who could vote.  It would've been a rigged election.

Any re-vote was DOA - Clinton opposed a caucus, and a primary would've been litigated until next year.

The fault wasn't Obama's, or Clinton's, or Santa Claus's - the fault lies with the Michigan Democratic Party, who decided to play chicken with the DNC and instead got hit by the train.  And now Howard Dean and the rest of the national party is out there picking up all of the pieces while the Obama and Clinton camps yell at each other from across the tracks.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-21 11:09PM | 0 recs
I think this is going to the convention...

she ain't gonna stop.

by cosbo 2008-05-21 06:57PM | 0 recs
Is that good or bad?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:22PM | 0 recs





by cosbo 2008-05-21 07:28PM | 0 recs
it's an easy question

yes or no?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:50PM | 0 recs
Sure, why not...

complete the clusterfuck? The convention will then give everyone closure to the most hysterical historical primary race of our lifetimes, where we let the republican media divide and conquered us again. So...I say...YES.

To the convention baby. Let's stop for beer and popcorn on the way.

by cosbo 2008-05-21 07:56PM | 0 recs
Good for you.

truly  principle counts.

a lot of people will not acknowledge the conclusions you've posted.

careful now, somebody called me every name in the book for using the phase "overacting" (ie hysterical)    in critiquing an all caps diary.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 08:01PM | 0 recs
Nope, this isn't going to the convention...

When Obama gets to 2,025 sometime in the next 2 weeks, it's going to be over.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope, this isn't going to the convention...

Actually, when Obama gets to 2151 (without MI and FL) early in June (this requires only that he win 2/3rds of the remaining delegates) it will be absolutely completely over (that is the number he needs to win even if the ridiculous MI FL scenario in the side bar were to be put into effect). Once he gets to 2112 (he needs to win just less than half of the remaining delegates for this), then it is over under the most completely unfair scenario I can imagine actually happening (MI and FL seated in full, MI seated as it was decided at the state convention, Obama gets 39 of the uncommitted delegates).

by letterc 2008-05-22 12:58AM | 0 recs
So, explain...

the "popular vote" argument again?

"If we just follow the DNC rules and count delegates; I lose. Can't have that. Let's count votes instead!"

If that's not it, what is?

by Goober Pea 2008-05-21 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

the popular vote is totally meaningless in our current system.  

Reason 1:  Each state does it different.  Some allow independents, some allow republicans, some even let you just mail in your ballot.  Others do caucuses, others let you do same day registration, and some have early voting months in advance.  Also, some states do have the millions of dollars required to run a full blown primary.  So the idea that the popular vote is the "will of the people" is just no true.

Reason 2:  Delegates are used to force candidates to actually visit smaller states.  It is the same theory as the electoral college.  If we just used the popular vote, big states like California and New York would basically decide our nominee.  Now since we want the most well rounded and competitive candidate we space proportional delegate primaries out to see who ends up the strongest.

But if people really want to just use the popular vote we need to have a universal set of rules combined with a new funding plan that helps poorer states pay the bill.  

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

rhetorical question...

I agree with you, though. Maybe they'll change the rules next cycle....but not this go-round.

by Goober Pea 2008-05-21 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

can you imagine how big of a cluster f*$# the new primary plan process would be.  I should say will be because I doubt any of us would disagree that the system has to be changed to avoid future death matches like this one.  But think about it, every state pushing to get the best deal or spot or the most money.  The arguments over whether independents count or not.  

But hey, we're democrats and love chaos:)

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

Spot on Xris...but check this out:

What about the plan (can't remember where I read this) that would divide the states into four regions. NE, S, MW, W. in 2012, the West would vote first - all on the same day - say 2nd Sat. in January. Then six weeks later the NE votes, then the South, then the Midwest. We would have a nominee by June. Four years later, the order rotates - so each region would have a chance to go first. This would save candidates from having to hopscotch across the country - allow some economies in buying TV with shared markets - and allow the themes important to each region to get a full airing out. The question remains of what to do about caucus vs. popular votes - but that could be worked out.

by Goober Pea 2008-05-21 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

It sounds good, but my only worry would be if we the front runner would just run away with it.  I personally like that we put our candidates through the ringer.  But then again the Republicans just throw them in a ring and have a winner take all death match and that seems to have worked out pretty well for them this past half century.  

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

Actually it would be good to reform it this time around.  When you have a fairly uncontested sitting President in 2012 it would be a good time to work the kinks out so to say.  If you are going to do it, do after this election for sure.

by kasjogren 2008-05-21 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

I totally agree, if we're gonna do it we need to do it as soon as possible.

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

Don't forget that 3 states(or it is 4) that hold caucuses don't release vote totals(I know Iowa and Nevada are two of them), so any popular vote tally is incomplete.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-21 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: So, explain...

This is a game to the Clintons. They knew the rules of the game- Bill Clinton actually won playing those rules, i.e., he won the caucus states and gained the nomination. For some reason they did not follow that path and found themselves losing after Super Tuesday. They threw the kitchen sink, but the detritus did not stick. So then Hillary changed her persona. She abandoned the the policy wonk retoric because it could not compete with the message of Obama. Her new message of bitter, guns and pandering appealed to the lowest common denominator and it started to win her votes. Not enough votes, but she did start to win. But then the super delegates starting go to Obama. Then they changed the metric...count the popular vote. Count ALL the votes even though the DNC rules are delegate driven, but heck its a game. Now its on to the convention, coerce pledged delegates away from Obama, reinstate FL and MI and, bingo, you have a winner.

In the game it is all about winning and the Clintons want to win. They do not care if they are dividing the party. Her supports are convinced that Obama is a sexist because he dusted off his shoulders in one speech he made and that he he played the race card with Bill Clinton in NC. A house divided.

Hillary has huge debts and a fragile infrastructure in place within the states making her ability to compete in the general election problematic. It appears she would rather spend all her time, energy and expenses to try and pull off a pyric victory. Will she be equipped to compete after the convention in the general election?  

Her course of action right now is not logical, so the question is why? Why do they want to win at our expense? I have no answer, only pity.

by prajna 2008-05-21 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I don't know... her campaign seems to have multiple personality disorder... one moment she seems to see the writing on the wall, next moment... fight until Jan. 20th...

It's very disconcerting... considering all the fuzzy math and other spin from her campaign, one never knows if she's got something up her sleeve... playing coy to get our guard down and then strike!

I still don't understand why people are still trying to take the rightly won nomination from him.... He's done something no one has ever done before... beat a Clinton!  Certes, he can beat a lame Republican!

by LordMike 2008-05-21 06:58PM | 0 recs
You cynic

I know, Bill and Hill have no campaign events for tomorrow.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You cynic

Barack's in Boca!

Barack Obama holds a town hall meeting with the B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida

by politicsmatters 2008-05-21 07:21PM | 0 recs
How does she define victory?

Seating 100%?  90%?  80%?  60%?

Even if she won the popular vote, what end would that serve?  That's not how the nomination is determined.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I doubt Obama will go for a compromise. The man has not shown the strength of character to do the right thing when there is a chance it will hurt him.

I hope the RBC can save him from himself, even counting FL and MI he is in a commanding position.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

He hasn't done the right thing?  Man you need to come back from the dark side.  I am an Obama supporter and even I don't think Clinton has been evil.  She just really wants to win.

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

It's good that you recognize many online Obama supporters think Clinton has been evil, I'm glad you're not one of them.

I've met Obama, I've seen him in action, and I've observed him on the campaign. He is an effective knife fighter, but he gets too wrapped up in his arrogance and self-righteousness to back down when he is in the wrong, until he is forced to do so. It's a character flaw.

Everyone has character flaws, it doesn't make him evil.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

He isn't in the wrong. MI & FL violated the rules. They should be punished.

But if you want to compare character flaws between the candidates that would be great fun...

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL


What a distortion.  Who/what are you actually talking about when you use broad umbrella terms like "Michigan" and "Florida"?  You mean the voters?  The GOP legislators?  The Democratic legislators?  The governors?  The states' parties?

If you want to punish the voters, please explain why.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Why are the voters punished? Because their legislatures violated the rules of the DNC and the RNC. Don't tell me you think there's a legal right to a primary vote. You think some Constitutional right has been violated or something? There's no right to a primary at all.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

That's the most flawed logic I've seen in a while.

"We must punish the voters because of something their legislators did."

You seriously want to blame the Democratic voters in Florida for something their Republican legislature did?  

I would hate to have my vote denied because my GOP-leaning Pennsylvania legislature did something ridiculous and undemocratic--which they ALWAYS do because they are Republicans.  

And what pray tell is a more immediate concern: resolving the 2008 primary and election or having a beautiful beautiful perfect calendar in 2012?

FYI, I never said a constitutional right had been violated.  Don't impute ideas to me that I never stated, especially when the ideas you're trying to attribute to me would paint me as stupid or uninformed.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

If you're saying the Dems in the FL legislature were not complicit I have a Youtube video to show you.

by Cochrane 2008-05-21 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Weak.  You can't blame 1.7 million Democratic citizens for an ego trip by a handful of state legislators.  

That's like bombing an entire country simply because you disagree with their leader... er... wait...

by BPK80 2008-05-21 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI &FL

Like I said, the only way that a punishment can be meted out is on the voters. The DNC cannot strip the state reps from their positions or fine them or anything of the sort.

The good news is A.) This was announced before the actual election, so people knew their vote wouldn't count, and B.) they still have the right to punish jackasses like this Geller fool in the regular election.

At least you've stopped using the "Republican legislature" bullshit argument. Good on you.

by Cochrane 2008-05-22 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

There has to be consequences for not observing the primary calendar. Yes, the voters are being punished for something their elected representatives did--THAT'S HOW IT ALWAYS WORKS.

We're all being punished right now for a flawed energy policy and the stupid Iraq war. We get pissed off and elect new representatives--that's how a representative democracy works. That's the ONLY WAY that a representative democracy can work. Look it up.

by Brannon 2008-05-22 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I get to punish voters?  Dude that's awesome!  I am going to start with southern Missouri and work my way up to the north.

Seriously, how can we be such idiots about this?  The republicans punished (placed delegate restrictions on their vote results) the states (parties and legislators who approved the move ahead dates) and there was not a massive up roar over it (as in endless diaries and tirades over how the democratic process has been sullied and weakened).  

With all that said, some form of consequence has to be levied for the states having moved their primaries ahead, but that does not mean that have to lose all say.  

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The only way to enforce the rules entails that the voters get "punished". No way around it. The voters can take their wrath out on the very people who caused this debacle - their state representatives.

When's the state primary in Michigan & Florida?

by Cochrane 2008-05-21 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Quixotic and naive.  The voters aren't going to blame their legislators who believed their delegations would ultimately be seated.  They'll blame the Democratic party.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

If they do, is the DNC just supposed to play into their delusion? I'm for educating ignorant voters, not coddling them.

Again, Halloween primaries. Think about it.

by Cochrane 2008-05-21 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Hey! What about reading tests before you vote! Wouldn't want to coddle those ignorant voters.

What party is it you belong to again?

by souvarine 2008-05-21 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I belong to whatever party does not change the rules in midstream.

I also belong to whatever party does not insult the intelligence of the American people.

I believe in a party to appeals to logic & reason rather than crass emotional appeal (COUNT ALL THE VOTEZZZZ!! YOU'RE NOT COUNTING THE VOTES!!! WHATEVER THE REASON IS YOU MUST COUNT THE VOTEZZZ!!!!)

It's apparent that you feel differently.

by Cochrane 2008-05-22 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I sure do, I did in 2000 and I did for the decades prior. I've never considered appeals the right to vote crass or emotional, no matter what the Republicans say.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Either way, the DNC had an opportunity to enfranchise the states but instead urinated on all of the voters as an over-aggressive reaction to an ego-war with the state legislators.  

Florida: McCain +11%
Michigan: McCain +3%

And a generation of anti-Democratic Party sentiment and state Democratic parties in shambles for the next 4 elections.  

Oh but look on the bright side, we get a cool aesthetically pleasing calendar for 2012.

by BPK80 2008-05-21 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Yes, because polls 6 months out always match the November election, especially when they're taken in the midst of a heated primary contest.

The DNC could give half the delegates back. But that would not give Hillary the win so I suspect that would not sit with you, her, or the rest of your crew.

And do you want Halloween primaries? How about we have a big giant 50-state primary on the 4th of July, 2011, so Hillary can finally be anointed to the office she has been entitled to her whole life.

Wait that probably wouldn't work. MI & FL would probably move theirs up even further.

by Cochrane 2008-05-22 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

So he's bad because he's a fighter?

As for arrogance and self-righteousnss you'd have a hard job awarding the gold, silver and bronze to Obama, Clinton and McCain. All three are self-righteous. Find me a politician who isn't, though.

by elrod 2008-05-21 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Huh? I think it's great that he is good at gutter politics. He'll need that skill if he wins the nomination. I'm not happy with the way he's fought in the primary, but I can't argue that it was ineffective.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Yeah all that talk about Monica, Vince Foster, Bill's other affairs, their foreign money, their criminal donors, was really low but very effective.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL


People need to realize the many dirty tactics Obama could have used if he wanted to fight dirty. He chose not to.
Clinton, on the other hand, trumpeted every possible flaw of Obama's at one point or another. I'd love someone to name an attack she didn't use so far in this campaign.

by LandStander 2008-05-21 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Except, of course, Obama did try to place many of those stories according to reporters:

Barack Obama's presidential campaign "scored a significant hit" against chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton "by helping to place" a story about tainted Democratic donor Norman Hsu,

at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama's aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's postpresidential sex life

I assumed heresjohnny was being snarky, or else he is really ignorant.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Except of course there are dozens of Hsus on Clinton's side so no. They could have been dirty but all they did was balance Rezko - her attack - with Hsu.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

BTW, that's a terribly unsourced story you've got there. If you have Obama talking about the things I've mention above on camera at a debate or on the record like Clinton I'd appreciate seeing it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

So you've met him once and seen him on the campaign trail and you know better than anyone that..

He is an effective knife fighter, but he gets too wrapped up in his arrogance and self-righteousness to back down when he is in the wrong, until he is forced to do so.

Geez, what's that say for the 18 million people who voted for him, all his major endorsers and all the SD's, who have met him many more times than you have, who have given him their support?

by hootie4170 2008-05-21 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I suspect most of them agree with his wife, he's a human being, he's not perfect. I know and respect a number of people who work for him, they know him much better than I do but they are not blind to his faults. Neither is he, for that matter.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I don't remember her or anyone else who has supported him state the quote you made about him.  Maybe you could point me to a link.

And yes, Obama has said he is not perfect and makes mistakes. At least he can admit imperfection and learn from his mistakes.  More than I can say for others.

by hootie4170 2008-05-21 08:42PM | 0 recs

He is an effective knife fighter, but he gets too wrapped up in his arrogance and self-righteousness to back down when he is in the wrong, until he is forced to do so. It's a character flaw.

If you want to go there, your comment could be said for Clinton too.  So lets not go there.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-21 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The last person to reject a compromise offered by the state officials was Clinton.  So far as I know, the only reason this wasn't resolved earlier is because she insists on full seating of the delegates.

by rfahey22 2008-05-21 07:08PM | 0 recs
I doubt Obama will go for a compromise.

It's Clinton who has not and will not compromise. Once this is settled she's loses her last rallying cry and reason to keep stirring up trouble.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-21 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

"We are open to comprise [sic]. We are willing to go more than half way. We're willing to work to make sure that we can achieve a compromise. And I guess the question is: is Senator Clinton's campaign willing to do the same?"

Axelrod continues: "Well, obviously, any compromise is going to involve some give, and that means if there's something on the table, we're willing to consider it. That may include us yielding more delegates than perhaps we would have, simply on the basis of the rules." 508/Axelrod_tells_NPR_hes_willing_to_go_ more_than_halfway_on_Michigan_and_Florid a.html

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-21 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I laughed when I heard Axelrod saying that. His offer was to split the delegates 50/50 (they called it half-way), in other words render the people's votes irrelevant. Now what do you suppose "more than half-way" means? Has he made a proposal?

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The voting that took place WAS irrelevant.  It quite obviously didn't represent the will of the people in those states.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-21 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

That was the initial offer months ago... it's pretty clear that he's willing to give on that, even though it's totally unfair to count an election that most voters knew was invalid and stayed home.

by LordMike 2008-05-21 07:31PM | 0 recs
Help me understand

The policy makers in Florida and Michigan had access to the DNC rules prior to setting the date of their primaries.  I presume they read the rules.

The rules state that if the primary is held prior to a certain date, that state gets no delegates.  Maybe that's a good rule or a bad rule, but it is the rule.  Why is that hard to understand?

I don't like all the laws that we have, but I follow them because I understand that there are consequenses for not following the rules.  If you don't like the rules, change them before you have to face the consequenses.

This is like a guy smoking a joint, getting caught and going before a judge and saying that marijuana ought to be legal because it harms no one.  Change the rule FIRST.

by smoker1 2008-05-21 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

The policy makers were Republican legislators. Of course they read the rules, and they saw the opportunity to screw the Democrats.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

Didn't seem to screw the republican primary much.  Also, the democrats voted for it to and I didn't hear any protest out of the state when it was going on.

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

Where was HRC's concern in January??

by hootie4170 2008-05-21 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

I am pretty sure she was still 100% certain she would be the nominee at that point. Why complain when you're gonna win anyway?

Also, nice sig line!

by LandStander 2008-05-21 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

If there had been a protest to the Republican's action at the time, you would have something to talk about.  If Florida and Michigan Democrats fought against the Republicans who looked at our rules and saw an opening to screw us, I would have a completely different read on this.

But, that, of course, did not happen.

by smoker1 2008-05-21 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Help me understand

Sorry, but it is a pernicious lie that the Florida Democrats were unwilling participants dragged kicking and screaming into the new earlier voting date. The FL legislature voted 118-1 to support the date change.

They simply agreed that it would be more important to be heard than to be counted, because, after all, this race would be all over by Super Tuesday.

by gert 2008-05-22 02:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The votes were irrelevant. Unless you think this is the some sort of Soviet run Banana Republic...

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

You are simply wrong.

MI proposed a compromise recently, Obama said he didn't object, but Clinton did. It reduced her lead in MI by about 10 votes compared to the results of the state convention (where Obama got most of the uncommitted vote). I'm not sure what else a compromise would look like.

by letterc 2008-05-22 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

This is very confusing to me: why would seating the delegates as is somehow render the popular votes in those states legitimate?  They were deeply and irreparably flawed; doling out delegates based on those results does not magically make them any less flawed.

by rfahey22 2008-05-21 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Its the new metric and argument.  That doesn't make it true or legit, but it is the argument out there to keep this primary from never ending.

by Xris 2008-05-21 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

At every opportunity during a swing through Florida today, Clinton seemed to put the pressure on the Rules Committee members.

You have to have something tangible to pressure people with. It's not like they're senior citizens who can be hustled by being badgered.

What does Hillary have, except the implicit threat to take the party down with her? Who among her supporters will support that?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-21 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Just check out some of the comments and diaries here - there are some who will light the pyre with her...

by Goober Pea 2008-05-21 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I suspect many, if not most, of them would have been voting for Bush/McCain regardless.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-21 08:16PM | 0 recs
Umm, Geraldine Ferraro

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-21 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

She could go joementum and star in 527 ads for McCain.  That would be a complete nightmare scenario.

The question is: would she be willing to pull out this threat?  would she be willing to actually do it?

Dunno, she might.

by jello5929 2008-05-21 07:24PM | 0 recs
see, this really annoys me

since Hillary said two months ago that she will be 100 percent behind Obama if he wins the nomination: 8/03/27/clinton-tells-democrats-dont-vot e-for-mccain/

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

"Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please."

"It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."

Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."

"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party," she said. "When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks, we're going to be united."

Still some Obama supporters claim that Hillary is going to back McCain or will try to sabotage Obama in the general to clear her path for 2012.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-21 07:40PM | 0 recs
But who can believe anything she says?

"Hillary said two months ago that she will be 100 percent behind Obama if he wins the nomination:"

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-21 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: see, this really annoys me

I agree with you that this is a stupid and destructive argument to be having.

I think that part of the problem is that once we get into counter-factual land (What could Clinton do to apply pressure to the Rules Committee, given that she is not operating from a position of strength? How could Clinton win the nomination, given that she is behind in pledged delegates and super delegates, and SDs have been going steadily to Obama 4:1 for months?) it becomes very easy to start spinning silly or offensive counter-factuals.

by letterc 2008-05-22 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The only way seating the delegates helps Clinton is if Obama does not get any.  Most likely, they'll halve the delegates and award Obama at least 27.5 and 33.5 for MI and FL, respectively.  Hard to see how the Clinton campaign could fight that.

Which means the 45 delegates he got from OR and KY were enough to secure the pledged delegate majority, and he'll need 40 pledged delegates from the last three contests and 30% of the supers to close it out.

by jimotto 2008-05-21 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

It's hard to see how Clinton can fight anything when she's the loser. The DNC will do as it thinks best on May 31 and there isn't a thing she can do about it.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-21 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

She can get a minority report from the credentials committee and take it to the floor for a vote. That is what she can do.

Given the SD ration Obama has been picking up steadily, no minority report she could possibly even get would give her a victory. My bet is that Obama goes  into the convention winning according even by DemConWatch scenario 5 (the ridiculously inaccurate MI/FL listed in the sidebar here at mydd). He only needs 2/3rds of the remaining delegates to do that, which is much less than he will get if his SD ration holds.

by letterc 2008-05-22 01:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

In other words, Clinton can only stir up trouble to no purpose.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Hillary's attempts to badger the committee into counting the elections in MI and FL will fail badly. Reason: they were not legitimate elections. Simple as that.

There is no way those results will counted for her. You don't change the rules midway through the game. She can put all the "pressure" she wants on whoever she wants. It's just making her and her supporters look silly.

Hopefully there will be an equitable solution and we can move on from this nonsense to the real task in front of us.

by Clipper 2008-05-21 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Besides, the committee knows she signed off on all this back at the beginning.  So they know how much of a hypocrite she is being.  They are doing her a favor extending this out until now so she can raise more money.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-21 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I would guess that Hillary supporters would want Obama supporters to unite if she became the nominee, so some Clinton supporter should at least have the courtesy to explain on what grounds would they try to deny that a significant amount of people that would have voted for Obama voted for uncommitted or stayed home.  If the purpose is to count every vote, then just like trying to assess the voter's intent in a hanging chad, don't we have to make an attempt to assess the voter's intent in Uncommitted.  This has been expressed by a number of people and I never see an answer from a Clinton supporter.

by Piuma 2008-05-21 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The Michigan Democratic Party has allocated their elected delegates. The 55 uncommitted can choose who to support, no doubt many of them would support Obama.

by souvarine 2008-05-21 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

The what's this all about.  He still has the majority of pledged delegates, according to Chuck Todd:

Obama has now won a majority of the pledged delegates even including Michigan and Florida (if you count the nine of Edwards Florida delegates, who have indicated they will vote for Obama. Without those Edwards delegates, Obama would need six more delegates to achieve a majority.)

The splits factored in mirror the "beauty contest" primaries in Michigan and Florida. They are how the Clinton campaign hopes they are eventually seated. Those splits would be: MI: Clinton 73-55; FL: Clinton 105-76 (w/ Edwards delegates, 67 without).

It is also important to note that neither of the two challenges to the DNC's rules to be heard at the May 31st Rules and Bylaws Committee call for splits as favorable to Clinton as the ones we have factored in. That doesn't mean the RBC might not seat the delegates in that way anyway, particularly if the Obama campaign agrees to it.

by Piuma 2008-05-21 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Yes they did, and Clinton didn't accept their proposal.

by texasobserver 2008-05-21 07:52PM | 0 recs
I have a bad feeling about this.

I mean her motives don't seem nearly as altruistic as she would have everyone believe.  She had no problems with MI and FL not counting BEFORE they voted even going as far as agreeing with the DNC ruling that they be excluded to protect Iowa and New Hampsires "first in the nation" privlage.

And the fact that she's being so agressive in pushing this going as far as applying pressure to the committee.  I really don't like the sound of this.    

by DawnG 2008-05-21 07:24PM | 0 recs
Hello. They're all politicians.

They're all trying to win. Altruism in this game is for fools.

by cosbo 2008-05-21 08:09PM | 0 recs
you can win...

...without fighting dirty.

by DawnG 2008-05-21 09:30PM | 0 recs

Paraphrasing her, she says it doesnt matter if her name is on the ballot or not since the votes are not going to count for anything.

I agree, this mess has been handled badly by all parties. But for Hillary to jeopardise the party's  chances in these two states by making it such a huge issue is going to backfire on her. She herself was trying to play politics on this issue. Now she can't go on a public crusade inthe name of idealism. If she wants to reform the system, do it in the offseason.

I hate to say this, but Dean should have been proactive on this issue when it first happened. I like the guy a lot, but it is not enough to say he is going by the rules. He should ahve brought all parties together and hammered out a compromise a while ago. He should also ahve strongly adivsed all campaigns to take part regardless. Obama is to blame for giving away a state where he could have a decent number of delegates.

by Pravin 2008-05-21 07:25PM | 0 recs

Yeah, this is ridiculous. She was against seating them before she was for seating them?


by PhilFR 2008-05-21 07:30PM | 0 recs

Hillary WAS against seating Mi. and Fl. back when she still thought she was ahead.

Hillary is an opportunist and a HYPOCRITE!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 08:26PM | 0 recs
I don't get this whole MI & FL will go GOP.

The RNC punished New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming and they aren't crying about how they'll lose those state is they don't crumble and let them get away with violating the rules.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 07:30PM | 0 recs

republicans are use to disenfranchising voters....we bleeding heart liberals are not....

by nikkid 2008-05-21 08:05PM | 0 recs

As the DNC rules specifically provide that delegates in states that violate DNC rules can be stripped it seems that we also view it as within our rights to punish states that violate DNC rules. That's a bit different, as many a court has said, than denying someone a right to vote. There is no right to a primary at all.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't get this whole MI & FL ...

and besides .. in the end .. it didn't matter .. because John McBush won against a lousy field of Rethugs ... We happened to have two equally matched candidate .. so it mattered in our race .. if Clinton had voted against the AUMF back in 2002 .. this would have all been a moot point .. because there would have been no opening for Obama

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-21 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't get this whole MI & FL ...

Iraq and then Iran were very bad calculations on her part. That's for sure. I doubt Obama would have run if she was the anti-war candidate.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't get this whole MI & FL ...


by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-22 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

giving her a moral victory to end on

She's been given a ton of moral victories to end on, and yet, she just uses it as an excuse to keep going ... this thing is going to January 20th... she's showing no signs of stopping...

by LordMike 2008-05-21 07:46PM | 0 recs
I will tell it as i see it, though i support

Senator Obama, what he did in Michigan was pure R.J.Daleyian . Maybe not him, i give him the benefit of the doubt, but what his campaign did in Michigan was just putting obstacle after obstacle and barrier after barrier and arm-twisting behind closed doors. They worked hard to kill the re-vote and that is the bitter truth that our supporters are not willing to admit. And then the campaign played the clock until it became too late and impossible to hold any primary or any re-vote. Sorry folks, but that is the truth.

Again, politics ain't bean-bag as they say.

Please, spare me all the lame ass excuses and links to articles and so forth. My brother, supporter of Obama, is a local state representative in Michigan and i know the back story  and in details.

I know that you are going to accuse me of being a traitor and all of that. But all i have to tell you is grow up. I support Obama, i don't worship him and there is a big difference between the two.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-21 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I will tell it as i see it, though i support

It seemed to me that the Clinton campaign also nixed proposals in MI, but I agree that the Obama campaign did not handle things correctly in MI. I find it baffling. If MI had revoted, Obama would have done very well, and a huge issue would have been off the table.

by letterc 2008-05-22 01:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I will tell it as i see it, though i support

I agree with you. He would have probably won or lost by a very small margin of 2 or 3 points. People in Michigan told him to go ahead and okay the re-vote and they would guarantee him a huge turnout in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint and Grand Rapid (that is almost half of the population of the state right there), but Axelrod (and other in the campaign that i will not name) was afraid of that the backlash against the thug Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, would rub off on Obama and he would lose the state by a huge margin.

I told you i know very well the story of why Obama did not want a revote in Michigan. This is all i am willing to say and share.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-22 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I will tell it as i see it, though i support


by letterc 2008-05-22 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I think it's clear Clinton wants to take this to the convention, but pretty soon the party is going to face a stark choice.  They can let Clinton pursue a strategy which would require her pulling off three Hail Mary plays, at the cost of substantially reducing the party's chances in November, or they can rally around Obama and bring this race to an end.  

What are the three Hail Marys?  Clinton would have to 1) get the convention to seat MI and FL as/is; 2) prevail upon superdelegates to switch their votes from Obama to her; 3) if successful, convince enough Obama-supporting Dems and indies that these are qualities they should want in the next president.

I don't think she'll succeed doing any of this, btw.  If she tried, though, who doubts this would damage Obama's chances?  He'd only have two months to unify the party and make the case against McCain.

The only silver lining for Obama, and it's not much, is that if he lost in this way Clinton's fingerprints would be all over it (but, more realisticly, they'd probably both be damaged goods, don't see how this rift would ever get healed).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-21 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Question

"On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)"

by mwb525 2008-05-21 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Question

That pretty much sums it up -- mojo'd.

by thepuppethead 2008-05-21 09:38PM | 0 recs
If She Really Wants To

Fine let her take it to the Convention.  At least it will be an interesting Convention.  That's her perfect right.  People should call her bluff, make her take it to the Convention.  

by kaleidescope 2008-05-21 09:07PM | 0 recs
Seat half the FL. and Mi. delegatoins split 50/50

That is the ONLY fair way.

Faux Primaries produced Faux Results.

Hillary should NOT be rewarded for cynicaly leaving her name on the Mi. ballot.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-21 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I would really like to know about Obama's current stand on MI and FL. His campaign has been so quiet on the issue and I haven't seen a statement in what seems like forever. Of course he has every reason to be quiet, but he must get asked about it frequently!

by LandStander 2008-05-21 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Unless I'm wrong, his official position is "it's for the RBC and Credentials folks to decide."  His unofficial position is probably closer to "Seat them in a way which doesn't disturb the primary results."  He's coming close to a point where they could potentially be seated in full and he'd still be the winner, albeit barely.  Caveat: Math and me don't get along too well.

My guess is that if they're seated at a 50% ratio, he'll walk away happy - if he's only leading by a handful of delegates in mid-June, then he's going to be watching his back all summer - his campaign probably needs assurances that once we hit summer, this thing is actually over, that there's not going to be an "insurgency" at the Convention.  I could see a potential for myriad deals here - e.g., he agrees to seat them in full if he has enough delegates, but on the condition that Clinton dismantles her campaign, so that he's not looking over his shoulder all summer.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-21 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL
These sort of claims are as bizarre as they are misplaced.  To try to deal with the craziness, I have written a fictional piece, hopefully funny, "Hillary Declares her Choice for VP."  Turns out it's not a person....
by Mitchell A 2008-05-21 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Hillary said today that she wanted the delegations seated "exactly" as is. Meaning she wants to try to pick off as many of those uncommitted delegates as she can get. An interesting strategy in theory, but she underestimates once more the support for Obama's candidacy and relative lack of support for her own.

I've said this for awhile but people here just don't seem to get it. THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA DELEGATIONS WILL NOT BE SEATED IN A WAY THE EFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE OTHER CONTESTS. The uncertainty has been good for the Clinton campaign but after that uncertainty ends so does her campaign. She will concede shortly after the last contests, thank her supporters and endorse Barack Obama.

Two weeks longer for this to matter and then finally this site will go into full General Election mode with just the small bit of sniping from the people that will refuse to realize that Hillary is not the nominee.

by wengler 2008-05-21 11:40PM | 0 recs
cynical posturing

Hillary was instrumental in disenfranchising FL & MI and now she is invoking Zimbabwe and slavery. Shameless.

She started the campaign running on the record of the Clinton presidency. Claiming she was a virtual co-president in the administration that put a happy face on globilization and brought us market deregulation, NAFTA, the Exxon -Mobil merger, welfare reform and signed off on China buying up defense contractors to name a few Republican wet dreams made possible by Clinton. Then somewhere between Ohio and PA Hillary transformed herself into a fire breathing populist opposed to everything Bill Clinton stood for.

She voted for war in Iraq and Iran when she thought it improved her electoral chances and when it became clear that it was a strategic mistake (not for the country for her personal ambition) she reversed her position.

Hillary is the ultimate huckster. Like the myth she created for herself about Bosnia she is a fervent believer in any BS fabrication she thinks will get her the prize.

She has about as much concern for the voters of Florida as she had for the soldiers she was sending to Iraq. They are just pawns at the service of her personal ambitions.

by hankg 2008-05-22 02:23AM | 0 recs
Todd, you make sense.

Both candidates' campaigns have known for months that the super delegates will decide this.  We've all known it too.  So it becomes what argument (read talking point) will win them over.

Clinton:  I'm more popular.  
Obama:  Ha!  Can you draw the biggest crowd evah?

Clinton:  I'm winning the southern swing states.
Obama:  I'm winning the western swing states.

Clinton:  I win more white working class voters.
Obama:  I win the AA vote.

Clinton:  I win the Hispanic vote.
Obama:  I win the youth vote.

Clinton:  I win unions.
Obama:  I win unions.

Clinton:  I win bigger states.
Obama:  I win more states.

Here's where Clinton gets into trouble:

Obama:  I have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.....that's my Ace.
Clinton:  I win the female vote.....this is, however, not an Ace if women will vote for whoever is the nominee.

    To raise it to an Ace, Clinton must convince the super delegates that women will not vote for Obama in the general election and they might even defect to McCain.  She's been working it pretty hard but IMO it won't convince enough of them.  She gets an A for effort though.

by GFORD 2008-05-22 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

First, Hillary held a "victory" rally in Florida, claiming a "win" where there was no contest. Then,she flip-flopped on her prior position that FL and MI votes should not count.

Her claims to the results in these states are spurious, whether or not Obama was onthe ballot. When you are a Clinton, with a background of the
presidency and decades in the public eye, of course you will get the most votes when your opponent has not campaigned.

So let the delegates come to Denver and divide the votes evenly.


by Homer 2008-05-22 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

Craig Crawford says it ain't gonna happen.  Too risky.  Once Mich & FL are seated, unbound supers could "waver" and poof, there goes his unity victory.

by notime4lies 2008-05-22 07:05AM | 0 recs
MI and FL will be seated...

... in a manner that has no effect on the outcome.  MI and FL will not be permitted to determine the election.  This is fantasy.

by Please 2008-05-22 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

I just wanted to point out this comic found at ml Which sums up how I feel about the MSM about now.

If I knew how to put it in an image I would.

by Darknesse 2008-05-22 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Next Up: MI & FL

DNC Delegate Selection Rule 11A [PDF], states the following:

   No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Thus, the rules were not only broken by Florida and Michigan, but also by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa held their caucus on January 3, 2008 instead of January 14. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8, 2008 instead of January 22. South Carolina held their primary on January 26, 2008 instead of January 29.

The penalty for violating Rule 11A, according to DNC Delegate Selection Rule 20C1a [PDF], states:

   In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

According to Rule 20C1a, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida should have had their delegates reduced by 50%. However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were not penalized at all to protect their first-in-the-nation status, while Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates. Thus, the DNC is applying the rules arbitrarily.


by mztower 2008-05-22 10:24AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads