Meet Me in Michigan!

Remember all those Democrats who turned out to vote in Michigan?  Hundreds of thousands of Democrats give or take and word on the street has it that Sen. Obama's dragging his feet on any plan to put together a re-vote on June 3rd in my home state.  Hillary's press team released the following statement yesterday calling on BO to get on board with the revote effort.

"The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. If Barack Obama's campaign stands in the way of a new vote, he will be putting his own political interests ahead of the people of Michigan. They deserve to have a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party's nominating process. A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver. If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee's ability to carry the state in the general election."

I sent the following video to all my friends and family back home in Michigan for a bit of background...

Some of you may remember what happened in the lead-up to the Michigan vote.  As the above video notes, BO knew he wasn't going to do all that well in the Great Lake State, so he cooked up a plan to leave Hillary as the lone Democrat on the ballot there.  As the Iowa Independent reported back in October of 2007...

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

The guys played up to the voters in Iowa by taking their names off the Michigan ballot, and that worked to their advantage in Iowa.  Thing is it also worked to Hillary's advantage because she won the state.

The campaign held a press conference call this afternoon about how to make sure the hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Michigan have a voice at our party's convention this summer.  Ickes pointed out that there are three players in finding a resolution to this mess in MIchigan - Hillary's team, Obama's team, and the DNC.  

Now there's a proposal out by Michigan's Governor - Jennifer Granholm - that would allow for a revote and she's circulated a draft to everyone involved for their approval.  Hillary's campaign signed off on Granholm's proposed plan within hours of their receiving it.  The DNC's also signed off on this plan.

The only one that leaves is Obama's camp.

To date, Obama's remained silent on this or any other plan to resolve the stale-mate in Michigan.  We can only take his silence to mean that he doesn't want a re-vote, and he's making that even more clear with every day that passes without comment from him.  He needs to speak up and clear the air - tell Michigan that he doesn't want to leave them out of the nomination process this summer and that their votes should count.  

Then again, I wonder if this has anything to do with it...

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.

That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.

The effect of blocking those voters could be greatest on Sen. Barack Obama, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary.

A group of Democratic leaders from Michigan are trying to set up a June 3 do-over Democratic primary so the state can get its delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention.

The Clinton campaign said Monday it would go along with another election, but the Obama campaign so far has said only that it's reviewing the proposal. Potentially at stake are a hefty 128 pledged delegates that Michigan had before it was punished by the DNC for moving up its primary date.

Now I'm going to give BO the benefit of the doubt and guess that he's probably just going over that proposal with a fine tooth comb (he is a lawyer after all) and will sign off on this revote plan very very soon (tomorrow maybe?).

He's already told the voters of Michigan their votes don't matter by playing up to Iowa's voters and taking his name off the ballot.  I can't imagince the message that sent to his supporters in my home state.

I'd hate to think he's trying to disenfranchise them again by preventing a re-vote back home through his refusal to act.  

We're going to need Michigan in the general election after all and if he wants them to turn out to vote for our nominee in November, he's going to have to stand up for them now by doing all he can to ensure that they're voices are heard at our party's convention in August.

U P D A T E

Hillary Clinton Visits Michigan Tomorrow, March 19

The Clinton campaign today announced Hillary Clinton will travel to Detroit , Michigan tomorrow, Wednesday, March 19, hosting a “Solutions for America ” event.

Wednesday, March 19 Detroit , MI

Doors Open: 8:15 a.m. EDT Event Begins: 10:00 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton Hosts “Solutions for America ” Event AFSCME Council 25 600 W. Lafayette Suite 500 Detroit , MI OPEN PRESS

One More UPDATE

I forgot to include my pitch for help on behalf of Hillary. If we can sort out Michigan and Florida she's going to need to raise enough money to launch a campaign in those states and buy ad time. Help her out guys!

DONATE NOW!

Thanks guys!


Display:


Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 14)

The foot dragging's getting old.  Time to get this mess cleared up.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:37:26 PM EST

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 8)

Great job, Alegre.  The people of Michigan will not forget, will they.


by susanhu on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (2.00 / 5)

She voted in the Michigan primary and it's bad enough her vote then won't count.  But now BO's dragging his feet on a re-vote?

She's just one of loads of folks I know back home who're pissed.  At this point BO's got two choices...

Get on board a re-vote plan.

Or

Make sure they don't get a say at our convention and ensure that Michigan goes Red in November.  

They may not vote for McCain but I can't see many Michigan Dems getting out to vote at all if BO stands in their way now.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan is Crucial! (2.00 / 5)

Amazing how some politicians keep forgetting these words of wisdom!

We're going to need Michigan in the general election after all and if he wants them to turn out to vote for our nominee in November, he's going to have to stand up for them now by doing all he can to ensure that they're voices are heard at our party's convention in August.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (2.00 / 0)

As a Michigan voter, If my vote is not allowed in the primary, it won't matter in the General. I am angry and I believe Obama is not the Liberal some think he is. Any Democrat who wants to throw away my vote, is not a Democrat.


by owllwoman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (none / 0)

My mom's in a great mood today.  Thanks for sharing.

What lies do you intend to spread about Obama today?  Just curious.


by McNasty on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (2.00 / 0)

Another excellent post, alegre. Highly rec'd.

I just moved from Michigan and my father said he will vote for McCain if this doesn't get resolved.  My mother is waivering.

This just again illustrates that BO is just another politician who will say or do anything to get elected - he's not "a new kind of politician".


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (none / 0)

Um, what kind of politician calls for the delegates to be seated "as-is" in a contest where nobody campaigned and the front-runner wasn't even on the ballot?

How many in MI voted "uncommitted", which was essentially an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) vote?  40% in case you've forgotten.  What percentage of the youth and black vote stayed home becasue Obama wasnt on the ballot?

Believe me, most Obama supporters would love to see an new primary or caucus in Michigan.

Remind me, who won MI in 1984?  Oh yeah, Jesse Jackson.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Mom - A LIfelong Dem - Is PISSED (none / 0)

Wait, mea culpa.

HRC was the front-runner at the time, right?  Had Obama been the front-runner then, I suspect that the ABC vote would've been even larger than 40%.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many hundreds of thousands stayed home? (2.00 / 0)

 Because their preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot?


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many hundreds of thousands stayed home? (2.00 / 0)

That's a different story.  If they have a revote, and people stayed home, they could participate in the primary. What the Obama team is dragging its feet on, is that people who chose to vote in the Republican primary will not be allowed to participate - which is absolutely right.


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many hundreds of thousands stayed home? (none / 0)

Actually thats the whole issue the obama camp has with the re-vote. The current plan has problems with people who voted the first time. Especially independants and people who voted in the republican primary becuase they cannot vote in both but only voted in rebublican becuase they knew the Dem vote didn't matter


by wil5013 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Indeed. Great Job Alegre.

When Obama committed himself to the strategy of denying voters their right to vote in the Democratic Primary, he assumed responsibility for his undemocratic tactics. Everyone now must take the measure of this man who professes in public to be for a "solution" while in every other way does everything he can to obstruct a fair and meaningful vote. These are the actions of someone who acts only on his short sighted interest in winning the nomination, not at the greater goal of winning the presidency, and not at the higher ideal of democracy--one person, one vote. This man has thereby demonstrated that he is not fit to be nominated for President of the United States--not by Michigan, not by Florida, not by anybody.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:29:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This diary is a deliberate distortion (none / 0)

that runs contrary to Hillary's own comments about Michigan.  At this point the Clinton campaign's hypocrisy reaches such astounding heights as to raise serious questions about whether you can trust anything she says.

Here is what she said about Michigan, and why she left he name on the ballot.  


In an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall, Clinton explained why she was the only candidate who did not agree to New Hampshire's request that she take her name off the ballot in Michigan.

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=19188859

And Hillary's position is identical to Harold Ickes her senior advisor as Ickes voted to punish Florida and Michigan in December.

The record is clear and not subject to debate.


by fladem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This diary is not a distortion (none / 0)

That was then.  Obama and Edwards, hoping to coerce Clinton because they knew THEY would lose in Michigan and wanted Iowa to be first (where Obama knew he could win by bussing in voters) have no one to blame but themselves for taking their names off the ballot.  Now that it's clear the Michigan delegates won't be seated, a revote is the only way to go.

Once again Obama refuses to take a stand and sways back and forth in indecision.  One can only expect that eventually he'll vote "present."  


by miriam on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This diary is not a distortion (none / 0)

How exactly did Obama BUS in so many votes to win by 8%? how did they bus in any percent of the vote in fact.? I guess edwards cheated too, cuz he also beat Clinton.


by wil5013 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey...I'm from Michigan, too! (2.00 / 0)

Don't you love how DKos urged his Dem and INdy Obamaphiles to vote for Romney in the first Michigan primary...and they will now be shut out from the re-vote.

Everyone - but Markos - always knew that was a two-edged sword...we just didn't expect the blade to be so sharp!

(Where did you grow-up in Michigan?)


by Shazone on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 8)

yeah, we're waiting down here in florida, too. the silence from obama's camp is deafening.


by campskunk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:39:54 PM EST

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 4)

No reason to NOT the votes fully and fairly in FL.  All candidates were on the ballot and they had the largest turnout ever.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 4)

I was a pollworker on Jan 29...turnout was amazing for a primary, there were lines most of the day, and the Dems line was the longest most of the time. It was my first time in that particular precinct, but the others who had been there before said it was almost like a general election, we hardly had time for a lunch break. "Beauty Contest" my ass!


by Alice in Florida on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

No one ran ads in Florida.  It was against DNC rules.  The ads you claim were run there were part of a national ad purchase on a cable network.

Please, get your facts straight.


I'm a firm believer in the idea of a ruling class, especially because I rule.
by Olo401 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Fatcs?!?!  We don't need no stinkin' facts!!


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Get Your Facts Straight" (2.00 / 1)

People who demand that others 'get their facts straight' shouldn't try to lie about the facts.

Obama knew full well he was violating the pledge when he held a press conference last September--then said he wasn't aware that violated his pledge.

Obama knew full well when he bought the national cable ad that Florida was included; and that he was violating the pledge.

Obama knows full well that a 50/50 split of delegates from Florida is inherently anti-democratic; and he is violating the rules by suggesting it.

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/03/clinton-florida.html

The pro-Obama ad started airing nationwide -- including in Florida -- on MSNBC and CNN, and the Clinton campaign charged that it violates the oath against "purchasing print, Internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state."

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/22/State/ Obama_s_CNN_ad_draws_.shtml

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. ... If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/ obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe all but ruled out the possibility, in their minds, of a mail-in vote in Florida and Michigan.

Plouffe outlined three options their campaign could see working. First mentioned: a caucus, which would obviously benefit Obama who has typically done well in caucus states. Second, a full primary, which has obvious hurdles because of cost involved. And lastly, Plouffe suggested some seating of the delegates "not based solely on the outcome of their elections."

This last option which Plouffe called the "easiest option" was first floated by Obama supporter, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., last week, where the delegates would be split evenly, 50/50, between both candidates.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean said earlier in the week that there could not be 50/50 seating unless the credentials committee writes off on it -- and that couldn't happen until July.

Plouffe responded to Dean saying, "He has rules that he has to police but they've also been pretty clear that they are open to solutions here."

[...]

He reiterated that the Obama campaign would accept what the state parties and the DNC work out.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/03/clinton-florida.html


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Is Such a Hypocrite (2.00 / 0)

3/19/2008

The Clinton campaign is right about this:

MEMO: Obama's Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words

To: Interested Parties From: The Clinton Campaign Date: March 19, 2008
RE: Obama's Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words

On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be "fine" with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again.

It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words.

As yesterday's headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear, Senator Obama is the lone standout: "Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say."

The Clinton campaign believes the right to vote is a bedrock principle of our country and that empowering the people of Michigan and Florida to make their voices heard must be a priority for any candidate running for the Democratic nomination. As such, we must either honor the original vote or hold a state-run primary that doesn't leave the taxpayers footing the bill.

So why is the Obama campaign refusing to give the people of Michigan the chance to exercise their fundamental right to vote? Let's take a quick look at what the Obama campaign is arguing and explore why those arguments are wrong:

False Excuse #1: Barack Obama Wasn't on the Ballot. The Obama campaign argues that their candidate wasn't on the January ballot because the Michigan primary wasn't sanctioned by the DNC and they were trying to comply with the early state pledge. Let's remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote. Keep in mind that nearly twice as many people voted in Michigan and Florida than voted in the four early states combined.

Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it. Senator Obama signed the pledge and kept it in Michigan. But in so doing, Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. That was his right but it was also his decision. As a result, he denied Michigan the opportunity to vote for a slate of candidates. There aren't many second chances in life but Senator Obama has one now and should ask the people of Michigan for their vote. Why is he refusing to do so?

False Excuse #2: Obama Voters Participated in GOP Primary. The Obama camp will argue that their supporters voted in the GOP primary because Barack Obama wasn't on the Democratic ballot. They argue that the legislation's effort to comply with the DNC rules is unfair since the bill would prohibit people who voted in the 2008 GOP primary in Michigan from voting a second time in the Democratic contest. On its face, you might think the Obama campaign is making a sound case. But two points render their argument inoperable:

First, the Obama campaign has repeatedly said that it would comply with DNC rules and DNC Rule 2.E prohibits cross-over voting. The draft legislation does not permit anyone who voted in Michigan's Republican primary in January to now vote in the Democratic primary. Senator Obama has said that this is a key reason why he cannot support the legislation but that provision must be in the bill in order to comply with the DNC rules. So while Senator Obama's campaign says he will follow the rules, he wants one of them to be ignored.

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent.

So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

False Excuse #3: Clinton Supporters Have Said They'd Raise Money For a Primary and They Back Clinton. The Obama campaign will argue that Clinton supporters have said they'd help raise money to finance the primary and that's not fair. Last time we checked, the Obama campaign wasn't hurting for donors. More to the point, Democrats are blessed this cycle with an energized grassroots. We believe that appealing to everyday people to finance this primary exemplifies what this election is about: giving a voice to the voiceless.

False Excuse #4: Michigan Law Requires First-time Absentee Voters Must Vote In Person Before They Can Vote Absentee - Just Like in Illinois. The Obama camp will argue that they are at a disadvantage because a lot of their supporters are college students who vote absentee. But Michigan law says that a person voting absentee must cast a vote in person before they are eligible to vote absentee which will result in the exclusion of many Obama supporters, of whom many are first time voters. The Obama campaign should be familiar with that sort of system since it's the rule in Illinois and we didn't hear too much complaining in the run-up to February 5 primary there. More to the point, this rule will be in place in Michigan for the general election.

So will the Obama campaign use this excuse to justify writing off Michigan in the general if Barack Obama is the nominee? We hope not.

The bottom line is that Michigan has all the problems and promise that we talk about in this country. Competing in Michigan sends a signal that Democrats care and understand the people there deserve the chance to make their voices heard and need someone in the White House who will hear their voices.

If Barack Obama doesn't want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so. We call on the Obama campaign to let the people of Michigan vote.

Hillary Clinton FactCheck


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Obama ran ads in Florida.  There are plenty of Floridians who saw hundreds of them--what difference does it make whether they were "a national purchase?"  When an ad says Vote For Obama" one cannot say there were no ads.  And he gave a press conference (also forbidden) the day after he signed the no-campaigning pledge.  His name was on the ballot.  

There is no excuse for not counting these votes.  Unless you are an Obama supporter.


by miriam on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Interesting that appears to be the only time in the campaign he spent money for a national cable ad.  Why might that be?--to get into FL in a way he could "excuse"?


by seeker on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 8)

Voter disenfranchisement is NOT cool.


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:09 PM EST

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Why would Obama work for a revote, when the prospect of one is the only thing keeping Clinton in the campaign?

Once the door is closed on those, she's basically mathematically eliminated.


by Cycloptichorn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:42 PM EST

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 5)

Go Democracy!


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 5)

do you think we ought to explain that all these primaries and caucuses are for the purpose of ensuring that the nominee is the preferred candidate of the democratic voters, and thus will have their support in the general election, or do you think that would be a waste of time?


by campskunk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (1.00 / 2)

Yeah, but it wasn't Obama who made the decision!  It isn't his responsibility to fix the decision.  

And truthfully, if the shoes were on the other foot, you guys would be making he opposite arguments, that hey; rules are rules and that's the way it is.  

Nothing makes me more disgusted during this primary then the scent of fake indignation that wafts from the arguments of so many Clinton supporters online.


by Cycloptichorn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 5)

Nothing makes me more sick in this campaign as the smell of someone depriving people of their constitutional right to vote for his own political benefit.


by Scotch on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

There is no constitutional right to vote in a primary election.  I have no idea who told you there was.  In fact, when FL challenged the DNC's ability to strip their votes in court, they were quite correctly slapped down.

It has long been held the political parties are PRIVATE and not public institutions and can conduct their elections in the fashion they wish; as long as they are not discriminating upon racial or gender lines, they are free to strip or add votes to whoever they like.

I understand that this fact does not fit in well with the meme necessary to keep your candidate going, but it is the truth.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:09:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Legally, that's true (2.00 / 5)

But historically, the Democratic Party has always stood for enfranchisement, for making the votes count.  We've battled the Republicans over enfranchisement countless times.  Every drivers' license voting law, every vote-by-mail law, every same-day registration law was sponsored by Democrats and most of them had to be rammed by resistant Republicans.

Not to mention 2000, when the entire Democratic Party stood together to protest how an election was stolen by first stealing from thousands of elderly Jewish voters and African-American voters their precious franchise.  That was the event that spawned the liberal blogsphere.

Democrats stand for the right to vote.  To send any other election would be to repudiate our history and send a message to the nation that Democrats don't stand for anything--something, I'm afraid they already suspect.


by Trickster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

Well said cyclo -- who do these voters think they are anyway, Americans? Screw 'em. Gooooo 'bama! Rah!


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

You are correct.  But I assume this means that if the superdelgates decide to select Hillary as the nominee, we will hear no objection from Obama supporters?  After all, the DNC is "private" and can choose their nominee anyway they want, right?


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not from this one, anyway. (none / 0)

If Hillary does manage a coup via superdelegate, I won't call foul.  I'll be plenty mad at the supers, but each campaign new the how the process worked from the beginning.

In fact, I believe the main reason Hillary's losing is that she didn't pay enough attention to the process in terms of post-Feb. 5 contests.  She won an impressive number of important states, but not by big enough margins.  Getting creamed in those 11 interim contests is what did her in.


by corph on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 6)

Amen!  Here's a solution:  Have a revote in Michigan.  Seat the Florida delegates as is:  all the candidates were on the ballot, and FL had the largest primary turnout in its history.  We are going to have serious problems if we do not let these people's votes count--not to mention that as a matter of principle they should count no matter whether we like/agree with their preferences or not.  If BHO does not support a way to get these delegates seated then he has no right claiming the mantle of the democratic nomination.  Wouldn't that make him akin to GWB?  Ya think?


Unity Ticket: The best damn way to kick John McCain's Ass in November!
by aurelius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That sure (none / 0)

would be great for Hillary!  Too bad the ultimate decider is essentially the Obama campaign, who would control the floor vote at the convention.

 We're going to have serious problems if we do not let these people's votes count...

Well, we're going to have serious problems if states suffer no consequences for violating primary calendar rules.  And if FL and MI primary voters want their votes to count next cycle, they can elect state legislatures who don't make greedy gambles for relevance.

It's not like FL (especially) gets ignored in the general anyway.


by corph on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

The you should focus your complaints on the FL & MI Democratic Parties, because they're the ones who caused the disenfranchisement.  Not Barack Obama.


I'm a firm believer in the idea of a ruling class, especially because I rule.
by Olo401 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Actually, in Florida it was the REPUBLICANS that did it to the Dems, by tying the early voting to bills that the Dems dearly needed to pass.

People keep ignoring that fact.


by splashy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 4)

Oh I'm sorry but I can't let this load of... stand without a reply

if the shoes were on the other foot, you guys would be making he opposite arguments

Are you honestly telling us that we'd be arguing for the disinfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of our fellow Democrats?

Man the level of cynacism - the arrogance that folks have reached in this campaign is just mind-blowing.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Yes, that's exactly the argument I'm making - with one important difference:

The word 'disenfranchisement' is inappropriate.  It refers the removal of a right.  There is no inherent right to vote in a political primary.  This is a fact, though it is inconvenient to your case.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your argument is mind-boggling (2.00 / 3)

It took me a while to grasp how far you are going with this.  You are really and truly saying that the Democratic Party should operate itself like a private club.  It should declare that it is not committed to embodying the will of the people in the process of selecting its leaders, but rather only the will of the people who follow its membership rules.  

"We the people of the United States of America who meet the Democratic Party's eligibility requirements, do hereby ordain and establish. . . ."


by Trickster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:29:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your argument is mind-boggling (2.00 / 3)

Yup, that's what cyclo's been saying all over this blog tonight. It simply does not matter how you win, or if how you win screws up your chances for victory in the fall. That's what it is all about. Winning. If you don't admit, you'd do the same you're just lying.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:38:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your argument is mind-boggling (none / 0)

Uh, aren't you guys saying the same thing when you lobby for closed primaries?


by amiches on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your argument is mind-boggling (2.00 / 0)

Are you saying that it is the same thing to want to allow anybody whether a legally registered Democrat or not to vote as to want to ensure that all Democrats are enabled to vote?  Having open primaries simply invites those with no interest in seeing the Democratic party flourish a voice in the candidate of that party.  If it is going to be "open" then you may as well open it to non-citizens also.


by macmcd on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your argument is mind-boggling (none / 0)

Haha, yes, independents and Republicans = noncitizens


by amiches on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your argument is mind-boggling (none / 0)

As far as having an interest in promoting the benefit of the Democratic Party, Independents and Republicans are probably not as concerned with our political party as non-citizens.  If you think that Republicans want our party to flourish then you are kidding yourself.


by macmcd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Alegre (or others),
What do you make of HRC's early claims that Michigan 'wouldnt count anyway' and the fact that Ickes was on the DNC panel that voted for the punishment.

An honest debate...


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I did not write that (2.00 / 1)

but I think that some of you would be that way. Most notably, one of them would be the honorable Senator from New York, who noted before our primary that it was not going to count for anything (paraphrase.)

I live in Michigan. I opposed the change in primary dates adamantly as soon as it was proposed. Back then, I supported Edwards, and it looked like Michigan would be one of his stronger states because of the labor presence there. My stands on these things have always been out of principle.

Its quite ironic that you are accusing Obama supporters of cynicism, when your fellow Clinton supporters often insinuate that we are a group of starry-eyed youths who are naively fooled by everyone who makes promises to us. To tell the truth, I'm an extremely cynical person, hence why I supported Edwards at first. When others were extolling the virtues of Obama's 'Yes we can' video, I was wondering what in the world was so significant about it. In the aftermath of the Texas (I think) debates in which Clinton made her famous 'we're going to be fine' remarks, while other people praised her comments, I couldn't help but notice the apparent lack of passion and sincerity in them. But I support Obama now because I honestly think that he will be a better president than Clinton, and accept that you disagree with me on this.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

MI and FL and Edwards (none / 0)

You bring up an excellent point about the FL and MI flap, which I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere: Had the FL and MI contests been conducted properly -- which is to say, on Super Tuesday with campaigning by the candidates, Edwards may have emerged as a competitive candidate.

Holding new votes in FL and MI would make those states arbiters in a kind of instant run-off election between the two remaining candidates, but would not restore to those states the original privilege of choosing a candidate from an open field.


by baudelairien on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Absolutely absurd.

Downrating.


by jaydub799 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

Right cyclo -- everyone hates democracy as much as Obama. That's the way we all are. Gooo 'bama! Stiff Florida, Stiff Michigan, Win Win Win!


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

I'm very confused as to why you think this is somehow Obama's fault. Did Obama make the states push up their primaries? Did Obama vote to punish those states (no, but Harold Ickes did!)? Did Obama create the legislative deadlock that has led to revotes not being a possibility in those states, or did he create the financial shortage that means we can't pay for them?

I notice your comments getting more and more sarcastic as this drags on. I understand that you're frustrated about Hillary losing. But it's time to move on and focus on issues.


by amiches on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (1.00 / 1)

I say with 100% honesty that the only rule that I have heard expressed by those I have heard from in the Hillary campaign or that I, myself, feel should have been enforced is that only those who are actual voters in a particular state should participate by voting in the caucus of that state.  I have been shocked at the determination of the Obama campaign to "game" the caucus system and then to act like it is all just part of the game.  The dishonesty that I have become aware of in the Texas caucus really reinforced for me that BO is not morally equipped to be president.  His supporters pulled all kinds of threatening and illegal stunts here in this state's caucus.  I can only conclude that a fish rots from the head and it seems to be validated by his acceptance of his minister's messages of hate for twenty years.


by macmcd on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

I see you troll-rated a comment of mine, in which I criticized another person for denigrating my intelligence and implying that I am stupid.

So do you support that person's personal attacks?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure you're right. (2.00 / 1)

But on this particular issue, Hillary gets to the points for logic and fairness.


by dbrown04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

It isn't his responsibility to fix the decision.

Gee!  That is the attitude of a leader we can all count on!


by observer11 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 4)

Well there is this thing about people voting.  He may have forgotten, but people voting for who they want as a leader is what elections and in fact, a democracy is all about.  Obama think he is playing monopoly with play people so he can buy more delegates.  It's the people's frickin election, not his. They have every right in the world to vote, and he does not have a right to deprive them of that vote to knock someone else off the board.


by Scotch on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Aw, jeez.  OBAMA didn't make the decision to strip the delegates!

It's unfair to hang someone else's decision around Obama's neck.


by Cycloptichorn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 4)

But he is making the decision to not correct it for the voters, and to move ahead and let them vote so that their votes count.


by Scotch on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Explain how. I insist you stop saying that unless you can show how Obama is preventing any revotes. It's an outright, baldfaced lie from the Clinton camp. How can you consider supporting those people? It really is beyond me. Explain how and show proof or stop it.
by Becky G on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:20:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 3)

Becky, you stop it. It has been clear for weeks that Obama has been obstructing the revotes. Every time you post you say the same thing, and people dutifully point out dozens of instances of obstruction by Obama and his team of obstructors. So, let's get off that one now. It is a "known fact" at this point and soon, if Clinton does what I hope she does it will be a "major campaign issue." You folks who were cheering him on while he set up every roadblock to revotes in Michigan and Florida are now going to have to defend Obama's anti-democratic tactics from here until the convention. Then on the convention floor your delegates, each and every one, are going to have to vote to steal the votes from their fellow delegates in those states. And then we are going to have a big noisy fuss about it. OK? That's what your candidate has done. He was so scared of actually campaigning in these states that he has stolen their votes, and they are pissed and so are we all for them. So cut the bull.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would note that in Florida (2.00 / 1)

Of the group of Democratic Representatives who effectively killed revote efforts through their opposition, four have endorsed the honorable Senator from New York, while only two have endorsed the Senator from Illinois (the remaining three are still uncommitted.)

I am not even going to start on your other comments.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would note that in Florida (2.00 / 0)

Of the group of Democratic Representatives who effectively killed revote efforts through their opposition, four have endorsed the honorable Senator from New York, while only two have endorsed the Senator from Illinois (the remaining three are still uncommitted.)

I am not even going to start on your other comments.

All candidates' name are on FL ballots.  FL votes should count!  The whole point for MI revote is to give Obama a fair change since he complained that his name was not on the ballot!


by observer11 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really (none / 0)

Did you know that RON PAUL IS THE FRONTRUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!! Because he won most of the straw polls, and all candidate names were on them, so they should OBVIOUSLY count for delegates! If you say otherwise, you're disfranchising all those voters! I don't care that nobody ever suggested in advance that straw polls would count. Why in the world is the media ignoring this super-important story? It must be another conspiracy against Ron Paul!!!!!!

R0N PAUL RULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(/snark)


John McCain
by MILiberal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

What a diatribe. You can't give any examples ands no one has because there aren't any. Just HRC supporters saying we "know" he is obstructing. There seems to be no way to get any reality into these discussions - you just "know".
by Becky G on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

Here's one:

If he truly cared about the voters of Michigan and Florida, he would have worked towards a resolution weeks ago.  Here we are, almost to April and everyone has signed on except him.


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

I haven't seen any whatsoever in any of your comments.


I'm a firm believer in the idea of a ruling class, especially because I rule.
by Olo401 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Simply put, leaders in Michigan are saying that it is not worth their time to draft a bill to create another primary unless both campaigns agree to having one.  

Seems reasonable - considering Michigan taxpayers have already foot the bill for one bogus primary - that legislators would not want to get involved if one of the campaigns intends to cause problems (lawsuits, etc.) right off the bat.

If both candidates agree that Michigan voters, who have reliably voted Democratic in the last 4 Presidential election cycles, should have a say in selecting the nominee then they should both agree by giving the legislature here the go ahead!

Hillary Clinton has already taken that step.


by jaydub799 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 5)

So let me get this straight...

He's putting his political ambitions ahead of the votes of hundreds of thousands of Democrats?

Democrats that our party will need - not only at the presidential level but at all levels in this campaign?

He's willing to tell the whole state to feck off in order to make it to the white house?

So if he gets in then he'll be what?  The president of the United States - minus one?

Yeah - I don't think he wants to put all that in one of his press releases.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Just more fake indignation from a supporter of a losing candidate.

If Obama had won MI and FL you would not be making this argument, as it would be pernicious to your candidate's campaign.  You should admit that.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Cyclo - Obama did not win Michigan and Florida. And now that they know he has been the instrument of their disenfranchisement he would be crushed in a revote. They hate him. They will never vote for him in the general. That's the pickle these brilliant geniuses have created for themselves. And you cheered them on the entire way.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Again, you just "know" this.
by Becky G on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Sure, because we can do things like read:  polls, newspaper articles, blogs. It also helps when you actually know people in the state and they tell you directly (i.e. my father), that he will NEVER vote for Obama now.


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

really? I know people in the state, such as my Aunt and Uncle, who voted for Hillary in the 'primary' and who have now decided to vote for Obama in the general.

But I wouldn't use individual opinion to make pronouncements about a whole state in the way that you seem to think is appropriate.  Anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Why would Obama work for a revote, when the prospect of one is the only thing keeping Clinton in the campaign?

Because disenfranchising voters is profoundly undemocratic, in both the capital "D" and the small "d" sense.

And disenfranchising the entire state of Florida, after what happened in 2000?

"Ironic" wouldn't begin to cover it.

Besides, if Obama is the nominee and those two states' votes don't count, it will be very bad for the general election. Say goodbye to Florida for sure. A couple of Florida papers ran polls saying that up to a quarter of Florida's Democrats would consider abandoning the Democratic Party if their votes are not ultimately counted.

We absolutely cannot afford that.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

It isn't disenfranchising.  You are using the wrong word, because there is no inherent right to vote in a primary election.  

Up to a quarter of FL Dems say they wouldn't vote dem in the fall?  What a bunch of fair-weather Dems!  And there's little doubt that it is the militant section of Hillary supporters who say that; it's mostly sour grapes at this point.  They'll come around in the general, just like you will.

And before you get pissy, just like I would about Clinton.  The election is too important to duck because I don't get EXACTLY what I want.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Way to engage somebody. Accusing me of preemptive pissiness?

If you can justify throwing out the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan on...well, I can't even figure out what grounds you're trying to justify this on. But it goes way beyond hypocritical.

I've been a Democrat all my life, I have always voted Democratic, and I have never been so close to throwing up my hands with it all as I am right now.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (none / 0)

Yet, you won't.  You will still vote Dem in the fall.  B/c the Supreme court, Iraq, health care; these issues all trump our personal feelings about candidates.  

I understand this is a tough time, but support will coalesce around Obama once he is the nominee, and the differences between him and McCain are thrown into sharp relief.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

You should not make that assumption.

I have to tell you, I have never felt as angry and as diminished as I have during this campaign. The rhetoric that's been thrown around,  the irrationality of the discourse, and yes, the misogyny - I didn't think I could get so angry about these things any more.

Yes, a lifetime habit of voting Democratic will probably compel me to vote in the fall, and vote for Obama. But I will be extremely reluctant to do so. I cannot imagine I will want to work for him or donate to his campaign.

I think I'm far from alone in this.

This primary has done something very interesting, in a way. Rather than disillusioning new activists who were engaged by a "movement" candidate who didn't make it (like Dean), it's pissing off a lot of longtime, loyal Democrats.

And personally, I'm nowhere close to a "Reagan Democrat." I'm a progressive, I marched against the Iraq War and started this primary season as an Edwards supporter. I've ended up supporting Clinton because on most issues, she's slightly more progressive than Obama - and yes, they are very close on most issues - and I actually buy the experience argument and am impressed by her encyclopediac grasp of issues and willingness to work really hard.

So this isn't a choice I made from emotion, but it's become one.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

The misogyny?

This is where you lose people, the same way as Obama supporters who cry 'racism! Racism!' all the time lose the Hillary people.  

I think that for the vast majority of Dems, the issues will trump their personal feelings about either candidate.  I don't like many things about Hillary personally.  Her attacks on Obama's character are as unfounded as they are low.  But I will vote for her before I let McCain get in.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

Believe me, I still can't believe I'm even framing the problem in those terms. It surprises me. I honestly wasn't expecting it. But I've reluctantly come to believe that though racism may be a bigger factor in peoples' lives (and I'm not so sure about that one any more either), making sexist remarks is allowable in the public discourse in a way that making racist remarks is not. This is not to deny that many people hold racist sentiments, just that it's no longer so acceptable to express them in polite company. Women bashing - a whole other thing. We treat it as funny. As a joke.

There are so many examples of it in the way the media has covered this campaign that I think if you look at the evidence, you'll have a hard time denying that it's shaped the discourse in a very negative way.

I have a cold and it's late so I can't hunt down links, but media matters has a lot of examples, as does Melissa at Shakespeare's Sister.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

The media does not equal Obama. Keep repeating this to yourself.


by amiches on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:48:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

I dislike the implication of that, amiches. I try to be very clear about what I think and measured about how I express it. Please do not lecture me in advance.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 0)

And in the interest in clarifying what I said above, in my stuffy-nosed state - I put most of the blame for the sexism on the media. Senator Obama has said some things that I found objectionable (claws coming out, etc.). Many of his supporters on the net have said some pretty horrendous things (and before we get into yet another installment of Clinton Netroots versus Obama Netroots, I accept that there have been abuses on both sides, but there's a reason I abandoned Kos after five years of membership).

I can get past what the Senator himself has said. This faction of his supporters, not so much. The media, no way.

And it's very tough to get past the feeling that the media fell in love with Senator Obama and promoted him over the woman in the race, because he's "cool," he's a rock star, and she reminds them of their mothers. Or the smart girl in class.

Well, the media's love is fickle, as we're seeing yet again.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Their mothers. (none / 0)

Clinton doesn't remind me of the smart girl in class.  She reminds me of the ones who try to argue for every grade.

You're right about there being a sort of bandwagon effect towards Obama.  But where you see admiration bias I see a "coming to their senses" effect that should have happened long ago.  I wanted arbitration and not equivocation.  If one side plays dirtier, any fair coverage is going to look biased to them.

Sort of like how it too the media five years too long to turn on Bush.


by corph on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Their mothers. (2.00 / 1)

I don't think so, because what you're seeing now is the MSM taking a harder line on Obama for the most part - or at least a closer look.

As for HRC, I had many of the same negative opinions of her that so many have expressed - until I really started watching her and following her, starting in New Hampshire. The person that I'm seeing is not the stereotype presented by the media. I also see a certain consistency in her - there's not a lot of difference between what she says and what she does. Yeah, she's not a great orator, but she is great in small groups and one-on-ones. She has a serious grasp of issues and policy and mechanisms to put policy into action.

I don't think she's perfect by any means and she's done some stuff that I don't agree with - but by and large I think this whole "She's evil, scheming Machiavellian!!!" narrative just isn't true.


by OtherLisa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I won't.. (2.00 / 1)

I will NOT rally around Obama for any purpose whatsoever. If he gains the GE, I will work ardently against him. And there are many, many like me. SO you can forget about a good number of us just holding our nose and voting. Nothing doing. Not this time. Obama will lose; of that I have no doubt. And it serves the DNC right for being downright stupid. I will never work for McCain, I will never vote for McCain, but neither will I for Obama.


by Soitgoes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:31:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I won't.. (2.00 / 0)

Then I'm sorry to say that your commitment to Dem issues seems to be trumped by your sense of personal entitlement to one candidate.  

It would be better if the issues were what mattered to people, but I understand that to many, the sense of self-satisfaction they get from being 'right' is more important then, say, making things better for people in America.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's just it. (2.00 / 1)

I don't believe for a moment that Obama will be "making things better for people in America." I think he is a trainwreck, I think he is dangerous. Besides, how dare you assume that my preference for a candidate trumps my alliegance to my country. It does not. That's not at all where this is coming from. Edwards was my candidate, then I turned to Clinton. I have mistrusted and fervently disliked Obama all along. Stop your assumptions, please.


by Soitgoes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I won't.. (2.00 / 0)

Yeah...making things better for America...like...like...screwing two entire states out of their votes...Yeah...Go 'bama...Raaahhhh!


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:06:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I won't.. (2.00 / 0)

Obama wasn't the one who did that; you should talk to Dean at the DNC if that is your major complaint.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I won't.. (2.00 / 1)

Doesn't matter, and you know it. It is Obama standing in the way of resolution now. It is Obama that has the responsibility for the obstruction today. Great plan Einstein. Win the nomination by thoroughly pissing off two states you need to win the general election and demonstrating to the world you will obstruct peoples' votes to win. What are you running for President of the Bananna Republic of States? What an idiot.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:47:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I won't.. (2.00 / 0)

My, my, you're in quite a tizzy this morning. Absolutely none of this is Obama's fault, and it's not his job to fix.


by amiches on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meet Me in Michigan! (2.00 / 1