Thursday, March 06, 2008

Why It's Important to Seat Michigan's and Florida's Delegates


Mark my words. The Michigan/Florida problem is not going away. To the contrary, it will intensify as the battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gets uglier. This is a major problem for the Democratic Party and it must be resolved soon.

Some quick background: The DNC, led by chairman Howard Dean, unseated the delegates from these two critical states after they defied the party's warnings against moving their contests up to January after it had set February 5th--Super Tuesday, with its 22 contests--as the earliest date for primaries. Reason being, the states that hold the earliest primaries and caucuses usually have disproportionate influence over the nomination process. Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these two states, but they were allowed to raise money there, and both Obama and Clinton agreed to these rules. When the primaries were eventually held, Clinton won Michigan with 55%, and beat Obama 50%-33% in Florida.

But here's why the Democratic Party must figure out a way, quickly, to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida: because it disenfranchises voters in those two states. It's as simple as that. There are millions of voters in those two states who never had a say in this unconstitutional cock-fight between Dean and the states' legislatures. When the threat from the DNC came down, no one asked voters whether they were willing to give up their votes in exchange for earlier primaries. A bunch of self-serving party elitists have absolutely no right to strip any American of their inalienable right to vote. It is unconscionable to think that the Unites States can hold an election and that citizens in two key states will not have the same opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to vote as their fellow citizens in the other 48 states. This is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It's about the American voter. Period.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

this can not be done either without obama or clinton hollering foul,cuacuses favor obama and an actual election favors clinton
in these states,so no matter what you have problems if you have caucuses and the elite(and will) show up obama wins.if you have primary election like in the general clinton wins

Anonymous said...

Andy, who are you kidding? You are so in the bag for Hillary, it's laughable. If Obama had won Florida/Michigan, you'd be taking the opposite approach.

Reality - if the people of Florida - of which I am one - are disenfranchised, it was NOT the DNC that did it to them. It is THEY who did it to themselves. They elected the legislators and governors who defied the DNC who stated well in advance that scheduling primaries prior to February 5th would result in the delegates not being seated.

What you are saying is analagous to saying that a sentencing judge is responsible for denying a man his freedom after he committed a robbery.

Our elected officials knew what they were doing. They consciously, purposely and intentionally broke the rules.

The situation we now face - where our state and Michigan can now make the difference actually only rewards them for doing so by allowing them to be decisive in ways that never would have resulted if they had simply followed the rules.

I remember a long time ago when my mother went into the booth to vote for JFK. She mishandled the lever and the curtain closed and opened, registering a blank ballot which was not her intent. Too bad, so sad. Was she disenfranchised? No - she should have as we now say RTFM - and understood how to work the machine.

Florida and Michigan KNEW how the machine worked. And they purposely mishandled it.

TOUGH.

Anonymous said...

I live in Michigan. We can not afford a "do over". We have been in a recession for years. Obama and Edwards did not have to take their names off the ballot. All candidates played by the rules which was to not campaign here. Obama was dumb to take his name off the ballot. As a political junkie, I knew our delegates would be seated at the convention. Too many Obama supporters are naive and don't have a clue as to how the game is played. As long as we don't have public financing of elections, it is a very serious game. And to poster above who says "tough", he/she too is naive about politics. You don't make two very important states mad at you and expect to win in November.

Wake up folks. Keep your eyes on the prize: November 2008!

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton -

I don't really care. We were have an unbeatale ticket contrary to what naive Obama supporters think.

The Ostroy Report said...

Sorry, ANON 10:10...but you are way off base. Firstly, voters do not elect their leaders to strip them off their right to vote. Just because we vote for someone doesn't give them carte blanche to disenfranchise us from the process. That's a very, very weak argument, my friend. Second, if you accuse me of pushing to get these delegates seated because I'm a shill for Clinton, then you really don't know anything about me. I could not care less about politicians, ANY politician, espoecially when it comes to putting my country and its citizens first. This is a principled issue, and I would be arguing the point if the outcome would be as allegedly favorable for Obama as you obviously claim it'll be for Hillary. If you've read my blog for any length of time you'd know I am NOBODY'S shill, and that I am 100% objective. Just read my many extremely favorable pieces about Obama these past few weeks. Only a fool falls in love with a party or a politician. I'm an American first, and I am appalled that voters in these two states, without their consent, have been stripped of their right to vote.

And now a little enlightenment for you: Hillary took 50% in Florida to Obama's 33%. Edwards 14%. We all know Edwards, and most likely his supporters as well, is more aligned with Obama...so it's fairly safe to assume Obama could pick up those votes in a do-over. That brings it to 50/47. And with Biden, Richardson and Kucinich's 3%in the mix, Florida could very well be Obama's just as much as it could again go to Hillary. The same is true of Michigan, which could turn to Obama (he wasn't even on the ballot before). Seating delegates from these two states is hardly a slam-dunk for Hillary. In fact, it could be her ruination.

Lastly, if you truly see me as some kool-aid drunken shill, then I suggest you move on from this blog. Those who follow my writings closely know that I speak a truth that few others do. I am neither afraid or beholden to nothing and no one. It's a shame that so many in the media, and so many voters, must always see things in such a biased, unobjective, partisan manner. Please don't count me in that group.

solarman said...

Look, it was our Republican Governor Charlie Crist and the Republican legislature here in Florida that moved the date, NOT the people nor the Democrats. We also have to blame Dean who thought he was going to be Mr. Big Shot and punish his own party. What in the hell was he thinking? Did he think taking away the votes of his party was going to be a popular move just to appease the people of Iowa so they could be FIRST? Now he has no idea on how to over turn his screw up, but Andy is correct, he needs to act and act FAST.

When I voted I knew who to vote for and ALL of the candidates were on the ballot. Because Obama elected to remove his name from the Michigan ballot is his problem, talk about poor judgment, what was HE thinking? Hillary won these elections fair and square and there should be NO re-voting, we can not afford it and that would be as wrong as what has been done in the first place.

Dean needs to be thrown out of the DNC and I want my money back from his 2004 campaign, boy was I fooled in thinking he would have been a good President. At least Florida isn't alone (again) in voting screw ups and I hope we here in Florida get our votes to count, rather than feeling like we're in a third world country.

Anonymous said...

Andy, and others, it is a WEAK argument.

Time and context simply cannot be ignored. It was widely known for a LOOOOOONG time that the Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated. Well in advance of their primaries. Even before they SCHEDULED them.

And the legislators of the two states didn't wake up one day on their own and say, hey let's make our states count more by advancing Super Tuesday. They did it because, as representatives elected by the people, they sensed that their people wanted more of an effect on the outcome.

The people had plenty of time to complain about the effects of the legislative action that resulted in the loss of their delegates. But they did nothing. There was no noise about disenfranchisement. There was no noise about the perils of playing chicken with the DNC and their stated policies.

This is all about the fact that the primary season has produced a close race and now people in those states have buyers remorse about their ill advised decisions.

So what? Tough crap. The people of Florida are not passive victims here. Nor are the people in Michigan.

There was plenty of publicity in Florida - that much I know. And for those of you unfamiliar with Florida, that vote was awfully misrepresented in the press.

Why? Because at the same time, there was a consitutional amendment on the ballot that was geared towards property tax reform. The key issue? Making homestead values of existing homes portable - so older people whose homes are taxed at a lower rate because they've owned them so long can take that discount and transfer it to a new, usually smaller home. Prior to that, oldsters were caught in their large empty nest homes because their taxes were low and they'd lose that tax discount if they sold and moved to a smaller less expensive home.

That resulted in hordes of old people - Hillary types - coming out to vote in Florida.

Thus her margin was monstrously skewed by people who had a reason to come out to vote for other and criticial financial motivations.

You can't just ignore that - I saw the lines in three cities that day. Grey, grey and more grey.

Other younger people - like me - had nothing at stake and didn't see the need to stand in long lines behind financially motivated oldsters to cast a ballot that was going to be ignored.

And yes Andy - you tend to be a shill for the things you favor. Clearly you are in the bag for Hillary now that Gore didn't throw his hat in the ring. And it shows. And the answer is not to move on. It's to challenge you. Assuming you are up to the challenge, what's wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

I disagree....Don't do a thing with FL or MI. Let's have a Deadlocked Convention with Gore being the nominee. Obama can be his running mate

Howard said...

Andy:

I'm a big fan of your blog and probably like you, still wish our nominee had the name "Gore". I voted for Obama in our Maryland primary. This time, however, you have made many errors and I have to call you on it. The primary one - and this is a very common one - "unconstitutional cock-fight". The Presidential Selection process within parties is not addressed by the Constitution. It is not in Federal or State control. It is strictly governed by the Parties themselves and has always been this way. The Party establishes the rules and the state parties are at great risk if they violate the rules and decisions of the national office. This is NOT new and NOT a "Clinton vs. Obama" thing. When a candidate runs within a party, that candidate is accepting the rules. The Florida and Michigan parties were wrong to blatantly ignore the DNC rules and do not deserve to have their current delegations seated. This is not a "Dean" think. The rules were known in advance and the candidates agreed NOT to campaign in these states for this reason. Don't lie or spin this simple fact. Please do not inflame intra-party fighting more by hyping up "constitutional" angles, when that has no basis. You are only helping the GOP in doing so. The best solution - and I think we may be evolving towards that - is to have new primaries in Florida and Michigan. Not only would that be "profitable" to those states (contested primaries bring in a lot of money), but good for the party to have more americans watching us and hearing our positions. Yes, there will be some blood, but it's better to get it out now than after the convention from the GOP! In my dreams, I'd love to see a draft of Gore and a Gore/Obama ticket. Will it happen? I guess not. But the honest way to do this is to follow the rules and not act like the constitution has anything to do with a party nominee selection process. Never has.

The Ostroy Report said...

Sorry pal, but when Americans are stripped of their right to vote, that's unconstitutional. End of story.

Anonymous said...

Andy, now you are going overboard when you say "when Americans are stripped of their right to vote, that's unconstitutional".

This is NOT an election. It is a primary. It is a process in which political parties select their candidates for an election.

The law has LONG been settled that any political party can set its own rules for how they select their own candidates. There is no "right" to vote in a primary. Of course, if a state has a primary, it must treat all citizens alike.

Look, for example at the caucus process. Many people can argue that the caucus process violates their right to vote by making it practically impossible for them to participate. You can't have an absentee ballot if you are traveling or infirm. You can't participate if you work at night. But there's no legal argument to be made because as I said before - political parties have an ABSOLUTE right to select their candidates however they please.

There is absolutely NO consitutional right implicated here.

Anonymous said...

it'seems the people who don't want a revote in here are mainly supporters of obama,please don't let that be the case in the end,when you tell people their vote don't count or you don't want a do over now,HOW DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THE COUNTY AND THESE STATES WILL vote in the fall,it won't be obama

johnny said...

"This is NOT an election. It is a primary." Funny, I still had to show my voters card, I still had to be registered, I had to show ID, sure seems like and ELECTION to me.

PS: There was plenty of heat here in Florida about the DNC and our state government screwing around with the elections. The papers and the news was full of of our complaints, all for nothing.

Harrison said...

I don't think that the people of Michigan and Florida, and let's say Texas because their primary/caucus didn't go much better, would want to shell out money to fund yet another primary. Was it wrong that their delegates were stripped, of course. But what's done is done; there is no point dwelling on the past.

Andy I'm sorry but this is fairly ridiculous. I've read your blog for some time now and have enjoyed every last word you said about Al Gore. But your blind support for Hilary Clinton just absolutely bothers me. I mean give back the delegates? C'mon, this is clearly an attempt to just get a few more seats for Hilary. I'm a supporter of her's and I don't even think that this is fair!

Harrison said...

And one more thing.

You just said the following in a post yesterday:

"Man, if only the Democrats could get out of their own way they might actually win an election someday...."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but making a decision and stepping back from it later by allowing the delegates to count would only lessen our party's credibility AND make a nice target for the Republicans. When we make a decision as loaded as this, we have to back it up not just with words but with action.

Howard said...

If you regard a primary as equivalent to an election - then it would be unconstitutional for a "closed" primary as Democrats have in many states and Republicans in most or all states. They used to all be closed! Joining a political party is like joining a club. The constitution does not regulate a club. If you still operate under the illusion that there is a constitutional doctine involved with a primary or caucus I urge you to search ANYWHERE for evidence of this in the writings of our founding fathers or ANY historical texts. I appreciate your care about this.

I am an Obama supported (in lieu of Gore) and would love to somehow ensure a way for him to win, BUT those two states knew they were violating party rules and had "primaries" without permission and full candidate participation. The best solution - have them again. It would also be GREAT for the party to expose these large states to our positions and candidates.

Howard said...

PS: Michigan to hold Caucus according to politicalwire. Good!

Anonymous said...

The people in Florida and Michigan have been wronged through no fault of their own. Charlie Crist the Republican governor and the Rep. legislature moved the date, as reported by another blogger. Then Dean, in his stupidity, made a stupid rule which deprives Democrats of their right to vote -- whether it's in the Constitution or not, it's a moral and ethical issue. They should sue Crist and sue Dean and demand his resignation. The "rule" is not sacrosanct. (How many of you have broken one of the ten commandments?) If a child breaks a "rule" a good and wise parent doesn't withhold his nourishing meal. A bad analogy but the punishment should fit the "crime". These people have been deprived of their need to participate in an election of the officer who will directly affect their lives for the next four years. And, so what if Obama or Hillary complain; and the blacks rise up; or the whites rise up or the women rise up??????? It is only right that these people, who did not make the "rules" should be allowed to make a choice that will determine their future. And even if they had made the rules, it was foolish and they should not be punished in such a serious manner. Fine them, if you must.

Howard said...

The people of Florida voted in a primary KNOWING it may not count. My pro-Hillary cousins knew this but they voted. They've lived through convention floor fights and delegations not being seated. Maybe you and Mr. Ostroy are younger and have not. That's okay. Sometimes we learn wth hard way.

To clarify one example, how on earth is a closed GOP primary where an independent or a Democrat cannot vote constitutional? Same with a Democratic closed primary? Easy answer - the intra-party nominee selection process is governed by party rules. Period.

By the way - Dean did not pass the rule - the DNC did. Maybe some Democrats in Florida and Michigan did not know the early primary would likely be irrelevent and maybe they did not know that ALL CANDIDATES agreed to boycott it. How they missed that I dont't know. It's a shame for them emotionally and time-wise, but they may get the chance to vote again. Please remember Clinton did agree to boycott, then let her name stay on the ballot in Michigan. So no other candidates were on the ballot.

My point earlier is it will be a GAIN for the democrats to get our message out - even if it's a hotly contested race. While many think this is vicious - it's really tame so far. Even Clinton/Tsongas was much more fierce.

You are correct that Gov Christ did try to screw the dems by moving the primary. He knew what he was doing. Sure enough he is now acting like it's a constitutional issue. He knows it's a lie, but it sounds like it's the truth and makes us look bad tho those who do not know. That works in his party's favor. It's like right-wingers telling people that people like me are unpatriotic for opposing the war back when we first attacked. The way they created the environment, it sure was easy to think I was un-American or un-patriotic. I wasn't, but the mind-set was convincing to most americans. Hope that one makes sense!

Prius said...

Once again, Dean IS the head of the DNC and HE along with the others in the DNC passed this stupid rule.

The people of Florida have been deprived of their right to have their votes counted, PERIOD!

The ONLY requirements from the DNC was the candidates could not campaign in the state but they could have their names on the ballot. Obama, not thinking, kept his off the Michigan ballots, shame on him. The candidates all played by Dean's rules. The elections were held abd Hillary won them both, now the votes must count.

There won't be any re-votes here in Florida, there is no money in the state funds for this.

One thing that has not been brought up is what do we do with the ones that were on our ballots that have dropped out of the race? Why should it be a two person race now when it had ALL of the candidates on the original ballot?

There are many questions and no answers of yet so this is going to be interesting.

Anonymous said...

Booo hooo ... Hillary is being out spent by Barack Obama. Hillary is such a good victim. Ostroy might even call her a martyr.

The catch is, Hillary HAD all the resources - a virtually unlimited supply - yet she squandered it all. She did nothing in the senate (which was actually more than Barack), she never fully answers a question, she won't release her tax records, she is stalling the release of over 10,000 documents from her 'exerience' in the White House. Barack started a grassroots movement and now has out raised Hillary by $20M this month!

Democrats are too racist to elect a black person, yet a black person has the popular vote and the most delegates. I can't wait to see how Democrats are going to get rid of 'the black guy'. Anyway, I look forward to Democrats spending all of their money fighting each other.

McCain/Powell 2008!

Anonymous said...

Boo Hoo myself. I'd like to know where the huge amounts for Obama are coming from. How about a disclosure of contributors. I don't think all those college kids who adore him have the money or the inclination to send it to him. Who is behind his campaign? And people who make statements as fact should be sure they are informed. Hillary IS going to release her taxes in April. That nut Olbermann even said last night that Canada said it was Hillary who made the NAFTA remarks, not Obama. No other commentator has reported that. And, even it should be true, who paid Canada to change its story after all these weeks. Things are getting "crooked". Who are the people threatening the delagates? We Americans need to be very careful and check everything out. Who can prove Hillary is "a monster", as charged by an OBama advisor. Is the charge based on Hillary's asking tough questions of her rival?

Howard said...

I hope we are all capable of uniting to beat the GOP in November. That's the bottom line! I'd vote for either and I don't want to put out too much poison to or towards any Democrat!

Anonymous said...

Howard, it may be too late. Obama's campaign has already called Hillary a monster, and another of his advisors said that neither he nor Hillary was capable of answering the three o'clock call. Where does he get these people. Is that the type he would appoint to his cabinet?

And, surely it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people for acting foolishly, or who were victimized by the DNC. They committed no crime yet they are being discriminated against and refused the right to vote. Let's hear it for civil rights.

Howard said...

"Obama's campaign has already called Hillary a monster" It was an aide, who was chastised and apologized. Politics is hardball. Always was. The Bill Clinton campaign distributed flyers and mailings in South Florida lying about Tsongas's Israel position. The Manchester Union Guardian, fearful of a Muskie nomination, picked on his wife and brought him to tears. End of Muskie. The Bush campaign lied, cheated, etc against McCain in 2000. End of McCain in 2000. What we have is nothing yet and hopefully we won't get as bad. But you've got to have thicker skin than that! And as for the voters of FL and MI. This is not a new thing in 2008. Parties follow party rules. Go back in history, read about the disqualified or unseated delegations, the floor fights. Political Party nominating processes are not and never have been a "democratic process". Again they are not governed by the constitution and many many - many times the voters' choice of delegates to go to the convention and nominate candidates has been "challenged" (remember the delegate go to the conventions - NOT the voters). This is not new, not Howard Dean, and not "unconstitutional". Smart politicians like Christ know that much of the population does not follow this stuff so close, so he knows it's a PR coup to sucker dems and the public into thinking otherwise. Please do NOT fall for it. Florida and Michigan violated the PARTY rules (not Deans). Clinton herself said Michigan was invalid, then stuck her name on the ballot when no other dems were on. Just read what she agreed to BEFORE those primaries. And please do study the history of the nominating process and learn. I really want us to pull through this together, even though my preference may not win!

The goal is to beat the Republicans. The nomination fight is on. GOOD. That's how wet get strong enough.

I'll shut up now!

Best to all.

Anonymous said...

The offender who called Hillary a monster was not a mere "aide". She was the foreign affairs adviser and she stupidly told a foreign newspaper that Hillary was a monster but to keep it off the record. So much for foreign affairs savvy and basic common sense. And by now she has resigned and apologized. Unlike the voters in Florida who made a mistake, Samatha Powers will get a pass and it will soon be forgotten.

It's also being reported that Obama is being quoted as saying he cannot bring the troops home as quickly as he's promising on the campaign trail.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is a monster and Democrats are too racist to select a black man. Which will it be? The monster or the black man ??


McCain/Powell 2008

Anonymous said...

We the people of the United States, Which includes Florida and Mich. have the legal right o have our vote counted. This is the right of America not the commitees that decied this . What right do they have to take my vote away from me. I live in florida.

howard said...

FROM THE NYTIMES:

September 2, 2007
Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States
By JEFF ZELENY
PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Sept. 1 — Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida’s 210 delegates — and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 — if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

_____________
Anonymous:

Maybe a primary should not be called a "vote" because it seems as though some people confuse it with and election. It is a PARTY function subject to PARTY rules.

Looks like Florida will have a mail-in primary. Outstanding opportunity to showcase our candidates, get our message out and keep the focus on Dems. Organizing and advertising. Even a little fighting is fine. So far nothing has compared even to Bush/McCain in 2000. Let's get a strong nominee and let's win in November!

Anonymous said...

Call it what you will 3:55 It is the only opporutnity citizens have to participate in choosing the person they want to be the most influential government official in their lives for the next four years. Not one group of Amercians should be able to deny another group that power. "Down with Dean." If he didn't like what was happening he should have negotiated with the Gov. of Florida and the Republican legislature. His job is to protect Democrats; not ignore and punish them. He should have learned from his wife "First do no harm."

Hillary did not campaign in Florida as she promised. What's your point about that? You object that she might not have been pleased because she saw it as harmful to her?

Howard said...

"the only opporutnity citizens have to participate". No looks like there will be another - party sanctioned - opportunity.

"If he didn't like what was happening he should have negotiated with the Gov. of Florida and the Republican legislature." Sorry, you clearly do not have an understanding of party processes and the interplay (or lack thereof) with a state goverment. A Party head cannot "negotiate" with state legislatures about anything. And in this case why on earth would the Republican Governor, the Heavily Republican State Senate (26-14) and the Heavily Republican House (78-42) do anything for the Democratic Party??? What leverage would Dean have with them? Come on...

I agree that if I did not know my state party's primary violated the party rules, and I did not know the candidates agreed to boycott it, I too would be very upset to have my vote tossed aside. But I would have been pretty out of touch to not know that it was very very likely. It was promised and agreed to by the candidates and the party (boycotting). Google more on what was said and agreed to at the time.

Maybe you have not been a student or participant of American politics for long. Again - state delegations not being seated, floor fights, etc. - all old hat. All been done. Smoke-filled rooms were the place where the "deal" would happen and a nominee crowned. I know it would seem unfair if you did not know you were in a state which had a good chance of this happening. But the fact is - and it's real simple - they did violate party rules, it's party rules that determine the legitimacy of primaries not the constitution or federal laws, all candidates agreed in advance, and we will all win with a re-do.

"Hillary did not campaign in Florida as she promised. What's your point about that? You object that she might not have been pleased because she saw it as harmful to her?"

She agreed to not campaign and others did too, because the state violated the party (not Dean's) decision. They agreed NOT to run ad, NOT to have rallys, NOT to spend money, etc. There was NO valid primary. If they all agreed to participate - who knows- maybe Obama would have raised gobs of money and won. Maybe Edwards? Maybe Clinton. We'll never know because they all agreed it was an invalid act and they would not contest there.

It seems as though the emotion of unfairness is hard to shake which is very understandable, but the laws, party rules and ALL the candidates earlier statements are simply clear. If you were in Florida and voted in the early 2008 democratic primary - the GOP suckered you. The Clinton camp wants to make it count because they play hardball (aka dirty pool). Frankly that's hard-knuckle politics in the old tradition, which is what they do. That's how Bill won, thats how Bush won, John Kennedy, Nixon, etc. However it is playing with people who may not know the rules and trying to rally them on emotion. I respect their effort, but even they are MOVING ON! It is a lie they were promoting, and it's not working, so there will be a revote that will count. It's risk to her campaign and I guess to Obama's too. Even though she won the 'non contested" primary, if she wins again - it would hurt him. If he wins, clearly it would hurt her. But at least it would give them a chance to have ads, rallys, maybe debates. And the winner would be clear. That is good for the future nominee and good for our party. Realize I preferred Obama, but I want the toughest, hardest, ready-to-rumble nominee. If they redo this and Michigan - together with Pennsylvania there are 3 big states. Whoever comes out ahead wins. I will "pull the lever" for the Democratic nominee, who will have clawed their way to the top and be tougher for it.

I'd like to add - that I don't know you (or anyone else 'round here) but I have DEEP respect for your passion and care about this campaign. You can always disagree with me, but I am overjoyed to see more and more people get involved and doing something. I hope whoever becomes the nominee - that you're around with your support. Like I said - I have my preference, but I'll take a second or third choice over the GOP anytime. Thank you for making me take my time to engage. It's a healty act. I used to have a "blog" before that word was widespread. Had to give it up because the time spent was killing me. But I am so grateful that there were so many much better ones coming up. We desparately need a fierce progressive movement in this country and it's you who have the power. This thread is about the only time I've posted anything in a few years. Just don't have the time, but I'm deeply gratefull to Mr. Ostroy, all the great bloggers and you for the time you give. Whether I'm right or you are (or both) please remember it's an "intra-team" difference. The GOP will spend a fortune tearing apart our candidates, and the administration will spread fear (read - attack threats). Come together at the convention. We do that we win.

Anonymous said...

9:36 I am confused. Since Dean couldn't "negotiate" or apprently scold, or, more intelligently, refuse to punish the Dems when the primary date was the fault of the Republicans, you maintain "that's the way the cookie crumbles." How passive and ineffective a response. There used to be a "rule/law" that blacks couldn't drink at a fountain for whites nor could they ride in the front of the bus. Some chose to break those "rules/law? Your observation at that time would have been or was -- "Thems the rules." and then to condemn the protestors.

Anonymous said...

"When the primaries were eventually held, Clinton won Michigan with 55%, and beat Obama 50%-33% in Florida."

Andy, Andy, Andy!

Clinton "won" Michigan? You fail to mention that Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot. My family lives in Mich. and all support Obama, yet none of them voted for him (since they couldn't). You call it Democracy to give her these delegates when she ran unopposed?

Ok, then why don't we do it over. Obama can pay for it, but Hillary doesn't get to be on the ballot this time. I bet Obama would "WIN" and win big. I hear Hillary isn't too hot on the idea of do-overs.

Clinton "beat" Obama in Florida?? Wow. We have seen how Obama's numbers go up when he campaigns in a state. Everybody knows the Clintons, but Obama has to work hard to just let people get to know him. You can't say that Clinton "won" these contests.

You talk about democracy? What a joke.