AMERICAblog: Effort by rich Clinton supporters to finance Michigan re-vote actually undermined the re-vote
Mykel1
· 1 year ago
Money may not be able to buy love but it could alwayz buy freedom.
.
Mykel1
· 1 year ago
I see thingz have changed at ablog since I left for spring break. The gate keeper tech is up & running. Not used to look or use of threads yet. Iz the site as buzy as it was?
.
hopelesspedant
· 1 year ago
Pedantic point - Jon Corzine is not a Clinton supporter. He has said that if one candidate has both the elected delegate and popular vote lead, he probably will vote for him or her.
martha
· 1 year ago
Ok I'm off topic. But I can't get over the fact a black minister is outraged about the way black people have been treated in our country but I have to listen to the Clintons and the Limbaughs and the Buchanans and the talking heads on NBC and CBS and ABC say how outraged they are because he speaks the truth about our history. Bill Clinton is constantly playing the race card. I just thougt we were so done with this. I guess Barack Obamam had thought we were too.
Mykel1
· 1 year ago
I think Bill Clinton's antics in the past few months show his true colors & serves to remind Americans of African descent & other relevant parties of the Dixiecrat roots of the Demokrautic, I meant Democratic party.
.
martha
· 1 year ago
Yea, and where are John and Elizabeth (my former hero) Edwards?
chandler_in_lasvegas
· 1 year ago
. You guys at ABlog are a bit wacky. If you were anti Obama you could just as easily read the article and scream "OBAMA NOT INTERESTED IN PONYING UP HIS HALF FOR MI DO-OVER" or "OBAMA ONLY INTERESTED IN SIMPLE MI SPLIT, DOESN'T CARE ABOUT MI VOTERS". Calm yourselves down boys, your perspectives are shot.
FNReedie
· 1 year ago
That's a red herring. The issue isn't about who isn't paying for it ... the issue is who is -- and it shouldn't be a candidate. If the MI democratic party wants to pay for it fine. It was there mess to begin with.
GrantinHouston
· 1 year ago
I didn't give Sen. Obama a couple of donations from my pensions in order for his campaign to pay for a do-over in Michigan and Florida because the Democrats in those states CHOSE to break the DNC rules.
It's bad enough that Hillary and Obama may spend a HALF BILLION before Denver just to fight each other while John McCaIn now gets to spend his money and message on defeating the Democrats.
Timothy Egan in the New York Times says we have become the "Donner Party Democrats" cannibalizing our own. "These modern Dems press on, tearing into each other, crawling to get to the summit, still five months away, in the mile-high city. They are now ravenous with hunger, and it is starting to show."
With the many failures of the Bush administration, McCain as Bush III should have been an easy push over. But thanks Hillary, it appears the Democrats are about to pull out a defeat from the "jaws of victory."
AC_in_MI
· 1 year ago
I just want to say that I have not heard a lot from the media on what the people of Michigan are feeling. I am a michigander - born, lifelong resident. Politics? I'm independent, and vote for the person and not the party, but here in 2008 I would vote for Obama, but was not given the opportunity to do so in the primary as his name was not on the ballot. For Hillary to say that primary was a true indication of what the people of Michigan are feeling and that the delegates should stand is a lot of BS. A large people who are Democrats AND lean toward Obama may have voted in the only primary that counted - the Republican one. And Clinton's team wanted to NOT allow them the right to vote again in the democratic revote. Of course Obama's team wouldn't support that! MY big question is - if Michigan and Florida delegates are NOT counted - what does that do to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination? I am not that familiar with the Democratic party nominating rules and regulations - is it a simple majority or what? If the winning nominee needs 2035 delegates, what will they need minus Michigan and Florida?
KatherineHepburnEyes
· 1 year ago
Chandler, I see your point, but the fact Obama is going by the rules Howard Dean put forth for the two states seems to me he's good at going by the law rather than breaking it to benefit himself. In all honesty I could see why he would want a revote in hindsight because his name was not on the Michigan ballot to begin with.
cambridge1246
· 1 year ago
His name was not on the ballot because he demanded it be removed along with John Edwards who did the same. His name could have been on the ballot the same as Hillary's who decided to leave her name there. But when it did come time to vote, Obama made sure his campaign told all his supporters to vote uncommitted.
KatrinaSurvivor
· 1 year ago
I would say that actually for Obama that was a smart move. We need to expose that Bill and Hllary tried to game the system. Several Democratic precinct workers tell me that in the 90's, the Clintons set up the superdelegate sham specifically so they could rig the primary (as is currently happening). I always had a suspicion they were bigots beneath their phony "I feel your pain" bs, and it was confirmed when Hillary photo-shopped Obama's skin and nose in that ad in order to make him look "more Black". The Democrat Party needs to reject the Clinton frauds once and for all and the legacy of failure they created.
joc
· 1 year ago
KatrinaSurvivor,
Thanks for stopping by. As a member of the Democratic Party, I think I'll take your comments with a big (troll-sized) grain of salt.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
A Michigan do over ought to suit Obama just fine. Remember, hillary only got 55% of the vote with her being the only big name on the ballot (I'm sorry but Kucinich and I think Biden along with Gravel were the only others, hardly a choice for Michiganers). She would have a very hard time getting 55% again. I always saw a redo in Michigan as something that would benifit Obama. The candidates shouldn't be the ones paying for it though.
cambridge1246
· 1 year ago
The offer by Carville was for Clinton supporters to pay half if Obama supporters or donors would pay half. It was never a Clinton pay all and Carville even reiterated that today that he would get donors for half but Obama's campaign didn''t want to raise half or get involved. Sorry, but I have never ever heard mention this as a Clinton bought election from anywhere.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
OT: Is it just everyone having a busy Easter or is it because no one likes the new system that so few people are commenting? I miss the lively conversations here and hope it returns to that soon.
GrantinHouston
· 1 year ago
I am answering to LunaStick at 11 minutes ago but today the "indent" feature isn't working and who knows where this posting will end up...at the top or bottom, or somewhere in the middle of this thread. I like the new format as I have used it before on other blogs but this one needs some tuning up and soon or it will drive away posters.
the_political_junkie
· 1 year ago
It is way past time for Howard Dean and the rest of so-called Democratic Leadership to have that sit down talk with Hillary and "persuade" her to stand down.
Unless... they want this civil war to continue all the way to Denver this summer.
cambridge1246, Oh no you don't! All major candidates pledged to remove their names from the ballot. It was little miss sneaky who didn't follow through with it. Kind of tells you what kind of president she would be going back on her word and all huh? http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/democrat...
btw, my apologies to Biden and Kucinich who did pull there names from the ballot. Dodd is the other one who did not.
BorninUSA
· 1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong. When FL and MI decided to move their primary dates they were told "NO" and if they went ahead and moved the dates they were told their votes would not count. So! they went ahead and moved the dates anyway. Did they not know their votes would not count going in? So! now they want to change the rules? I think Clinton is wrong if she thinks counting these two states would benefit her.
Mykel1
· 1 year ago
I forgot to say this back then so I'll say it now, since I can. It sure was nice watching the NY Firefighters piss on Rudi 'lil Mussolini' Giuliani's campaign fires. Never a more deserving individual could that have happened to & kind of begs the question what all the firemen of NY know about Ghouliani & other events. Should add freedom fighter to the list of accomplishments of the NY Fire fighters.
.
BorninUSA
· 1 year ago
political junkie, you are so right. It is almost to the point of no return for the Democrats. Why hasn't Dean and the other powers in the party called a sit-down with the Clintons to tell them to back off. The Democrats are becoming the laughing stock of the right wing. If Clinton thinks she has any chance in hell of winning, what kind of respect does she think she will get from the supporters of Obama? And I think some of her supporters going in have had a change of heart also. If there is any chance at all that she could still pull this off then she should have that chance. But from all appearances and reporting she does not. All of her pandering to McCain hasn't helped. I just don't get it, why is she acting like this? Is she this desparate? And the party should tell Bill to STFU!
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
I agree Grant. A lot of people haven't shown up since the switch and it is harder to follow conversations. I'm actually glad the indent things aren't on, they made things worse in my view by making me go to my profile or remember where my comments are in order to see if there are any replies. I rather just name the person I'm directing my comment to and C&P any of their post I want to put into context.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Hi Luna :)
I like no-indent threads much better, but it is still a good idea to click Reply on the comment you are responding to. Even 'tho it will not show there, the reply will show on an individual's 'View Full Profile' page. * All that is needed to find your newly published comment is set your option for it to appear at the top or bottom of the thread. * The delegate issue(s) for both FL and MI are between the citizens of those states and their state Dem leaders. They lost out on helping to select a candidate. They'll get to vote in Nov. That's just the way it is. That's the way it should stay.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Hi Mirth :)
This profile business and indent just make things more complicated in my view. Sometimes I like to comment on more than one thread at a time and follow different conversations. That's harder now. No big deal but I hope everyone from before the switch manages to figure things out and comes back around.
I kinda feel bad for FL voters because the republicans played no small role in moving their primary up but I do agree that either a revote (paid for by the states) be made or a split of the delegates 50-50. I don't think it right not to seat them but if that is to be the case then so be it. The votes (MI anyway) can't stand and be counted as is.
mirth
· 1 year ago
The Profile thing is good for those who want to follow replies to their comments. Even with Halo I sometimes missed ones to me. What needs to go is the point rating, which has turned into a child's game.
This is a busy weekend for many. Once the new week gets started, I bet comment #s begin to pick up. Change is hard for many people, but eventually they adjust.
I added an AB icon to my browser toolbar and with it and the browser Refresh arrows it's much easier to refresh the thread or return to the Homepage by clicking them. Using Firefox makes those refreshes much faster than when I used IE.
The FL & MI thing is a mess. Re-dos are not going to happen and to split the delegates, which will not reflect the wishes of the citizens, is even more unfair, imo. The citizens of these states will have to take their frustration out on their ridiculous party officials.
joc
· 1 year ago
LunaStick, you should really read the articles you link to before you write about them. The article clearly states that Hillary didn't pledge to remove her name from the ballot. She pledged not to campaign there, and she didn't.
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
You're right joc. I've searched for a link that said she agreed to take her name off the ballot and apart from a few that say all candidates agreed to remove their names, I can't find one that specifically says hillary agreed to it. I did find that she made the argument that she might as well leave it on since Michigan wasn't going to count. So in that way she is changing her tune.
GrantinHouston
· 1 year ago
The official Texas Democratic caucus vote tallies will be at our county conventions to be held on March 29. Presently, Clinton and Obama are virtually tied for pledged delegates from the combined primary votes and the caucus votes that have been reported, but many of the latter are still not reported to the state party. However, at the county convention these votes must be brought forth. Right now it appears that there are still 9 delegates not assigned to either candidate. Then, of course, there are the SUPER delegates who are supposed to pledge by the time of the STATE CONVENTION in June!
Texas needs to decide in the future if they want either a primary or caucus system as having BOTH makes no sense. However, it's not only Texas....Washington State Democrats have both but they only count the caucus votes and NOT the primary votes plus they have 17 SUPER delegates! The Washington Republicans count BOTH the primary and caucus votes giving about equal weight to each.
GrantinHouston
· 1 year ago
Off topic, but four American soldiers were just killed in Iraq making the number of casualties of Bush's Folly now 4000. Four more families had their Easter holiday ruined.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Will they buy me a Caribbean island?
Sage24
· 1 year ago
Hillary is desperate, and desperate people will do anything to win this nomination. She has lied and exaggerated about her experience, and was awarded four Pinnochios for her lie about Bosnia, she has unmercifully thrown the kitchen sink at her fellow Democrat, giving further ammunition to the rethugs, and has even endorsed a rethuglican over a prospective Democratic nominee. She is bringing the Democratic party down, and spoiling its chances in November. If we lose this election, we have to thank Hillary Rodham Clinton, for bringing Obama down in the polls against McCain. I cannot understand why Democrats support this candidate who has HIGH negative ratings, and is the least trusted in most polls. She has openly lied, and play gutter politics, and the rethuglicans are salivating to run against her. I know there are women out there who want to vote for her, because "she is a woman", but these sisters have to think a bit. Do we want a damaged candidate, with high negative ratings, and who has shown no loyalty to the party, and who has not hesitation to bring another Democrat down? We need to have an honest, straightforward, woman, with low negative ratings to be the first woman President, not Hillary Clinton
sbhdawn
· 1 year ago
why don't they put this stuff on tv over and over and over again, like they did with that Rev. sermon?????? People need to see over and over again how she is being dishonest, and then they can imagine her dishonesty in the White House!! I suppose they have bought out CNN and the others, I wouldn't doubt it!
BorninUSA
· 1 year ago
John, I bet you thought you were doing a good thing when you made these changes. lol Didn't you know we are a fickle bunch! You can't please everyone. Some of us adapt faster than others. And some (like me) will probably never adapt. I am sort of embarassed to ask for help. For fear of looking REALLY stupid.
Sarah B.
· 1 year ago
AC_in_MI
AC
I really appreciating hearing about the Michigan primary from the perspective of an actual Michigan voter, and I don’t blame you – especially, as a registered Independent voter -- for feeling frustrated with the arcane rules and regs of the Democratic Party.
I’m a life-long Democrat, and I find the DNC versus the various state Democratic Party rules completely baffling, if not downright byzantine, and I think the Superdelegate system is totally undemocratic and elitist and is nothing more than a gate-keeping device to make sure that a truly progressive candidate -- like the late Paul Wellston or Dennis Kucinich or even Howard Dean -- can never win the nomination.
Also, I agree with you that for Hillary to insist that the flawed primary was a true indication of what the people of Michigan desire and that the delegates should stand is not only a lot of BS, it’s an insult to the intelligence of those voters in Michigan who didn’t have the opportunity to vote for Obama followed the DNC rules and didn’t participate in the primary. How fair is that?
Finally, with regard to your “big question” concerning how the delegate count will reach the required 2035 without including the delegates from Michigan and Florida by Convention time, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t think the so-called “experts” have that one figured out yet, even though they’re being paid to do just that. Go figure.... :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarah B.
· 1 year ago
mirth
That's an excellent point about fishy primaries in more states than just Florida and Michigan. Actually, the New Hampshire primary was moved up to an earlier date -- I think it was two weeks earlier than the traditional distance between the Iowa Caucus and the NH primary -- and yet NH was not penalized by the DNC! And why should candidates like Edwards and Obama -- who played by the DNC's penalty rules -- now be penalized for playing by the rules?
Of course, the Clintons are going to pull every trick in the book to force a Clintonian "mulligan" in Florida and Michigan in a last-ditch effort to beg, borrow, and steal delegates away from Obama, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to get away with it. Actually, Hillary's "Big Win" in Ohio is very much in question given the documented number of illegal cross-over voters in that race:
"As Ohio election officials investigate illegal crossover voting in the 2008 primary, questions arise on Limbaugh's role.
"As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
Also, week before last, Thom Hartmann went through the election results in Ohio county by country and found – much to his amazement -- that in many rural areas of the state with small populations that have traditionally voted Republican for generations not a single vote was cast for McCain. Not a single vote for McCain! Now, that bizarre finding struck Hartmann as such a statistical improbability that it can only suggest illegal cross-over voting to deny Obama his likely proportional share of Democratic delegates by stacking the deck in favor of Hillary -- and all because Limbaugh told them to do just that! The GOPers are still drooling at the prospect of running against the Clintons, and they aren’t even shy about saying so.
So, forgive me, if I remain more than a wee bit confused....and plenty disgusted! :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sbhdawn
· 1 year ago
talk about being unpatriotic, when you try to mess up elections with phony votes, that is unpatriotic! What have the soldiers been dying for all these years, not so people could destroy elections, no but to have the freedom to choose their leaders through elections. Limbaugh is one of the big fat rich Americans that the Rev. Wright was condemming in his sermons, and rightly so! Lilmbaugh wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, he only cares about his ratings and fat-paychecks, at anyone's expense!
tbhull
· 1 year ago
John Edwards is turning out to be a weasely whimp for not endorsing either candidate.
sbhdawn
· 1 year ago
yes, I have beed thinking that too, and he has disappointed me. Gov. Richardson was brave and did the right thing, now the talking heads are saying it was just to better himself, as if to reply he did not mean what he said, is it impossible to think that someone might be serious and tell exactly how they feel? I think he was sincere. I also think that Edwards is a phony and a coward. It shows his character of being dishonest, if he will only endorse the candidate because they might be the winner, nothing to do with him thinking that particular candidate might just be the best one!
sherifffruitfly
· 1 year ago
Seems to me that the lesson to be learned is: if you want a good result, don't let the Clinton campaign touch it.
SPatrick
· 1 year ago
I don't see the big deal. Obama could, the fundraising powerhouse, could step up and work to make a Michigan re-vote happen. However, he is afraid if all votes are counted he might not win. What reeks of a third world dictatorship is allowing your party to decide that some areas count and others can just kiss off.
I've said it before and I will say it again. Either this is a democracy or it is not. Using the Democratic parties inability to make sound decisions is a poor excuse at best. Both candidates should be scrambling to do everything possible to correct this situation.
Barbara917
· 1 year ago
"The integrity of the Democratic nomination contest already is in question -- remember, they are supposedly still counting votes in the Texas caucuses that were held on March 4 -- and this only adds to public cynicism."
This last part of Dan Balz' article is way off the mark. Texas is not still counting votes from the March 4 caucuses. The delegate nominating process is going along as normal. The caucuses on March 4 elected precinct level delegates to attend their respective State Senatorial District conventions on March 29. I am one of those delegates. At the District Conventions delegates will be elected to attend the State Convention in June. Only at the State Convention in June will the results of the caucus process be finalized when the final slate of delegates will be elected from Texas. That is the normal process and it is not in question. The Clinton campaign has been trying to challenge this process and interrupt it. They have been threatening legal action. So far their efforts have been denied.
sbhdawn
· 1 year ago
oh, so once again the Clintons are trying to twist some arms in their favor? That is the point in not letting them finance a Mi. or Fl. re-vote, if they pay for it, favors will surely be due to someone! These people are dishonest, and we do not need another dishonest President!
talidapali
· 1 year ago
This kind of stuff is EXACTLY why I voted for John Edwards in early voting in Tennessee...and I STILL don't care that he dropped out of the race the next day. I would vote for him all over again if I had the chance. I hope Obama will seriously consider him for the VP spot.
While I was willing to give Hillary a chance to earn my vote and support for November, her recent behavior and the behavior of her campaign spokespersons and advisers have pretty much ripped it for me. I now believe that she and her campaign WOULD say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to get elected, and that is what we have already had in the White House for going on eight years now. Enough is enough. She no longer helps the Democratic Party, she hurts it. It is time for her to just go away.
I'm gonna send Obama some money.
grasshopper
· 1 year ago
Why should our campaign donations pay for the Michigan Democratic Party's mistake? They knew they would be punished for moving up their election and yet they ahead with it.
chandler_in_lasvegas
· 1 year ago
# — You are unverified. 2 /people/Mykel1/ /people/Mykel1/follow/ #
* ^ * v
* Permalink
KatherineHepburnEyes 6 hours ago 2 points Chandler, I see your point, but the fact Obama is going by the rules Howard Dean put forth for the two states seems to me he's good at going by the law rather than breaking it to benefit himself. ================= The whole can of worms was opened up by the disenfranchised Obama voters. They cannot have it both ways.
jr
· 1 year ago
Kleptocrat Hillary will continue to swift boat Obama out of spite so Mccain can get his Ben-Gay scented ham hands on our treasury to bankrupt America
BlueSun
· 1 year ago
The Clintons' desperate slash-and-burn strategy is to try to damage Obama's electability by any means at hand, fair or odiously foul. In doing so, they are virtually endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. They are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy about Obama's electability.
Their message to Democrats is that they will insure that the Democratic party will NOT win the White House unless the name of their nominee is CLINTON. The sad irony is that, if they are successful now in winning the nomination by sliming and swiftboating Obama, they will have alienated enough Democrats and empowered enough McCain support that Hillary will almost inevitably lose. And, if their tactic fails, they will most likely have so sullied Obama that he, too, won't be able to win against McCain.
The Clintons are willing to destroy the party to get their way. They do not care for this country, the Democratic party, or the ideals and vision of a long history Democratic progressive policy. They care only about themselves and getting back into the ultimate seat of self-aggrandizing power.
And now it appears likely that, for the third time in a row, the DLC wing of the Democratic party (also known as the Republicrats) will have lost a Presidential election against a weak and dangerous Republican candidate that a yellow dog should be able to beat by 30 points.
Time to stand aside, let the party crash and burn, and start again.
Lansing_Quaker
· 1 year ago
Special interests? Since when is wanting the voice of Michigan to be heard a "special interest?"
I created this account specifically to respond to this post, Joe. I'm a Michigan voter, and when I was home for Easter, there was a lot of resentment over the Michigan Primary within my Catholic family. From some Dems, it was the fact it wasn't counting. From others (including my mother, who by "statistical polling" should be an HRC supporter but supports Obama) it was because they didn't vote because Obama wasn't on the ticket. From Republicans in the family, it was because we wasted State money for nothing.
Any way you slice it, there's a lot of resentment floating around Michigan.
Clinton financiers want a revote? REALLY?! Of course they do! They want the delegates to count, and think Hillary could win again in a general election. Obama could win as well if he tried, but with the Kwame Kilpatrick controversy, I doubt anyone from his camp wants to touch the state as all the big name Dems aside from Kilpatrick and the rest of Detroit (Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, Brewer, and other smaller Dems on the State level) support Clinton. And, gee, who do you think many Michiganders will side with? "Corrupt Detroit" that is blazing headlines for the past month, or the rest of the Dem party that adroitly avoids the Motor City when it comes to race issues?
This is why State Dems won't touch the revote. It's why Obama will not touch the revote. Hillary desperately wants her win that suburban, exurban, rural, and union workers will re-deliver if they can have it. So her "backers" will pony up the money.
It's not BUYING the State. Hillary can't BUY Michigan. But Obama is buying time.
And it's costing this State. We WANT our votes to count. Or we want a re-vote. If Obama doesn't come to the table, neither will happen, and it will be a terrible sight to see for the people (55%) who DID vote Hillary in the State, Democrats or not. It will turn the party off of Obama, and if McCain can court the Clinton Dems here on Economic issues, and the State leaders don't rally around him (Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, Brewer, et al), then he is in for a world of hurt.
As a Michigan voter, to claim Hillary is trying to "buy" the State is completely disingenuous. She wants our voices to be heard. Albeit, it's for selfish reasons, but she wants it. If the coin was flipped and Obama thought the state was a lock, and Clinton was trying to obstruct a revote, I'd be mad at her too.
You coastal voters have no clue how irritated voters are over this. But keep churning out the headlines about Michigan on the Primary. At least suddenly we matter, in whatever capacity.
Measured_Response
· 1 year ago
"There was just something incredibly unseemly about a group of Clinton supporters offering to raise the money for the Michigan primary re-vote."
Obama and Clinton spend 500 million on their elections and Michigan would be a drop in the bucket at about 15 million. Spending 500 million seems more "unseemly" to me. That kind of money would buy 5,000 or more low income homes for the victims of Katrina.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Now that I think about it, few state primaries were without hitches. NM's was a disaster and the final tally cannot be trusted. We ALL should be questioning our state party officials.
So much about the Dem party has been revealed in this political season!
All Comments
.
.
.
You guys at ABlog are a bit wacky. If you were anti Obama you could just as easily read the article and scream "OBAMA NOT INTERESTED IN PONYING UP HIS HALF FOR MI DO-OVER" or "OBAMA ONLY INTERESTED IN SIMPLE MI SPLIT, DOESN'T CARE ABOUT MI VOTERS". Calm yourselves down boys, your perspectives are shot.
It's bad enough that Hillary and Obama may spend a HALF BILLION before Denver just to fight each other while John McCaIn now gets to spend his money and message on defeating the Democrats.
Timothy Egan in the New York Times says we have become the "Donner Party Democrats" cannibalizing our own. "These modern Dems press on, tearing into each other, crawling to get to the summit, still five months away, in the mile-high city. They are now ravenous with hunger, and it is starting to show."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22ega...
With the many failures of the Bush administration, McCain as Bush III should have been an easy push over. But thanks Hillary, it appears the Democrats are about to pull out a defeat from the "jaws of victory."
MY big question is - if Michigan and Florida delegates are NOT counted - what does that do to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination? I am not that familiar with the Democratic party nominating rules and regulations - is it a simple majority or what? If the winning nominee needs 2035 delegates, what will they need minus Michigan and Florida?
Thanks for stopping by. As a member of the Democratic Party, I think I'll take your comments with a big (troll-sized) grain of salt.
Unless... they want this civil war to continue all the way to Denver this summer.
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/democrat...
btw, my apologies to Biden and Kucinich who did pull there names from the ballot. Dodd is the other one who did not.
.
I like no-indent threads much better, but it is still a good idea to click Reply on the comment you are responding to. Even 'tho it will not show there, the reply will show on an individual's 'View Full Profile' page.
*
All that is needed to find your newly published comment is set your option for it to appear at the top or bottom of the thread.
*
The delegate issue(s) for both FL and MI are between the citizens of those states and their state Dem leaders. They lost out on helping to select a candidate. They'll get to vote in Nov. That's just the way it is. That's the way it should stay.
This profile business and indent just make things more complicated in my view. Sometimes I like to comment on more than one thread at a time and follow different conversations. That's harder now. No big deal but I hope everyone from before the switch manages to figure things out and comes back around.
I kinda feel bad for FL voters because the republicans played no small role in moving their primary up but I do agree that either a revote (paid for by the states) be made or a split of the delegates 50-50. I don't think it right not to seat them but if that is to be the case then so be it. The votes (MI anyway) can't stand and be counted as is.
This is a busy weekend for many. Once the new week gets started, I bet comment #s begin to pick up. Change is hard for many people, but eventually they adjust.
I added an AB icon to my browser toolbar and with it and the browser Refresh arrows it's much easier to refresh the thread or return to the Homepage by clicking them. Using Firefox makes those refreshes much faster than when I used IE.
The FL & MI thing is a mess. Re-dos are not going to happen and to split the delegates, which will not reflect the wishes of the citizens, is even more unfair, imo. The citizens of these states will have to take their frustration out on their ridiculous party officials.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...
Texas needs to decide in the future if they want either a primary or caucus system as having BOTH makes no sense. However, it's not only Texas....Washington State Democrats have both but they only count the caucus votes and NOT the primary votes plus they have 17 SUPER delegates! The Washington Republicans count BOTH the primary and caucus votes giving about equal weight to each.
She is bringing the Democratic party down, and spoiling its chances in November. If we lose this election, we have to thank Hillary Rodham Clinton, for bringing Obama down in the polls against McCain.
I cannot understand why Democrats support this candidate who has HIGH negative ratings, and is the least trusted in most polls. She has openly lied, and play gutter politics, and the rethuglicans are salivating to run against her.
I know there are women out there who want to vote for her, because "she is a woman", but these sisters have to think a bit. Do we want a damaged candidate, with high negative ratings, and who has shown no loyalty to the party, and who has not hesitation to bring another Democrat down?
We need to have an honest, straightforward, woman, with low negative ratings to be the first woman President, not Hillary Clinton
Some of us adapt faster than others. And some (like me) will probably never adapt. I am sort of embarassed to ask for help. For fear of looking REALLY stupid.
AC
I really appreciating hearing about the Michigan primary from the perspective of an actual Michigan voter, and I don’t blame you – especially, as a registered Independent voter -- for feeling frustrated with the arcane rules and regs of the Democratic Party.
I’m a life-long Democrat, and I find the DNC versus the various state Democratic Party rules completely baffling, if not downright byzantine, and I think the Superdelegate system is totally undemocratic and elitist and is nothing more than a gate-keeping device to make sure that a truly progressive candidate -- like the late Paul Wellston or Dennis Kucinich or even Howard Dean -- can never win the nomination.
Also, I agree with you that for Hillary to insist that the flawed primary was a true indication of what the people of Michigan desire and that the delegates should stand is not only a lot of BS, it’s an insult to the intelligence of those voters in Michigan who didn’t have the opportunity to vote for Obama followed the DNC rules and didn’t participate in the primary. How fair is that?
Finally, with regard to your “big question” concerning how the delegate count will reach the required 2035 without including the delegates from Michigan and Florida by Convention time, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t think the so-called “experts” have that one figured out yet, even though they’re being paid to do just that. Go figure....
:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's an excellent point about fishy primaries in more states than just Florida and Michigan.
Actually, the New Hampshire primary was moved up to an earlier date -- I think it was two weeks earlier than the traditional distance between the Iowa Caucus and the NH primary -- and yet NH was not penalized by the DNC! And why should candidates like Edwards and Obama -- who played by the DNC's penalty rules -- now be penalized for playing by the rules?
Of course, the Clintons are going to pull every trick in the book to force a Clintonian "mulligan" in Florida and Michigan in a last-ditch effort to beg, borrow, and steal delegates away from Obama, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to get away with it. Actually, Hillary's "Big Win" in Ohio is very much in question given the documented number of illegal cross-over voters in that race:
"Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?"
By Steven Rosenfeld
http://www.alternet.org/story/80392/?page=entire
"As Ohio election officials investigate illegal crossover voting in the 2008 primary, questions arise on Limbaugh's role.
"As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
Also, week before last, Thom Hartmann went through the election results in Ohio county by country and found – much to his amazement -- that in many rural areas of the state with small populations that have traditionally voted Republican for generations not a single vote was cast for McCain. Not a single vote for McCain! Now, that bizarre finding struck Hartmann as such a statistical improbability that it can only suggest illegal cross-over voting to deny Obama his likely proportional share of Democratic delegates by stacking the deck in favor of Hillary -- and all because Limbaugh told them to do just that! The GOPers are still drooling at the prospect of running against the Clintons, and they aren’t even shy about saying so.
So, forgive me, if I remain more than a wee bit confused....and plenty disgusted!
:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also think that Edwards is a phony and a coward. It shows his character of being dishonest, if he will only endorse the candidate because they might be the winner, nothing to do with him thinking that particular candidate might just be the best one!
I've said it before and I will say it again. Either this is a democracy or it is not. Using the Democratic parties inability to make sound decisions is a poor excuse at best. Both candidates should be scrambling to do everything possible to correct this situation.
This last part of Dan Balz' article is way off the mark. Texas is not still counting votes from the March 4 caucuses. The delegate nominating process is going along as normal. The caucuses on March 4 elected precinct level delegates to attend their respective State Senatorial District conventions on March 29. I am one of those delegates. At the District Conventions delegates will be elected to attend the State Convention in June. Only at the State Convention in June will the results of the caucus process be finalized when the final slate of delegates will be elected from Texas. That is the normal process and it is not in question. The Clinton campaign has been trying to challenge this process and interrupt it. They have been threatening legal action. So far their efforts have been denied.
While I was willing to give Hillary a chance to earn my vote and support for November, her recent behavior and the behavior of her campaign spokespersons and advisers have pretty much ripped it for me. I now believe that she and her campaign WOULD say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to get elected, and that is what we have already had in the White House for going on eight years now. Enough is enough. She no longer helps the Democratic Party, she hurts it. It is time for her to just go away.
I'm gonna send Obama some money.
— You are unverified.
2 /people/Mykel1/ /people/Mykel1/follow/
#
* ^
* v
* Permalink
KatherineHepburnEyes 6 hours ago 2 points
Chandler, I see your point, but the fact Obama is going by the rules Howard Dean put forth for the two states seems to me he's good at going by the law rather than breaking it to benefit himself.
=================
The whole can of worms was opened up by the disenfranchised Obama voters. They cannot have it both ways.
Their message to Democrats is that they will insure that the Democratic party will NOT win the White House unless the name of their nominee is CLINTON. The sad irony is that, if they are successful now in winning the nomination by sliming and swiftboating Obama, they will have alienated enough Democrats and empowered enough McCain support that Hillary will almost inevitably lose. And, if their tactic fails, they will most likely have so sullied Obama that he, too, won't be able to win against McCain.
The Clintons are willing to destroy the party to get their way. They do not care for this country, the Democratic party, or the ideals and vision of a long history Democratic progressive policy. They care only about themselves and getting back into the ultimate seat of self-aggrandizing power.
And now it appears likely that, for the third time in a row, the DLC wing of the Democratic party (also known as the Republicrats) will have lost a Presidential election against a weak and dangerous Republican candidate that a yellow dog should be able to beat by 30 points.
Time to stand aside, let the party crash and burn, and start again.
I created this account specifically to respond to this post, Joe. I'm a Michigan voter, and when I was home for Easter, there was a lot of resentment over the Michigan Primary within my Catholic family. From some Dems, it was the fact it wasn't counting. From others (including my mother, who by "statistical polling" should be an HRC supporter but supports Obama) it was because they didn't vote because Obama wasn't on the ticket. From Republicans in the family, it was because we wasted State money for nothing.
Any way you slice it, there's a lot of resentment floating around Michigan.
Clinton financiers want a revote? REALLY?! Of course they do! They want the delegates to count, and think Hillary could win again in a general election. Obama could win as well if he tried, but with the Kwame Kilpatrick controversy, I doubt anyone from his camp wants to touch the state as all the big name Dems aside from Kilpatrick and the rest of Detroit (Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, Brewer, and other smaller Dems on the State level) support Clinton. And, gee, who do you think many Michiganders will side with? "Corrupt Detroit" that is blazing headlines for the past month, or the rest of the Dem party that adroitly avoids the Motor City when it comes to race issues?
This is why State Dems won't touch the revote. It's why Obama will not touch the revote. Hillary desperately wants her win that suburban, exurban, rural, and union workers will re-deliver if they can have it. So her "backers" will pony up the money.
It's not BUYING the State. Hillary can't BUY Michigan. But Obama is buying time.
And it's costing this State. We WANT our votes to count. Or we want a re-vote. If Obama doesn't come to the table, neither will happen, and it will be a terrible sight to see for the people (55%) who DID vote Hillary in the State, Democrats or not. It will turn the party off of Obama, and if McCain can court the Clinton Dems here on Economic issues, and the State leaders don't rally around him (Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, Brewer, et al), then he is in for a world of hurt.
As a Michigan voter, to claim Hillary is trying to "buy" the State is completely disingenuous. She wants our voices to be heard. Albeit, it's for selfish reasons, but she wants it. If the coin was flipped and Obama thought the state was a lock, and Clinton was trying to obstruct a revote, I'd be mad at her too.
You coastal voters have no clue how irritated voters are over this. But keep churning out the headlines about Michigan on the Primary. At least suddenly we matter, in whatever capacity.
Obama and Clinton spend 500 million on their elections and Michigan would be a drop in the bucket at about 15 million. Spending 500 million seems more "unseemly" to me. That kind of money would buy 5,000 or more low income homes for the victims of Katrina.
So much about the Dem party has been revealed in this political season!