Dan Balz's Take
A Do-Over Undone

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell pause as they walk in the Scranton St. Patrick's Day Parade in Scranton, Pa., Saturday, March 15, 2008. (AP.)
By Dan Balz
Ed Rendell and Jon Corzine have done Hillary Clinton no favors in her fight for the Democratic nomination. The neighboring governors (Rendell of Pennsylvania, Corzine of New Jersey) set out to eliminate one obstacle to do-over votes in Florida and Michigan. Instead they ended up creating one.
When officials in Florida and Michigan first started talking about how to set up new primaries to assure that their delegations will be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they were understandably insistent that taxpayers not be stuck with the bill. Taxpayers had funded their January primaries; somebody else should pay for do-overs.
Because they were in a dispute with the Democratic National Committee, officials in both states looked to the DNC to bear the cost of new contests. DNC chairman Howard Dean, who has taken a hard line in his dealings with the two states, promptly rejected their entreaties. The national committee, he said, needed every available dollar it could raise to wage a general election campaign in the fall. The states would have to look elsewhere.
Dean was not entirely unhelpful, however. He reminded state officials that, while the national committee is barred from raising soft money (large, non-federally regulated contributions), state parties were not. Rendell and Corzine brashly decided to take matters into their own hands.
Money has never been an obstacle in the political life of Corzine. The former Goldman Sachs chairman has spent more than $100 million from his personal fortune to win election to the Senate and then the governor's office. Rendell cannot match Corzine in personal wealth, but as a former DNC general chairman he knows the network of Democratic fat cats as well as anyone, and he is ever ready to be a player when it comes to party politics.
So the two men teamed up to find the money needed to pay for new primaries and on Wednesday delivered a letter to Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm in which they announced that they had found 10 individuals willing to ensure that up to $12 million in private money will be available for a new primary, should the stalemated Michigan Legislature approve such a plan.
As Rendell and Corzine modestly put it, "In the interest of providing assurance that the private funds necessary to finance a publicly administered election will indeed be available should the Michigan Legislature choose to proceed in this direction, we have taken the liberty of soliciting guarantors for such an effort."
Handled deftly, this might have been seen as an act of political altruism. Instead it smacks of an inside job. Rendell is a Clinton supporter. Corzine is a Clinton supporter. Granholm is a Clinton supporter. Perhaps coincidentally, the letter guaranteeing the money arrived on the day Clinton flew into the Michigan to ratchet up pressure on Obama and the legislature to support a new primary.
That was the least of the problem. Where was the money coming from? According to my colleague Matt Mosk, who quickly analyzed the Gang of 10 guarantors, eight are Clinton contributors, and five of those eight have helped raise at least $100,000 for her campaign. No one in the group is an Obama fundraiser.
Obama, who took his name off the Michigan ballot after the DNC sanctioned the state for violating party rules by moving up its primary to Jan.15. Clinton, who kept her name on the ballot and won 55 percent of the vote, with 40 percent going to the "uncommitted" line. Obama prefers a 50-50 split of the delegates, while Clinton wants a revote.
Obama has said that, if the state and the DNC reached agreement on a plan, he would accept that decision. But he has been dragging his feet, raising one question after another about the terms of the proposed legislation. There are some legitimate issues, but the outlines of the proposal have met with preliminary approval from the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee and no new primary could go forward without a period of public comment and a final vote of the committee after it receives a proposal from the Michigan Democratic Party.
Michigan officials bear considerable responsibility for the mess they have helped to create, and a revote is one way out, though that looks increasingly unlikely given the political stalemate. But what Rendell and Corzine took matters into their own hands without thinking through the consequences. Their letter to Granholm creates the impression that a Michigan do-over would be Clinton-financed contest designed to save her candidacy.
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.
Posted at 12:09 PM ET on Mar 20, 2008
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This

Get This Widget >>

Posted by: AnneR1 | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM
No candidate is legitimate without Florida and Michigan. Think Bush 2000.
Mary Anne
Posted by: AnneR1 | March 24, 2008 1:09 PM
This makes me SICK. Why don't they give the money to Darfur refugees, families of our soldiers who died in Iraq, Iraq veterans when they return, families that are losing their homes.
They can raise $12 million in 2 days for a stupid revote yet they turn their cold hearts to the real charity needs in this country and this world.
Posted by: AnninSeattle | March 24, 2008 1:29 AM
seth --
The amount of anger many white people have about Rev Wright is very large.
Their sense of betrayal by Obama is very strong.
I haven't seen people this angry about an event, and a politician for a long time.
Its at the level of their anger towards Bush.
This isn't going to go away.
People feel taken advantage of.
The feel they been "played"
Nobody likes to be played for a fool.
Its not just an insult, its an insult to the person's self image.
Obama betrayed our trust.
The people who seem to be the most angry are the people who were his biggest fans.
They don't trust him anymore.
They feel like he used them.
Posted by: svreader | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
I like it mul: you really imitate your candidate. You guys say "Look at the polls, Obama is behind in all of them". When I post three recent polls that show him ahead, you say "but look at the trend."
Trends change all the time--but he's had a rough week, and he's holding credible leads in major polls. Polls taken after the Wright stuff broke but before his speech.
You don't have to believe that the trends will turn or that his lead will hold up--but the smart money does. Have you checked Intrade lately?
Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
The key question is "what's the most important thing?"
The right to self determination is what defines democracy itself.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:44 PM
I agree with the last post except that why all of the commotion now? the citizens of michigan and Florida knew before their votes were not going to count - why didnt they raise hell then? That is my biggest issue - only push the revote when it is politically convenient?
Posted by: GivePeaceAChance | March 20, 2008 11:41 PM
The depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.
Bill had his picture taken with Wright.
Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.
Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.
Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.
The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.
Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM
DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...
POLITICO.COM IS REPORTING ...
JEREMIAH WRIGHT WAS CLINTON WHITE HOUSE GUEST
The recent coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright has often cast him as a marginal, almost fringe figure, but Trinity Church is a major Chicago institution, and Wright has long been a prominent pastor on the American scene.
And an anonymous blog set up to defend his church offers some compelling photographic evidence of this: A photograph of Wright and President Clinton, which it says was taken on September 11, 1998 -- the date of a White House gathering for religious leaders.
[UPDATE: The blog seems to have taken that item down; here's the full image that was posted.]
Hillary Clinton, according to her recently-released schedule for the day, was present at the gathering.
That's where Clinton reportedly told the assembled clerics, at the depth of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, that he had "repented." ...
By Ben Smith 07:49 PM
Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM
The key point here is one of priorities.
TThe right of Florida's and Michigan's voters to have their votes count in choosing the Democratic Party's candidate must be the highest priority.
To deprive them of that right goes against the most fundemental principle our country is based on -- the right to choose our own leaders.
To block their votes is to take away their right to self-determination.
Their right to participate in choosing the candidate for the Democratic party democracy must be paramount.
The DNC's idea of punishing the voters of the states of Florida and Michigan for their states moving up their primaries punishes the wrong people -- the voters of those states -- for actions that they had no direct control over.
To deprive citizens of their right to vote goes against the most important principle our country was founded on -- Self Determination.
This isn't a game.
Its a question of the most fundemental right of citizens in a democracy.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:21 PM
To DABucher: Ms Clinton standing on the moral high ground? You're kidding. Perhaps, you should take a look at yourself in the mirror and see how long your nose has become.
As for revotes and compromise seating plans, I oppose both. The citizens of Florida and Michigan boxed themselves out of the convention by disobeying the primary rules. Their choice. Touch luck.
Posted by: pbarnett52 | March 20, 2008 10:47 PM
It's disgusting the way Obama and Axelrod, are treating the FL and MI voters like dirt.
Posted by: autowx | March 20, 2008 10:45 PM
Can anyone not see through the Clintonian tactics? She agreed to Michigan and Florida not counting when she was sure she would be the Democratic frontrunner - and that is the only reason she did not raise hell then? why all of the commotion now? well its obvious, because she is losing. I dont have a problem with a revote in those states, but the way Hillary is doing it cries politics and there is no doubt about that. if she so wants the "voices" of people to be heard in michigan and florida, then why is she not pressing for superdelegates to follow their consituents? come on, if the tables were turned, we know that hillary would never be acting this way! seriously hillary supporters, just be honest with yourselves about your candidate. i am not saying obama is perfect, but there is no doubt that hillary is very unfair in her tactics.
Posted by: GivePeaceAChance | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Obama has no scruples. He and Aelrod are tossing away the FL and MI voters, as if they are trash. They are treating those voters like dirt.
Posted by: autowx | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Look Florida's Democrats had no choise about the date of the primary, it all in the hands of the Republican state government. . . . . But the real bottom line is that Obama is just another politician; he's obviously no one special.
Obama's looking more and more like George W. Bush day by day, as the "Uniter" stonewalls the democratic process -- shades of Florida 2000.
Posted by: coldcomfort | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
You got to look at trends on polls not the numbers. Polls have biases.
Obama lost 7-10 points on almost all polls.
Typical white person. Michigan is not going to help.
Preacher man will be all over the news next week when he gets his award.
Obama needs some good news. 4 weeks of hell for B.O.
I think obama has a 40 percent floor but the states coming up save Oregon SD all look bad.
Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
I wish the Obama supporters would just say what they mean.
If you hate Hillary just say so.
If you think Obama is going to lose FL and MI just say so.
99.999 percent of the logical post are just a pathetic example of our school system.
Don't pollute the world with you BS.
1. Both Obama and Hillary need suppers to win.
2. There are Rules for seating FL and MI.
3. There are Rules for changing the Rules.
4. Hillary never said the Del would never be seated, at the time not count meant they were not going to affect the race at the time of the votes (which was true) who knew.
5. When she said the MI election would not count that would be fully correct if there were a new primary. So that would be a true statement not a lie.
6. Obama said he wanted a re-vote that was fair and approved by the DNC. He lied again.
7. Barrak Obama is a Typical White person.
We don't need a lot of your hate and stupidity. 80 percent of the Obama cultist on the board are what are called 'country club republicans'. You still are so go back to the GOP were you belong. Deep down Obama is too - me thinks - that is why he had to go to that church for 20 years - needed the cred.
Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
I think that we can all--serious Obama people, serious Clinton, and assorted psycho nuts--we can all agree that this has been the worst week Obama has had in the campaign?
The new CBS/New York Times poll shows Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton nationally, though not by nearly as much as he was in their last poll from three-and-a-half weeks ago:
Obama 46% (-8)
Clinton 43% (+5)
Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM
"Obama has unraveled his own campaign due to his dishonesty and hypocrisy. He is a politician that will say and do anything to get elected. He refuses to allow the Michigan and Florida voters to be heard in the primaries because they did not support him in January and they will not support him in April or May or June OR November. Obama has proven very clearly that he is disingenuous and not to be trusted."
Florida and Michigan BROKE THE RULES and, therefore, they were punished. All of the candidates AGREED in the beginning not to campaign in those states. HRC campaigned in those states after she got blown out in Iowa....she is a cheater and a rule bender. Obama is keeping to what was agreed upon from the beginnning.
I mean really, if people are allowed to break the rules and get away with it, then what is the major uproar about illegal immigration???
Posted by: massmedia77 | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
Vmunikoti: No way Senator Clinton is as crazy and ill-informed as SVReader.
For SVReader: Um, I think Obama's got a pretty good idea that he's going to need a lot of white votes to win--and the vast majority of the votes he's gotten so far have been from, surprise--white folks.
Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM
To the idiots that keep posting the "typical white person" comment by Obama:
HE IS HALF-WHITE HIMSELF YOU IDIOTS!! IT'S LIKE A WHITE MAN TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN RACE FROM A POINT OF EXPERIENCE. OBAMA IS NOT SIMPLY A "BLACK" MAN...HIS BIRTH MOTHER IS A WHITE WOMAN. THE GUY IS SPEAKING ABOUT HIS OWN FAMILY....NOT A RANDOM BLACK MAN MAKING IGNORANT STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WHITE RACE, BUT A "BLACK MAN" (BECAUSE OF THE ONE DROP RULE THAT RACIST WHITE PEOPLE CREATED) WHO HAS GROWN UP WITH HIS OWN WHITE, CAUCASIAN FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE PEOPLE SHARE THE SAME BLOOD WITH HIM....HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN FOLK. LET'S NOT BE STUPID.
Posted by: massmedia77 | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
SVREADER IS ACTUALLY HILLARY CLINTON!
Posted by: vmunikoti | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM
Obama's history.
There's no way he can win without the white vote.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 03:03 PM
-------------------------------------
Well, of course he can't you idiot! Whites are the majority. Pull your head out of your butthole.
Posted by: vmunikoti | March 20, 2008 9:29 PM
Of course its not in Mr. Obambas best interest to have everyone vote. Especially after his behavior this week..Time to question him on his experience. He showed his lack this week when trying to tell me that my white grandmother was racist...
Posted by: robinhood2 | March 20, 2008 9:06 PM
Obama has unraveled his own campaign due to his dishonesty and hypocrisy. He is a politician that will say and do anything to get elected. He refuses to allow the Michigan and Florida voters to be heard in the primaries because they did not support him in January and they will not support him in April or May or June OR November. Obama has proven very clearly that he is disingenuous and not to be trusted.
Posted by: mo897 | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Obama believes the typical white person is a racist. Listen to him speak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 07:51 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh my God! I just heard this! What a disaster!
Posted by: aamittal | March 20, 2008 8:25 PM
OH LOL!
Wexlereric, J-McChesney & Dale
Somewhere? Washington, DC. (202) 872-8411
LOL!
Fools THINK they Know me!
Dummies thought I would call on MY Phone!
Hey Dick Tracy-Er, Eric-My Name is NOT William!
You can bounce THAT off WaPo BEFORE you harass the wrong person!
;~)
Posted by: rat-the | March 20, 2008 8:22 PM
The "typical white person" gaffe is major. This could unravel the Obama campaign.
Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 8:20 PM
Senator Obama believes the typical white person is racist, like his grandmother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI
He should never use words unless they're written for him.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Obama believes the typical white person is a racist. Listen to him speak.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 7:51 PM
For $12 million you can win new eligible delegates to help you continue your campaign.
There is no moral high ground for Clinton to take in the primaries anymore.
She and her team are a great strategist, one step at a time. But this is more of the same old politics, which as turned me and my family off from both the Bush clan and now the Clinton clan.
Posted by: bjb | March 20, 2008 7:19 PM
zukermand: "If Dan Balz is going to continue to pretend he is a professional journalist, shouldn't he avoid typing stuff he makes up out of his head as though it were fact?
It doesn't matter whether one agrees with Mr Balz or not, my point is this is not the function of a "news reporter", it is the job of an opinion columnist."
Psssst, Zuckie, I've seen innumerable whines from you about "opinion" being injected into Dan Balz's "news" articles. Apparently you don't understand how a newspaper (or in this case an online news site) works. It must've escaped your notice, but if you look verrrrry carefully at the top of this article you'll see the words "Dan Balz's Take." See, when a column carries a kicker (sorry, that's journalist jargon) with the writer's name in it, it generally means that this is an analysis by the writer of what's going on--in other words, a *GASP!* opinion piece.
Now if this were a bylined news article on the Post's front page rather than an off-the-cuff analysis entry on a blog, you might have a leg to stand on. But stop whining about a lack of journalistic objectivity in what is plainly a SUBJECTIVE opinion piece just because it's making Hillary look bad (as if she doesn't do that all by herself). It just makes you look woefully uninformed.
Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 7:18 PM
Senator Obama doesn't want revotes in either Michigan or Florida, because he is afraid that he will lose in both states and risk the nomination. Just another example of Obama's dishonesty relative to what he has said his campaign is based upon. He is nothing more than an ambitious politician calling everyone else ambitious politicians and portraying himself as someone that will change all of that. Based on his campaign, he won't change anything -- he'll talk about it if he thinks it will get him elected, but actually do it -- no way.
Posted by: mo897 | March 20, 2008 7:17 PM
I see that svreader is growing more psychotic with each passing day. I think she will have a complete breakdown when it finally becomes apparent to her that Clinton has lost the nomination. She does have an amazing capacity to delude herself and lie about others, however.
Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | March 20, 2008 7:16 PM
Fret not, any Dem can beat Mr Magoo McCain.
Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:15 PM
The dems are finished. Hillary as destroyed the party. No one can win in the fall. Just sad.
Posted by: lumi21us | March 20, 2008 7:12 PM
Michigan and Florida will be seated eventually but they won't have an impact on who get the nomination unless it goes to a second ballot.
Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:05 PM
svreader: "Obama's made us feel like a bunch of idiots for having done that while Rev Wright and God knows how many other pastors were preaching hatred towards whites."
The Vast Angel-Wing Conspiracy!
Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 7:02 PM
Obama is still has an insurmoutable lead in elected delegates. Hillary's only hope is the superdelegates. Not likely there are enough of them to help her at this point. One other possibility being rumored is that Gore may come out of "retirement" if the Wright issue continues to grow and seriously hurt Obama's chances in the general. The deal would be Obama would cede his delegates to Gore and Obama would get VP. Might work.
Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:02 PM
For his sterling efforts to manage the Democratic National Committee, I want to present to Howard Dean, the Best Friend I Ever Had Award.
Thank you,
The RNC
Yeeeehawwww!
Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 6:57 PM
This idea that rules only count for other people is a trademark of the Clintons. Look at the pardon of Marc Rich, the lying under oath, Travelgate, etc.
Its tiresome, really. Most of us learn about rules early on, and realize that if we're part of an organization and we don't like its rules, we leave the organization, or we try to change the rules within the proper process. The idea that you can change the rules on your whim, or manipulate them, to benefit yourself, is simply sociopathic.
Hillary could have structured her campaign so that she wouldn't be in this situation now. She and her advisors were outsmarted by a bunch of novices. It must be very hard for them to take responsibility for their own screwup.
Posted by: smeesq | March 20, 2008 6:56 PM
Actually Barack has survived quite well considering the idiotic non-stop playing of the Wright video on every media outlet. The bog daily tracking polls, Rasmussen and Gallup, both showed a slight uptick overnight.
Also from Fox News (of all places), the first major poll taken since Barack Obama's big speech on race relations, shows that the effect of the Jeremiah Wright flap might not be so bad after all. By a 57%-24% margin, registered votes do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views. Fox also asked respondents whether they had doubts about Obama because of his association with Wright. The results: 35% Yes, 54% No, with the numbers standing at 26%-66% for Democrats, 27%-61% among independents, and 56%-33% with Republicans.
Its not over but the worst appears to be over.
Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 6:54 PM
The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules in Michigan before we start blaming the candidates?
Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM
svreader: "Obama's lies are the #1 topic of conversation out here.
People are livid.
Everyone feels like they've been taken for fools.
I've never seen people this angry.
They're pissed beyond words."
Don't worry. The nurse will be by shortly with their (and your) meds.
Oh before I forget: L'Chaim! L'Barack!
Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM
The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules in Michigan before we start blaming the candidates?
Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM
I wouldn't trust Ed Rendell on anything. He is most likely on the Clinton list of people who owe them for favors. If you missed his appearance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, take a look.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23546686#23546686
It's like this Bill and Hillary, we live in a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. We have rules for fair elections. Each state has to follow the rules or, if they don't agree, they can contest them in a legal way.
If there were no rules on how early primaries can be held, they would be holding them in 2009 for the 2012 election. Good grief! It already seems like as soon as people take office, they start running for the next election. We need our president, senators, representatives, governors to start doing the jobs they were elected to do.
Posted by: joy2 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM
The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules before we start blaming the candidates?
Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:52 PM
The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules before we start blaming the candidates?
Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:52 PM
Well, its Hillary's race to lose now. Barack is dropping in the polls like a lead baloon, after his failed race speech. TWENTY Years...he listend and said nothing!!
No racist in the White House!!
Posted by: Phil6 | March 20, 2008 6:45 PM
Clinton must - and it appears she will - destroy Obama as a viable presidential candidate.
She wins because either she gets to be the candidate this year, or she gets to be the candidate in just 4 years running against a 76-year old incumbent.
For now, let's get ready for President McCain.
Posted by: Wolfeman | March 20, 2008 6:26 PM
LOL! Did Howling Dean say something along the lines of:
"Now, This is going to Hurt me More than You!"
As he disciplined Michigan and Florida?
ewexler-Just checked back-sorry-after 5.
Posted by: rat-the | March 20, 2008 6:25 PM
It is simply amazing how far Team Clinton will go to try and stay in this race.
These are bad people.
Posted by: gthstonesman | March 20, 2008 6:19 PM
This is why folks think the media is favoring Obama.
We have Obama killing a revote, because he is apparently afraid, and Hillary rounding up money to help fund one - and you spin it as a negative for Hillary??
Put down the KoolAid!
Posted by: johnL1 | March 20, 2008 6:18 PM
Someone needs to tell Senator Clinton...
Just because you know how to win, does not mean you can win.
Move when it is profitable. Stop when it is not.
Posted by: jamdn463 | March 20, 2008 6:14 PM
The Democratic candidates were requested to take their names off of the Michigan ballot. All agreed except Clinton. Now she wants to claim that the delegates for her were fairly won. And since the DNC disagrees, her buddies are trying to pay for a re-vote. It boggles my mind how anyone could call that fair. She will do anything, no matter how dishonorable, to win. The Democratic party may never recover from the damage she has done.
Posted by: crobins16 | March 20, 2008 6:11 PM
why does hillary cheat right before our eyes?
she cares more about her career, than she does about the american people.
she has always been a polarizing individual, and she is dividing the democrats even more so now, basically handing the presidential election to mccain.
how can hillary does this to her country?
Posted by: presGWBfanclub | March 20, 2008 6:10 PM
Thinker: All that hate will make you ugly.
Perhaps you need to go off and start a blog with SVReader, Walnuts and The Rat so the rest of the rational readers here can go on with an honest discussion, without having to wade through your never-ending stream of filth.
Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 6:07 PM
The only fair revote would be a caucus where Limbaugh's dittohead Hillary voters would not show up.
Posted by: joy2 | March 20, 2008 6:07 PM
If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.
I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.
Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.
This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM
If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.
I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.
Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.
This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM
If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.
I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.
Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.
This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM
We can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone agreed with the rules before we began: Florida and Michigan votes wouldn't count if they moved up their primaries.
Clinton agreed to these rules. If she had lost, she were running behind in those states, she would be fighting a redo.
Any way the complicated and arbitrary rules were set up would have changed the outcome.
If California had not moved its primary up to Super Tuesday from June, Obama probably would have won California.
It would be a disaster to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Posted by: saraz1 | March 20, 2008 5:57 PM
Why are the reporters such idiots who write this garbage, Wait, Wait I have to say they are not idiots '' we are '' or that is what they think. What difference does it make who pays for the revote , do the voters not have a mind of their own, the reporter who wrote this garbage would have you believe everyone would have to vote for Clinton, I think the voters of michigan would vote the way they saw things & not be swayed by who paid.
Posted by: jrs6776 | March 20, 2008 5:56 PM
We need and pray for Hillary as an opponent for McCain because she is a treasure trove for us. She has so much trash and garbage in her backyard. Just wait and see what a spectacle it will be come November. McCain can denounce, renouce and reject all the dirty tactics coming at Hillary but he can't stop independent bloggers throwing cr*ap and sh*t at Hillary 24/7. There is youtube for us. The films and videos are ready. The right is ready to fight. Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove are our greatest assets. We will trash her to nothing.
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:50 PM
Oh Hillary, go ahead and skirt party rules or stretch them to the limit all you want. Go ahead and team up with your political crones to try to buy elections in Florida and Michigan. You're just confirming that you are bought and paid for by special interests that you'll owe big favors to if you win the white house. And, you'll probably lose to McCain. Keep it up dummy.
Posted by: JHG_sec405 | March 20, 2008 5:50 PM
Mr. Balz,
I think your last two paragraphs hit the nail right on the head. This does look like a Clinton buy out of the potential re-vote. It is disgusting.
The Michigan and Florida state parties created their own disenfranchised vote problem.
In the background while reading your article, I could hear the Beetles recording, "But money can't buy me love..." I hope it can't buy Michigan votes either.
Posted by: ChokoChuckles | March 20, 2008 5:48 PM
Why should Michigan get to vote again? First they tried to dominate the contest by moving their primary up to the beginning, contrary to party rules. Now they demand a "do over" to be the deciding factor in the end. Why not have every state vote "again", so they can "pick the winner"? This is nonsense, they blew it the first time, let them live with the consequences.
Secondly, Shillary is flat out lying when she claims is about "making sure Michigan voters' votes are counted." She didn't give one rat's behind about making Michigan's votes count when she was ahead. Now that she is behind and will say or do anything to give her campaign a chance to win, she claims to be the champion of democracy. What a fraud!
Posted by: RealChoices | March 20, 2008 5:42 PM
I wonder how much Rush Limbaugh kicked in. He's been doing every else he could to support her candidacy, from urging Republicans to vote for her to providing creative inspiration for all the race-baiting her campaign has engaged in.
I would not be surprised if he is a silent partner in the funding effort.
Hillary/Rush '08! A natural ticket.
Posted by: B2O2 | March 20, 2008 5:42 PM
aepelbaum,
I hope your reports from the trenches of PA are true. They sound a little too good, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and my support behind Obama to finally put an end to this "Weekend at Bernies" fiasco.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:38 PM
As it is, Hillary had won more states, she has more popular votes and she has more pledged delegates than Obama. She leads by over 120 in total delegates. Moreover, Hillary has also raised money from sources outside the US such as from China (Norman Hsu) and Kazakhstan (Giustra).
It is about time the DNC stop this nonsense and ask Obama to withdraw. I don't understand why Howard Dean has not asked Obama to step aside for Hillary.
Hillary should be crowned the nominee for the Democrats and let us have Bill Clinton as the VP.
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:38 PM
The argument that Obama refuses to wear a flag pin which disproves his patrotism is just an unintelligent argument. It just is. Bush wore a pin, Cheney wore and pin and they deceived the American people about the need to go to war in Iraq. Is that patrotism? The lobbyist and special interest folk probably wore flag pins to Washington as they pillaged this country wealth.
Posted by: gal7764 | March 20, 2008 5:35 PM
HA HA HA HA HA !!!!
THIS A RIOT !!
OBAMA WENT ON LARRY KING AND SAID "WHAT IS NEEDED IS LESS SPIN AND MORE STRAIGHT TALK !!"
LET'S SEE - THAT WOULD BE HIS TELEPROMPTER ROUTINE, HIS ROCK STAR FLOAT ROUTINE, HIS RUN FROM THE REPORTERS ROUTINE. HIS SERMON RATHER THAN Q&A ROUTINE.
HOW ABOUT TRUTH AND ANSWER FIVE MOTHS AGO WHEN YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT REV. WRIGHT AND REZKO? HOW ABOUT YOU JUST GO BACK TO ILLINOIS.
OBAMA IS A FREAKING LIAR AND HE CAN ACTUALLY GET ON TELEVISINON AND SPEAK THINGS LIKE THIS WITHOUT LAUGHING OUTLOUD.
WOW. DOES HE NEED PSYCHOTHERAPY.
NO WHITE HOUSE FOR NUT CASES. OR LIARS.
STRAIGHT TALK. I'M SURPRISED HIS TEETH DON'T FALL OUT WHEN HE SAYS THAT. VIDEOS BELOW OF MR. STRAGHT LIAR.
HE'S TOTALLY AFRAID OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BECAUSE NOW THE WORD IS OUT ABOUT HIM.
Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his videos - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. And two ads the Republicans are working on. Enjoy the previews!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M
Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 5:34 PM
...and a math tutor.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:33 PM
Pennsylvania governor, according to his interview with pbs, would not be surpised, if Obama campaigns his way into the victory of Pennsylvania primary. These divisive Clinton's tricks with reverend Wright, etc. would probably help Obama to make the governor's words about his Pennsylvania's victory to become the truth.
Posted by: aepelbaum | March 20, 2008 5:31 PM
Yup...just think if Obama was in Hillary's position and he flip-flopped on MI & FL, on national TV, for his own personal gain...what would you be saying then?
You really need to get some objectivity sheep...bah....bah...
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM
How does Obama think that by shutting out the voters in Florida and Michigan that he could win those votes in a General Election?
Those two states won't vote for him, and the states whose voters sympathize with MI and FL won't vote for him, either.
Obama is up the proverbial creek without a paddle, so to speak. gw.
Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM
Yeah, well, it might be evidence of an inside job, but the Clinton proposal is made with the reality of the convention in mind, and in this case, Clinton needs Michigan. It is a legitimate reason for the Clinton campaign to do what it could, but, what will matter is that the Michigan and Florida voters get their votes counted.
I feel confident that Obama would do the same if his campaign felt it was in his interest. I suppose the Obama campaign feels it has the edge in a contest that will be governed by the DNC. The numbers in the future primaries will probably determine the final outcome.
Regardless, we once have Florida in the mix, mucking things up for the voters. The state government there is messed up.
I doubt they will any time soon figure out how to do the right thing for their voters. At least the Michiganders are trying to resolve this before the convention.
What a pitiful mess.
Posted by: zennhead614wheatland | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM
These two states knowingly broke the rules. Dem leaders in both voted to move their primaries and figured they'd get away with it because "we're big swing states". Enough!
Voters in those states should be upset with their officials and no one else. Maybe next time, they'll follow the rules. If we let them off the hook, then primaries will start on Jan. 21, 2009 for the 2012 election.
Hillary is obviously desparate and is hurting her party, thus her country.
Posted by: capone1 | March 20, 2008 5:25 PM
Mrs. Clinton, as her released records show, was the very active supporter of NAFTA. Pennsylvania voters should know it now well. Obama is more in the stream for Pennsylvania voters, and they should vote for him by majority. I hope that the release of Mrs. Clinton's tax returns by 4/15/08 would finish the trick and show Pennsylvania voters exactly who the right choice and who the wrong choice is.
Obama in 2008.
Posted by: aepelbaum | March 20, 2008 5:25 PM
This financing is being underwritten by sleazy friends of Governor Jon S. Corzine and Governor Edward G. Rendell?? How interesting? Their names sound familiar. Aren't these the two Governors, who had the same experience as Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York? Birds of the same feather flock together. All of them including slick Willy had extra-marital affairs and all are adulterers. This just reminds me of the slime and sleaze of the Clinton years. Can we expect the same old slime and sleaze again in the White House with Bill Clinton as the de facto President running and chasing 19 year old virgin interns in the Oval Office? I can't even imagined he had sex with Monica when Hillary was at home.
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:24 PM
Where was Hillary concern for MI and FL voters when the decision was made to exclude FL and MI. The governors of FL and MI disenfrancished their own poeple. The truth is she thought she'd have this nomination wrapped up by now and would not need MI and FL.
Posted by: gal7764 | March 20, 2008 5:24 PM
Calm down folks, its not that bad. Life goes on. Really, it does - trust me.
Posted by: J_thinks | March 20, 2008 5:21 PM
As a MI independent (who las leaned liberal for several years) I was very eager to vote in the primary this year.
Even though I am not a member of either party I have a right to vote in either party's primary. It is a dynamic that will be lost in a primary re-do. I voted in the Republican one this year since I knew my Dem vote would not count. I decide to pick the least objectionable candidate.
Also, even though I am not a member I wrote my reps and both state and national parties several time to complain about how our primaries were being handled BEFORE the election took place. Our State parties had solid reasons for bucking the rules, but they also broke them and we will have to pay the penalty.
I think the DNC was foolish to allow the whole thing to get to this point. They look very arrogant and pointless, to ignore two large states (one with some very serious economic issues)makes one wonder if they really can offer the leadership needed to get our county back on track. But I will wait and see.
It is tough in MI right now. I am a lucky to have a decent job, but I am watching more and more white collar jobs being shipped overseas every single day. It is almost as if the companies are in a race to see who can outsource the fastest and with the most creativity. The concerns in our state right now are in a hyper-mode and very accelerated and I worry that by ignoring our very real and hard to solve issues the rest of the country will lose out on some real debate and resolutions for what they will soon see.
Good Luck.
Posted by: krygel | March 20, 2008 5:21 PM
hazwalnut sized brain,
Ah...your true colors. Left-wing conspiracies and an isolated black voting block that are just being mindlessly controlled by liberals. Obama, the perfect manchurian candidate to sway the black votes...whoops he wasn't supposed to win...back to the Star Chamber...you can't be serious...oh yeah...you're a dinosaur...and in more ways than one...think about it.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:19 PM
mcrochip;
Once again, let me try to correct this disinformation:
In caucus states, people know how it works. (Texas excluded--I have no idea what their problem is.)
There is not much bullying that goes on for a really simple reason: if you live in a community of 6,000 people, you're going to run into those people again at the supermarket or the gas station. People make their cases and they make their choices and they respect the decisions. A lot of New Englanders are accustomed to standing up in public meetings and having their say--and they don't announce their income bracket before they speak. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter if you live in a doublewide by the transfer station or the best house in town, you get to speak and your opinion gets considered.
Anybody who believes that caucuses are some kind of terrible exclusionary event has never been to one. It's a different way of life and if you don't like it, don't live in a caucus state.
I don't think Maine, to name one caucus state that was slandered by Clinton's political operatives, is going to be particularly receptive to a bunch of folks "from away" telling them their caucus system is wrong. It's worked for many decades, including in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was running for President. Funny there were no complaints then.
Posted by: newcanoes | March 20, 2008 5:19 PM
sbgamatt, are you Carl Rove's assistant or one of Rush Limbaugh's boys?
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 5:17 PM
Just recently we were reminded of trying to form a more perfect union.
An obvious flaw of our current voting system is the primary where politicians, candidates, and parties get to cut deals to determine the leadership of this nation at the expense of the voters and the citizens of this country.
We need to remedy the primary system so that all voters get to participate despite the cries of lawyers and political hacks.
That remedy needs to be afforded now. Paramount to any candidate winning is that our nation, our people, ALL OF US, get simply the opportunity to participate in the election of our President.
We form a perfect union when we face and solve our tests during the most difficult of times, and do not push them off until politically expedient.
Denying the vote to Michigan and Florida will render the Democratic party apart. It is divisive to let two large states twist in the wind, and the men and women in it, while politicians fight and argue whose fault is.
The simple answer is give the vote to the people. Find a WILL Democrats, not EXCUSES, to get the re-vote to Michigan and Florida.
Posted by: camasca | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM
mnjo wrote: OBAMA is a sham, and hoodwinked the nation. Why should we be stuck with him?
We told you so!!! Now let's concentrate on HRC.
___________________________________________
sergio wrote: She'll kiss a baby while she is stealing its candy.
Yes, yes, yes... This is getting better and better. I'll get the popcorn.
Posted by: waterfrontproperty | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM
The media as well as the FBI should investigate if the Michigan Revote is being finance by the likes of Norman Hsu, whose donations to the Clintons come from illegal money laundered by the Communist Chinese. The same goes with the dirty money donated to Bill Clinton by the Kazakhstan uranium deal. Clinton greased the wheels for this massive deal in exchange for $100 million. Bill Clinton used the $100 million dollars to pay for all his daily expenses. It finances everything he does as a former president: trips, travel, hotels, dining, rentals, escorts, s*x, virtually everything he does can be billed to his foundation. He even had his charity pay for his Starbucks coffee each morning.
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM
Thinker...svreader...a_bigone...interesting that these mindless sheep give themselves such arrogant, high and mighty names?
Don't forget to feed all your cats, erase all that porn off your computer, and check on your Mom upstairs.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:12 PM
LABC --
I've done everything I posted, and far more.
Some people accomplish a lot in their lives.
Others, very little.
You're clearly in the second category and cannot imagine how a person in the first category could so much more than you have.
But, again, thank you for providing me a window into your soul.
Its not a pretty sight.
Posted by: svreader |
****************************
SVRETARD, you sit on these boards day after day, building up your imaginary resume - which will probably include you walking beside Martin Luther King in Washington, DC someday - and tearing it down with your thin-skinned, repetitious lies and innuendos. You are not fooling anybody. Nobody believes your s**t. If you were half those things you claimed, you would come here with better things to say instead of cutting and pasting what you can find from right-wing propaganda sites.
As for soul-searching? I imagine yours is like the basement room you are typing this from: dank, dirty, and smells like socks and chinese food. Does your mother have to clean up after you all the time?
Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM
He's not where he is just because he's black, Scrappy, but he wouldn't have been selected by the left wing of the Democratic party if he had been anything other than black. They knew a black man who could speak like a preacher could pick up most of the black voters, Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, they make up about 15 percent of the electorate so they can't elect a candidate without help.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM
Mr. Obama has hoodwinked and hijacked this Democratic election. By refusing for months to answer the questions We The People - by walking out and driving away from these questions and refusing to answer - he has left people who voted for him wondering what they have done. The answer is, they've done nothing. Mr. Obama and his campaign of sly political (not new, not different) marketers have bamboozled and gotten him past those questions until he had delegates in his bag. Cheated - refused to answer questions at this interview.
Obama spent TWENTY YEARS with Mr. Wright as a Father Figure. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq, He refused to put his hand to his heart and pledge allegiance to the United States flag as American troops are dying in Iraq to protect it. He's on the Oversight Committee on Afghanistan and HASN'T DONE ONE THING IN OVER A YEAR - FOURTEEN MONTHS - NOT ONE MEETING. Our troops can sit there and die. Obama cares about HIMSELF. His wife tells us she's never been proud of America. Sounds like a religious problem to me.
This man intends to continue on in this church and his relationship with this rabid racist man who speaks against this country. This man should never be President of the United States.
Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his videos - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. And two ads the Republicans are working on. Enjoy the previews!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M
We reap what we sow. And Mr. Obama is a cheat. Thank God for Karma!
Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM
"Nobody concealed that to finance revote is possible only by using heavy weight donors. How elese would it be possible?"
This is a classic. The Clintons can't fathom Obama's funding method. The only "heavy weight" they could find is Rezco, a ridiculous lightweight by Clinton standards, both in terms of dishonesty and money donated.
I think the lack of corrupt money behind Obama's popularity is why they have to categorize him in the only way they know.
Lets see, very popular black person...well must be an entertainer and a thug.
If the people of Michigan wanted to vote again, don't you think we would have heard from more than a handful of them by now?
So Bill's idea is, how about if we create an election bought and paid for by just my candidate?
Posted by: shrink2 | March 20, 2008 5:08 PM
You are right Vilberg. Plus, I actually have a life. Good night. SVRetard, YOU go ahead
Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 5:07 PM
Good. Now step off, harpy.
Posted by: poortrekker | March 20, 2008 5:05 PM
hazwalnut sized brain,
Yes...you're right it is more than emotion...paranoia...conspiracy therioes...comfortable with the safe moderate candidate from a bygone era that is about to face charges much more serious than Rezko...close the blinds...lock the doors...its okay...the light and fresh air feels great...come on out...she's gone.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:05 PM
"Michigan do-over would be Clinton-financed contest designed to save her candidacy."
That's exactly what it is. Hillary will do anything to win. She used a nuclear bomb (race card) to kill the Democratic Party. For her anything goes. One should also questions if any money is coming from Communist China to fund the Michigan Revote. The Clintons ties to China are very troubling.
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:04 PM
Hey, "Thinker" ( the nickname is ironic, right?)
"He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq,"
So, not wearing the lapel is unpatriotic, but voting to send them to that war isn't?
Didn't Clinton say that her years of experience on both side of Pennsylvania Ave help her decide to vote for that war?
Based on previous posts of yours, I know thinking is not your strong suit, but try.
Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 5:04 PM
All the comments here mean nothing unless you are saying every American has the right to have their vote counted.
You can call it stealing, trickstering, fixing, whatever you want to call it but it all boils down to what I just said - Every American has a right to have their vote counted. Nothing else matters more, and Dean should get off his high horse and compromise to get the votes counted.
It is only one person's fault and that is Dean. gw.
Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 20, 2008 5:03 PM
Actually Villberg is right...goodnight
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 5:00 PM
This is why I cannot vote for Hillary. Her and Bill have all sorts of cronies and contacts and people to make things happen.
She is just part of the good-ol-boy club so to speak.
Posted by: mjk2210 | March 20, 2008 4:59 PM
thinker...LOL! Boy, I guess you right-wing nuts are scared little hypocrites. Oh well,...
Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:58 PM
So Hazelnut, are you saying the only reason Senator Obama is where he is now is because he is black? If so...stop it...please...it is making you look foolish.
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM
All of you. Stop it.
If you live in FL or MI you should be embarrassed that your legislature advanced the timing of your primary at the risk of your disenfranchisement. They gambled and you lost. Next time elect smarter legislators.
And if you live elsewhere, you got to vote and. presumably, your vote counted. Now move along.
Posted by: vilberg | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM
Only a Clinton who wants to win at any and all costs (including ripping her own party apart) would try to change the rules after the fact. Amazing that she had no problem with Michigan and Florida not being counted when she thought she was a shoe in. Now that she's a long shot she's crying foul? Give me a break. Why hasn't anyone in the press core asked her if she would be pushing this hard and yelling and screaming this loud if the roles were reversed, and she was the one with the lead. You can bet your bottom dollar she would be saying, "These are the rules of the game, and we have to play by them." She really is amazing, and in the worst possible way.
Posted by: jaykeith_29 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM
LABC - you rock!
Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM
Mr. Obama has hoodwinked and hijacked this Democratic election. By refusing for months to answer the questions We The People - by walking out and driving away from these questions and refusing to answer - he has left people who voted for him wondering what they have done. The answer is, they've done nothing. Mr. Obama and his campaign of sly political (not new, not different) marketers have bamboozled and gotten him past those questions until he had delegates in his bag. Cheated - refused to answer questions at this interview.
Obama spent TWENTY YEARS with Mr. Wright as a Father Figure. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq, He refused to put his hand to his heart and pledge allegiance to the United States flag as American troops are dying in Iraq to protect it. His wife tells us she's never been proud of America. Sounds like a religious problem to me.
This man intends to continue on in this church and his relationship with this rabid racist man who speaks against this country. This man should never be President of the United States.
Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his video - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. The second one is the ad Republicans are working on. Enjoy the preview!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M
We reap what we sow. Mr. Obama is a cheat.
Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 4:56 PM
Mr. Balz' take is really quite a take!
The subjectivity of media - and The Post first of all - exceeds all limits.
Nobody concealed that to finance revote is possible only by using heavy weight donors. How elese would it be possible?
Clinton gets donors - an open list, nothing hidden - and that is bad too for obamists, icluding Balz.
Posted by: vanitsky | March 20, 2008 4:51 PM
The dieing cat always howls the loudest.
Posted by: OldCoot1 | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM
It hurts her because it is another case of maipulating the system to her and his husband ambitions.
* She release the papers yesterday, but there are 27 days missing and many pages are censored.
* Mrs. Clinton still is not releaseing he income tax reports.
* Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have not publicly to explain the interaction of their team and the Canadian Ambassador and/or the Canadian Consulate in Chicago on the NAFTA issue.
It hurst her because everybody knew that the Democratic Party had opposed the actions of both Florida and Michigan...but now that she is behind in the popular votes, now that she is behind in the number of won States...and she is also behind the number of delegates...the real purpose of this exercize, she is trying to chnge the rules in the 3rd period of the hockey game.
Give me a break!
Posted by: PCM011 | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM
Brian, you can't feel my anger because it's not there...disappointment is and I suppose you can say that's an emotion but that's not why I'm supporting Senator Clinton. I'm supporting her because I have checked her record and she has most of the time championed issues that I support, two of which is affirmative action and more rights for the working poor of this country. But she has much more experience. Senator Obama has no experience except his half-hearted efforts to help minorities and poor African Americans, even while he was assisting his friend Rezko as a slumlord who failed to maintain his buildings to a minimum standard of living even though Senator Obama secured government funds for him to do so. The left wing of the Democratic party chose Senator Obama to run so that he would take the black vote from Senator Clinton. They didn't think he'd win, just that he would cause Senator Clinton not to win. They wanted a Chris Dodd or some other left wing democrat to win. Too bad for them. They've made a huge mess, and we have Howard Dean to thank for that as well as the Michigan and Florida mess. He could have punished the 2 states by allowing them to seat only 1/2 their delegates as the Republicans wisely did, but he is that stupid so here we are.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM
Look, maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't the DNC expressly forbid any states from moving their nominating contests earlier than February 5th without permission? Weren't Michigan and Florida expressly warned that their party delegates would not be seated at the nominating convention if they violated this rule?
They played chicken with the national party, broke the rules, and received exactly the penalty they had been promised. What's unfair about this? Why especially should Michigan and Florida's delegates be counted, other than that they'd likely provide a boost to one particular campaign? The whole thing reeks, and what's amazing about it is that while the campaigns, the state parties, and the DNC are squabbling over how best to provide these two states with unwarranted exemptions from a rule they knowingly broke, their party is being discredited around them and an ugly nominating process is all but handing the general election to John "Another Hundred Years" McCain.
I say that not as an Obama supporter, but as someone who loves the Democratic Party. It drives me absolutely nuts to see us doing this: we're chopping our own feet off, doing absolutely everything in our power to delegitimize ourselves and whatever claim we may have had to being the truly post-political party.
Posted by: manalive | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM
I wonder why Hillary's campaign hasn't release a glowing analysis of her WH schedule...if she has all this experience here's her chance to show it and tout it...how come all I hear are crickets?
I thought they were the campaign gurus with the proven and experienced candidate?
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM
SVREADER: although its been intellectually dull talking to you, one last thaught before Im done for the day, you claim "At least the Clintons are patriotic." is that what that means when you authorise america to go to war, and kill 4000 americans, is that what you mean when you say " Obama let people who voted for him freeze to death.
That's a completely different level of sin". your right, although thats a complete fabrication, if it were true, i geuss it would be differant than being responsible for bankrupting the nation, and murdering 4000 americans
Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:49 PM
LABC --
I've done everything I posted, and far more.
Some people accomplish a lot in their lives.
Others, very little.
You're clearly in the second category and cannot imagine how a person in the first category could so much more than you have.
But, again, thank you for providing me a window into your soul.
Its not a pretty sight.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:49 PM
Left --
She's doing it because she can win and she will.
Let people vote.
That's their right.
Please stop gloating.
Its far from over.
When it is, I doubt you'll find very much to gloat about.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:45 PM
LABC --
Yeah, I was really stupid to contribute to the united negro college fund, NAACP, promote affirmative action, march for civil rights, etc, etc, etc.
You really put one over on me.
I'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time I'm asked to contribute.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 04:33 PM
**************************
Yeah, you are just a big teddy bear of love with sugar sprinkled on top to black folks everywhere. I doubt that you marched for anything other than your high school marching band, that the last time you shared anything or contributed anything was a cold bug. Your words on this board and others do not match up with your "deeds". You are a venomous fishwife whose only contributions to this board and others are your tired faux news generated gossip. You are one fedora and a closet away from being Matt Drudge.
Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:44 PM
This is nothing more than an attempt by Clinton supporters to buy the election. At one point Ms Clinton said that the Michigan vote wouldn't matter. Now, when it matters, she is happy to have surrogates pay for a re-vote. Michigan and Florida did not abide by the rules. Period.
Frankly, I get a bit tired of seeing the posts of bigots here. If you don't like Hillary or Obama, just say so.
Posted by: jordy1 | March 20, 2008 4:43 PM
That would be easy...see all your post...Hazelnut's post...and Harried. The difference is we are calling Hillary and you on your crap. We are saying your arguments are nonsensical. All these racial arguments are just distractions.
Obama drops in poll today...well so what? The polls change daily and he already has won more votes. It also shows Hillary losing to Mccain...Harried...do you really expect her to win after the process which she is a part of says she lost? We are not just young and blind followers. Most of us were Clinton supporters before we saw the real Hillary Clinton. I do not know any of you lunatics from Adam but if your views seem to be really collectively consistent and represent the worst part of politics and sadly the democratic party. You have no desire for party unity. You only care about advancing Hillary to a definitive loss. You are really a sad lot.
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:43 PM
"The integrity of the Democratic nomination contest already is in question...and this only adds to public cynicism."
Why on earth didn't Rendell and Corzine raise HALF the money and then open the other half up to Obama supporters? Problem solved equitably and everybody looks good. If the BHO supporters couldn't come up with their half they'd look bad so that wouldn't be a problem.
Once again, I have to wonder if there are any adults working in the HRC campaign.
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Hillary also needs to check herself with the experience line...helped broker the Irish peace settlement...you spoke to some women about their lack of involvement in the process...you were not at the table and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise...you were on tour, while the real negotiators were at the table...you have not fooled this Irish American with your targeted lies. Nice try...but I got another stone you can kiss.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM
.
And let's not Kid ourselves...
Even if they Redo MI and FL,
Obama will STILL win, and Everybody knows it.
She cannot make up the deficit in popular votes NOR delegates.
This FACT makes her actions even MORE despicable.
She CANNOT WIN. So, WHY is she doing this?
.
Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:41 PM
She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue.
-------------
Do you care to explain how Hillary Rove Clinton has the moral high-ground on the re-vote? She left her name on the ballot after agreeing that the vote would not count.
Here's what she agreed to:
"I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina..."
It seems to me that leaving her name on the ballot is "participating" in the process. So, she cheated, and now she wants to claim the spoils of her cheating. How childish can you be.
Posted by: katie11 | March 20, 2008 4:41 PM
This needed to be worked out between the State parties and the DNC in accordance with the rules that were laid out when the decision was made. The decision said that if they worked out a way to hold a re-vote AFTER Feb 5th, that those votes would count and those delegates would be seated.
Both campaigns agreed to, and signed their names to, the decisions at the time. For one side to try to now claim its unfair is entirely disingenuous because they weren't complaining when they agreed to it.
The state party had an opportunity to fix this twice and failed -- they should never have agree to hold the primary outside of DNC rules; and, once they did, they needed to work with the DNC to work out some other arrangement. Having Hillary's supporters show up with a briefcase full of $$$ because she now needs the vote doesn't really pass the smell test. What happens if, in order to hold this primary in such a condensed time frame or to lower costs they end up reducing the # of polling places? Are the ones that might get cut ones that are predominantly serving Obama's constituency? There seem to be issues that come up during just about every primary or caucus and almost all are dismissed because of the implied impartiality of the process since it's funded and conducted by the state, who should only be looking out for its voters, not any specific candidate. If this were funded almost exclusively by any individual campaign, that presumption of an impartial process is GONE.
This needed to be done by groups that, at least publicly, have no rooting interest in the outcome -- the state party and the DNC. And at this point, I'm giving the DNC more of a pass than the state party. The DNC isn't doing a single thing that they didn't tell the state party they were going to do when there was still plenty of time for them to change course. They didn't and now they're stuck.
Posted by: gmtiffany | March 20, 2008 4:40 PM
breww21 --
Your own words discredit your far more effectively than anyone else's ever could.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:39 PM
Ok. ENOUGH! Democrats - let's just get behind a candidate once and for all - instead of all this insult-hurling!
Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 4:37 PM
An Observer: "Hey Obamma, those are ugly shoes!"
Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!
Another Observer: "Hey Obamma, you have BUSH ears!"
Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!
ETC, ETC, ETC!!!
Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 04:28 PM
******************************
Obama: "Nice to meet you. Hope you will vote this year."
Harried: (inner voice) "HE's black. He's black. He's black!! If I shake his hand, I will get black cooties!"
a tad more realistic than your dialogue, seeing as he never said those things.
Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:37 PM
Hillary should try running for a Senate seat in PA after so loses hers in 2012, because she will after all this...and her drawn out and ugly divorce from Bill.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:36 PM
The GOP may give new meaning to vile and sleazy when it comes to elections...but the Dems give new meaning to stupid.
The last two nominees the Dems have left standing are Obama and HRC. Unbelievable. They have just handed the GOP another 4-8 years of incompetence and corruption in the White House.
But the Dems can pat themselves on the back as they once again go down to defeat that they were so PC that they nominated a black or a woman.
Morons. They deserve what they get.
Posted by: checkered1 | March 20, 2008 4:35 PM
Thanks jhtlag1 and SueB2.
I know about facts and logic in politics.
I just moved out of DC and things seems so much more reasonable outside of the beltway.
It's a shame that these two things have so little meaning in choosing our elected leaders and running the country.
Posted by: biercuk | March 20, 2008 4:34 PM
hazwalnut : your missing the larger picture I answered myself in the post, no I dont care, and B hillary wasnt responsable for that it was her husband, its just with svreader logic you could make an argument about that, SVreader if your going to make a post please make an intelligent observation, or please go back to whatever you do, which is probably not much of anything. I mean honestly do you believe half the things you say, I mean I geuss I could read the national inquirer and come up with the same things you do, but really dont you get tired of always being wrong
Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:34 PM
LABC --
Yeah, I was really stupid to contribute to the united negro college fund, NAACP, promote affirmative action, march for civil rights, etc, etc, etc.
You really put one over on me.
I'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time I'm asked to contribute.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:33 PM
Obama trying to avoid "primary" voting should not be surprising to anyone.
Obama is for Co*k and A** (Caucus) like Saudi King's court, or old Russian polit bureau.
At this time, he can not win when masses vote.
His taflon is gone. He is just trying to survice.
Posted by: SeedofChange | March 20, 2008 4:31 PM
Facts:
---Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. He was not asked to do so. He did not do this in Florida.
---Obama then asked his supporters to vote "uncommitted". Hillary won anyway.
--- He was the only candidate to run ads in the State of Florida. Hillary won anyway.
---The DNC said that FL and MI could seat their delegates if they re-voted.
---The DNC said the re-votes would have to be financed by the states or the candidates.
----Hillary's campaign has come up with the money to do what the DNC said they should do in order to seat the delegates. Obama has not pledged any money although they are free to do so.
----Obama has not come up with any plan to make sure the delegates are counted. All he says is that he would go along with what the DNC says. The DNC has spoken.
Where is the Unity candidate??
Posted by: joep1 | March 20, 2008 4:31 PM
Michigan (and Florida) officials decided to break party rules that they had agreed to - they should be the ones facing the blame of voters, not Obama, Clinton, or the DNC. Why should Michigan get a do-over? What makes them so special or better than all the states who did abide by the rules? Rules, by the way, that both Clinton and Obama agreed to.
Of course, now that Clinton is losing the race, she's all gung-ho to include Michigan and Florida.
Michigan and Florida jumped up the schedule to try to be relevant and it bit them in the rear, instead losing any relevancy to the Democratic nomination. You reap what you sow.
Posted by: r32rsilver | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM
Hillary is just a girl only been in the Senate 7 years what does she know.
WH she spent all her time keeping Bill in line.
Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM
breww21 --
Wright was Obama's "Spiritual Advisor"
Now we know that his advice was "God Damm America"
At least the Clintons are patriotic.
Stop acting "shocked, shocked" that Bill got a BJ.
Obama let people who voted for him freeze to death.
That's a completely different level of sin.
I hope Obama likes REALLY warm weather.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM
Rat-the:
I know who you are. If you want to discuss, call me at 443.822.9067. You have until 5PM today.
Posted by: ewexler1 | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM
breww: Do you really hate all people who've had extra-marital affairs, especially the spouse of the person who had the affair, even though that is probably at least 50 percent of the US population? Are you that naive or is that the only derogatory thing you can say about Senator Clinton? What else do you have? Without quoting the Rush Limbaugh crowd...
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM
hazwalnut sized brain,
I can feel your anger...isn't that an emotion?
and svtalker...man you've got issues...but that's all the attention I'll pay you because you know how much black folk love the Kool-aid...oh, that's right...you've never been to a black persons house.
Start saying it...yes we can.
Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM
An Observer: "Hey Obamma, those are ugly shoes!"
Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!
Another Observer: "Hey Obamma, you have BUSH ears!"
Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!
ETC, ETC, ETC!!!
Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:28 PM
This may be a little off topic, but I just would like someone to explain to me this "Experience" that Hillary has been touting so much.
Was it her time in the White House, becuase if that is what it is, then I wouldn't be touting that. Lets see, was it her failed attempt to reform health care? Maybe it was her support for the NAFT treaty that she now denouces, Coveniently just before the Ohio Primary.
I just don't understand the logic of the Hillary supporters. Is it becuase our Economy was good when president BILL Clinton was in the white house that you magically think Hillary will bring the same. How about the shame and embarrassment that the Clintons brought to the white house with the Sex Scandal and legal troubles, do you remember that as well.
Please, a little help here with what good SHE, that being Hillary, Not Bill, brings to the table.
Posted by: bgaeta | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM
Svretard is sooooo angry. Careful, he might cry. Me no like Obama, whaaaaaaaaa, he mean black guy who ignores me.....whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
And if you think that was dumb, take a look at the last 50 posts of this supposed CEO of a silicon valley company, this championed of poor people in the slums, this liar, slanderer. The closer to the nomination Senator Obama gets, the crazier SVRETARD posts get. Have you placed Obama at the grassy knoll yet, SVRETARD?
Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM
Neither Clinton nor Obama were concerned about disenfranchising Florida or Michigan voters when the DNC punished those states for violating DNC rules.
Now Clinton has become a great advocate for voting rights because she must have the votes for any chance to win the Democratic nomination.
I'd respect her for standing up for a principle because it's the right thing to do. She doesn't gain my respect for standing up for a principle only when it benefits her.
Posted by: Wolfeman | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM
Obama is in with the Daily Machine. He did get people kicked of the ballet in his State run. That is normal for Chicago so it just makes Obama run of the mill F head.
Maybe that is why he is so cool on the issue. The rest of America is not like IL thank god. He is playing with fire but is so clueless does not even know it.
Please Please if you are going to sound like the GOP go over there and stop pretending to be and Dem.
Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM
I don't even understand why this is even a debate we are having. The rules were set by the Democratic Party and the Michigan and Florida parties broke them. End of discussion.
And people think Hillary has any moral high-ground here? Give me a break! She was happy with these sanctions when this contest was her presumed coronation, but when she lags in the delegate count and wins when no one else is on the ballot, she wants a re-do. I see. So, essentially, Hillary Clinton gets to change the rules when it benefits her. Moral high-ground, indeed.
Here's how this is going to play out: Hillary's minions will succeed in getting a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. She will win Pennsylvania and woo enough super-delegates to win the nomination, despite Obama having more actual delegates. An entire generation of young voters will stay home in November, as will a record number of African-Americans. Independents who would have voted for Obama (or even Hillary, had she won in a legitimate manner) will mostly vote for McCain. McCain will win in a landslide and the Democrats, once again through their convoluted people-pleasing, will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be a stellar performance.
Posted by: mlepage | March 20, 2008 4:26 PM
"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03
"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
Posted by: LouiseFletcher | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM
tintin08 what are you talking about? that is not my post...silly
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM
scrappy --
Please provide evidence for your statement.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM
SV READER: So with that logic, blame the aquaintance of the person responsable, than we should blame Hillary for being immoral and decetiful having Bill lie about his relationships and cheating on his wife, than surely because hillary has been with him as his wife she should be held accountable because she must of know what he was doing.......does anyone ever think like that...honestly,, no maybe some right wing nuts but who needs them, give them guantanamo, and let the conservatives form their own nation we would be better off without them, hey maybe you can go there too cause you probably have more in common with them than liberals
Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:24 PM
Obama the political expedient operator is shown in full bloom on the question of Michigan and Florida: speak from one side of his mouth publicly while doing all he can in the backroom to kill the re-vote. Is he a supporter of equality for all or just when is convenient to him?
Posted by: paul2150 | March 20, 2008 4:23 PM
and.....your candidate Obama is beginning to drop in the polls. How is he going to show he's still viable if he doesn't win any states? He should be hoping for lots more chances, but he's losing his confidence and you're losing confidence in him. It's too obvious. When you're afraid to have your candidate compete in a primary, that says it all. You don't care if he loses in the general election in November...which he will without Florida and Michigan...you are too emotional to think straight.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:23 PM
Left --
What did I say that was racist?
Why?
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:22 PM
and.....your candidate Obama is beginning to drop in the polls. How is he going to show he's still viable if he doesn't win any states? He should be hoping for lots more chances, but he's losing his confidence and you're losing confidence in him. It's too obvious.
Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:21 PM
Hazwalnut...Hillary appeals to the worst type of people...people like you and svreader...people who will pull out race, class, sex, age, fear....whatever to steal an election. Not this time. America at least the one I live in knows that we have some common problems that the best candidate will solve regardless of color or sex since it affects everyone regardless of color or sex. This 1950 style backwards thinking that pits race against race and class against class has divided this nation into red and blue states much like gangs. We are not a gang. We are a nation. We will not be divided by spewers of hate and ignorance. We are leaders in this world because we solve our problems not use them as weapons against ourselves. You notice how I keep saying ourselves because after this primary we are still one nation that has problems that we must solve. Be divisive and basically stupid is not going to solve a thing...period. Mrs. Clinton could do well by acknowledging all the BS she has put out during this primary and work to heal the rift SHE created.
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:21 PM
WOW...I think I've read it all! Someone needs to remind everyone perhaps in BOLD NEON LIGHTS, perhaps even flashing ones, that the state legislatures of Florida and Michigan had initially approved having their Democratic primary on a specific date which may have coincided with the Republican primary. This most likely for cost efficiency. It was mutually agreed to by the state parties. It is the state legislature who decided to move the primary. It was at that time the ELECTORATE or VOTERS should have stated their position to THEIR state representatives in light of the demands of the DNC to not move their primary before Feb 5th or be stripped of the delegates at the convention. It is NOT Obama, it is NOT Edwards, it is NOT the DNC...for that matter it isn't even Clinton. The responsibility rests with the state legislature for having made the decision they made.
This sounds like someone who is driving down a thoroughfare at 100 mph and gets stopped by the police only to tell them there were no signs posted. However EVERY state's driving handbook notes that on such streets there is a reasonable speed limit to be adhered to and 100 mph is way over it.
In circumstances like that usually the fine is reduced...not expunged. And signs are posted at the required distance intervals.
So what I say to ALL the complainers after-the-fact, there is no excuse for ignorance of what could have been done at a time before the state legislature ratified this change. And yes I know it's a hard pill to swallow...but true.
My suggestion, similar to ideaology of the fine reduction as stated in my aforementioned example, would be to seat the delegates in either fashion...(a) split the delegate count equally over all the candidates at the time of the primary or (b) split them equally amongst the remaining candidates at this time. Either is more prudent than not seating them at all.
This then puts more pressure on the state party and state legislature to maintain their integrity in the interest of the people of the state...not politics! It also makes it more important for the electorate/voters to play more of an integral part when they feel civil liberties are at issue. They have the right to call, write, email, etc their concerns to their state legislatures and respective state/local party officials. Know your ward leaders!
I think what I've suggest here is the fairest and most prudent way to proceed so as not to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan while at the same time duly representing each state at the convention. All for the purpose of participation there and NOT throwing this nomination process deeper into chaos. The were rules in place and the rules and by-laws committee should enforce them.
EVERY citizen, be it natural or naturalized, had to take American Government. This should be the lesson perhaps we didn't learn in class.
Posted by: ewjazzed | March 20, 2008 4:20 PM
MShake --
Get off your high horse, fella.
Obama won in Chicago by using legal loopholes to knock everyone else off the ballot.
The members of the cult of Obama are digging themselves a deeper and deeper pit with every post.
Make sure Jim Jones Barry Obama mixes up enough Kool-Aid after you lose.
I wouldn't want any of you to miss the chance for one final drink with him.
Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:19 PM
How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!
Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008

No candidate is legitimate without Florida and Michigan. Think Bush 2000.
Mary Anne