The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

HRC doesn't really care about the voters in Michigan or Florida. That's a red herring. The big fish is to leave a window of doubt open for Hillary to claim she got robbed of the nomination. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, she will challenge Obama as the legitimate nominee. She will undermine the Democrats and the Democratic process, because she only likes the rules when she can bend them on their ear and they work for her. Why is she even in the Democratic party. HRC is happy to set this party ablaze if she doesn't get the last dance. The Democrats are walking into a meltdown on this whole Florida/Michigan thing. This campaign was Hillary's to lose, not Obamas. He has been the surprise. His success is coming from real people not interest groups or strong arms. No one said it was going to be easy.

Contrary to Hillary Clinton's new "fact" (see her Oregon speech about counting the votes as is because she won) that she won Michigan and Florida fair and square, we are moving into dangerously murky water everytime a staff writer fails to state that it was not a contest in Michigan and Florida because no one else was running. I live in Michigan and stayed home because my candidate was not on the ballot. I didn't really see the value of going in to vote "uncommitted" and so did not, as with many of my acquaintances.

Clinton broke rules, then didn't care, then cared, then re-defined the terms of the win and now just plain, flat-out, won fair and square. See how that happens? Maybe she has Jedi powers. All she needed was for Rendell to get on Meet the Press and state how the hardest thing to do is race against yourself?! I love it Get me some popcorn.

hcsubbarao:

"In Michigan they should give all the 'uncommitted' votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes."

LOL!! Why not give Obama all of Clinton's votes in Michigan too, since they "might have" voted for him had his name been on the ballot (using your same logic)?

. DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the 'uncommitted' votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them
In future, the primary election rules should be same as national election rules. Then, there will not be this long political circus!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

** Why should Obama settle for just 50% of the vote? He withdrew in order to show his
** high moral character and stop people for voting for him.
** Posted by: kamdog

The MI primary was just a straw poll. The candidates stayed or left the ballot according to their own political calculations.

The most credible explanation for Obama's decision to remove his name from the ballot is he expected Clinton to win.

Nokidding1, More of the same is what you get with Obama in the White House. Ineptness. We would be riding the George Bush wave only he would have "changed" our fall. Instead of our barely having something to hang on to with Bush, we would be free falling with Obama. Hillary has Bill and Bill's experience, and Bill knows how to deal with other countries. Before we go getting something new, we need to get this country on solid ground. I'm tired of falling into the unknown. I want something familiar--like Bill Clinton byway of Hillary. How can anyone think that Hillary and McCain will lead in the same way is beyond me. There's a reason why we want someone with some type of experience also. They will be dealing with other countries and people--everybody knows Bill and the Clintons (they love him), and must be extremely multi-tasked and able to withstand pressure. Have you seen or read or heard of Obama being in a situation such as that to know how he can hold up under pressure? The little pressure that he has always ruffles his feathers. Not to mention that he distances himself from reporters, etc, because he doesn't want them asking him certain questions. Kind of reminds you of Bush--the same ole same ole.

vmi98Mom, you should care and thank Kevin1 for the website link. If you would take the time to think about it, then you would clearly understand that Obama has been lying, is being deceitful, and feigning ignorance all because he wants to become president. WRIGHT IS HIS ADVISOR. A man who hates white people--white American people. Do you think that 20 year friendship will stop?? No. What was one of the comments, Wright stated that he would have to distance himself. That means that he will start using the back door until everything blows over. Based on Obama's refusing to wear the flag, hold his hand over his heart, say the pledge...all of which is the foundation of our country's UNITY shows that Wright has, does, and no doubt will continue to play an influential role in Obama's life. By the way, I am black and I am from Florida. Many of us was not aware, until the night before and day of voting that our votes would not count. That doesn't sit right with me, and if there were anyway of suing someone for taking away one of my civil rights--the right to vote, I would. In essence what our voting amounted to was nothing more than a poll, so for that reason, we haven't voted, and we need to. Someone has to get Hillary elected and this country saved. Obama with his lack of experience will be nothing more than...a humiliated scapegoat for the Republicans.

the magic number of 2025 delegates needed for the democratic nomination is derived by taking the total delegate count, subtracting the delegates in Michigan and Florida, dividing by 2 and adding 1

2025 is therefore 50 percent plus 1 of the currently "to be seated" democratic delegates. IF Florida and Michigan were to be "counted" the total number required for nomination would go up appropriately.

Let's play by the "rules?" Since when do rules matter? This is the Democratic Party. The Party determines its nominee. But the Party also espouses the view that everyone get the right to vote and have their voices heard. For the Party to allow the politicians in Michigan and Florida to strip the voters of their voice in the selection of the Democratic nominee is a GOP type trick. No true Patriot would allow such a thing. No true Democrat would advocate such a thing.

As I said before, both sides stink on this. Both sides are hypocrites. Just like Al Gore screwed up in Florida in 2000 (refusing to advocate for a statewide recount--win or lose), the Democrats are screwing up their primary. HRC and BHO need to get real and start acting like leaders instead of selfish GOP clones.

BTW, this is from an Obama guy. Unfortunately we throw our honest and upright politicians out like old bathwater. It's this kind of stupidity that will ensure that McCain wins in November. It is this kind of stupidity that means HRC will find a way to win the nomination (does anyone really believe Obama has enough experience in dirty fighting to beat Hillary at these games? Please. That's the reason most of us want him in the WH. We are tired of the stupidity. We just hope the American people are smart enough to realize that McCain and Clinton are more othe same, while Obama brings some measure of change to the conversation. BTW, if experience mattered, we'd be asking Jimmy Carter to run again. Bill Richardson would have won the nomination in February. Feinstein would run. So experience be danged and don't start with that 35 years BS either...)

Anyway, if the Democratic Party refuses to recognize the voices of the people in Florida and Michigan, then it is abdicating its role as the protector of civil rights. It is abdicating its role as the party that demands equal access to power. Obama should be the one waxing eloquent on the issue, but he's too scared that he might lose. Rightly so. Because he wouldn't be seen as the savior of the party, he'd be seen as a loser just like Al Gore was in 2004. Why? Because too many people buy into the GOP notion of win at any cost. Sad really.

I think that we should load up all the MI democrats in a bus, take them to FL and set them loose on a beach in Boca and then have a sand wrestling match for the entire contest. Old carmel colored wrinkled ladies vs pasty white fat chicks from Flint. 8 mile road bangers vs. Marielos from Miami. Retired RV people from MI vs. retired RV people from MI.

Why does anyone waste their breath and typing to propose new solutions to these primaries. They had their chance. They missed the boat. And now they have to cry. Anyone who blames Howard Dean because these dysfunctional families couldn't get along needs to have their head examined.

The Obamates are mishandling the problems in Michigan and Florida. By their non support of the propositions concerning a re vote in these states they are putting themselves at odds with the voters in these states. Why are they afraid of these states. They could have compromised and supported the re vote who knows they might still win.
But sad to say they are showing their inexperience on these issue. My fears have been confirmed. Barak is weak and indecisive and his cunning has put him at a very big disadvantage.
Just recently he made two big booboos: His family's Kennedy connection and the "100 years war" misconception about McCain's speech about Iraq. He is toast against the Republicans. Don't forget Wright and NAFTA.

Hillary has tried the "kitchen sink" attack, and all that's happened is her poll numbers continue to sink.

She pretends she is the best qualified to get a phone call at three a.m., then blames Bosnia-gate on being sleep deprived.

And today we find the "universal health care" champion put her campaign workers' own insurance policy at risk.

Even with his lousy bowling score, it is clear that Barack Obama remains the far superior candidate.

Obama-Webb, 08!

Whoever is admin should mark svreader as spam.

He or she is most likely a bot from the Heritage Foundation.

As the Clintons continue their deranged, delusionary death march to Denver, one must seriously question HRC's sanity. To fabricate a lie of epic proportions regarding her Bosnia fantasy, knowing full well that the media would expose the duplicity, is not the action of a rational person. She recounted the heroic tale with a crazed smile and hand gestures simulating the life threatening run across the tarmack. Meanwhile, CBS was airing footage of her strolling with her daughter to be greeted by a little girl spouting poetry and bearing flowers. HRC and the Big Dog- "I did not have sex with that woman!", are both pathological liars. How anyone can continue to support these two white trash con artists is utterly amazing.

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

First Democratic voters in Florida couldn't figure out how to punch the hole next to Al Gore's name, and ended up punching a hole or two over for Pat Buchanan. Whose fault was that? Not theirs!

Now voters in Michigan and Florida elect officials who change primary dates in violation of national rules, leading to the loss of their delegates. Whose fault is that? Not theirs!

Whenever politicians do anything that, afterward, voters don't like, voters seem very quick to rationalize the blame away from themselves. In this case, though, voters elected the officials who made the changes, and voters supported those changes...right up until it looked like the nomination was going to be close and that those delegates would matter.

Florida and Michigan want to be able to vote twice now, once to influence the momentum of the national race and again to select delegates. No other state gets to vote twice, so don't disenfranchise the voters in 48 states to appease the voters in two states who refuse to take responsibility for their own mistakes!

Stupak's proposal will only make matters worse than they already are. Dean is right for sticking to his guns, and the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated.

dhecht:
What four candidates were on the MI ballot? Yes, I did look it up and four candidates pulled their name OFF the ballot (Richardson, Biden, Edwards and Obama) leaving Dodd (who had dropped out of the race at that time and Clinton. It even said in the article (CNN.com) that she was probably doing it for her advantage later in the campaign. HMMMM, sounds familiar....

Stick by the rule. If Michigan and Florida voters want 100 year McCain, then let them have him. The people of Florida aught to be smart enough to know that their republican goveronor and republican legislators put them in thois spot then they can vote for Bush III.

Rules are rules. If you people are not smart enough to see that anyone that is willing to violate the rules to get in office will violate the rules after in office then you deserve Bush III also.

Hillary Clinton is losing because the voters don't want her and now she is sucking up to that "right wing conspiracy" she complained about when Bill was making out with Lewinsky.

I have said it before women love men that are dogs. Look how women are backing Hillary and she stood by her man that had affair after affair.

Obama will win regardless.

Here's another 'proposal'. Leave Hillary's name off the ballot in one of the next three states (e.g. PA), then 'apportion' the delegates from her 'win' in Michigan, and the delegates from PA, too. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

How can a 50/50 split for Mich be assumed to be fair? Maybe Obama would have won more than 50 and he is getting ripped off by a split down the middle. We'll never know so we should just forget about it.

Here's another 'proposal'. Leave Hillary's name off the ballot in one of the next three states (e.g. PA), then 'apportion' the delegates from her 'win' in Michigan, and the delegates from PA, too. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

How can a 50/50 split for Mich be assumed to be fair? Maybe Obama would have won more than 50 and he is getting ripped off by a split down the middle. We'll never know so we should just forget about it.

cali_snowboarder:

What bed is he laying in? He didn't break any rules, did he? What the hell are you babbling about?

That is it,

I am a Democratic leaning independent. I voted for the loser Kerry, loser, in 2004. The only reason I am against Republicans is their meanness-- but thank you Obama supporters, I needn't go too far. I will now vote for McCain -- who I am convinced will win in November.

someone should tell hillary to f* off.

i want to see her start crying again...

i think it's so presidential for her to cry.

it's 3:00am in the morning at the white house the phone rings.

what does the president do?

she starts crying.

BOOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO...

BOOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO...

BOOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO...

BOOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO...

give me a friggin break.

hillary? take your stupid 3 pony show (hillary, billary, and chelsary) and go back to arkansas and finish milking those male donkeys. i know that was such a fun family affair for "y'all".. or is that "all y'all" since it's ozarks plural?

There were four Democratic candidates on the Michigan ballot. Why is it so hard for reporters to get this right? If they aren't Michigan voters they can at least Google it. I guess the Obama press release said only Clinton was on the ballot so that is all that matters.

Here's a fair idea.

Give Hillary all the Michigan delegates because she was the only one who shamelessly left her name on the ballot when everyone else agreed to play by the rules.

And give her all the Florida delegates because she was the only one who shamelessly campaigned down there too.

That seems fair in my imaginary Clinton world.

Clinton would be "...denied the momentum boost that she could get with a re-vote in May or June."

Hmm, that sounds odd. How do you know she would would win a re-vote? Seems awfully presumptuous to me. Who are you, the Wizard of Oz? Nostradamus reincarnate? The Great Swami?

It seems more like a stupid idea to me.

Clinton would be "...denied the momentum boost that she could get with a re-vote in May or June."

Hmm, that sounds odd. How do you know she would would win a re-vote? Seems awfully presumptuous to me. Who are you, the Wizard of Oz? Nostradamus reincarnate? The Great Swami?

It seems more like a stupid idea to me.

Why should Obama settle for just 50% of the vote? He withdrew in order to show his high moral character and stop people for voting for him.

He choice to prevent voters from choosing between Himself, Hillary, and Edwards should garner him the highest of all praise, and all of the remaining votes.

What is wrong with playing by the rules both the Clintons and Obama agreed to? Oh, I know. The couple that wants to be president again, the couple that screwed the first Clinton's presidency because his daily need was greater than the country's, the couple that was all but conceded the nomination before the voters were allowed to vote and screwed up the coronation want another chance to screw the country, so we change the rules again, to favor them. I knew there had to be a good reason. The Clintons are phonies and all those whiners and cry babies who want to game the system so a woman can be president are phonies. Get over it ladies. Try again with a genuine person next time. Michael

What a bunch of maroons.

Between the caucuses, the hybrid election/caucuses, delegates, super delegates, and state conventions (all vestiges of the desire by party bosses to keep control of the process), the Democrats have a bastardized primary system that is anything but democratic. And now it's returned to haunt them.

Here's democratic:

-Each state holds a primary election whenever it bloody pleases.

-At the end of the process, tally up the popular votes of all the states. Done. Finished. That's all.

No delegates. No super delegates. No caucuses, which cater to elites and those with time to burn, with their badgering and bullying and lack of privacy. Never again the fear of a brokered convention.

Just voter who in the privacy of a voting booth, cast their ballots. One voter. One vote.

And while the party geniuses are making these reforms, they can tell NH and IA to bugger off. No more privileged position.

As for this election cycle, the Dems deserve to lose. Howard Cowboy Dean and the power-broker clowns who put him in a position of responsibility deserve humiliation and defeat and the eternal enmity of the voters.

The wages of stupidity are failure.

Speaking of "Drinking Kool-Aid": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

You all are drinking the Kool-Aid from both candidates (and I admit to drinking Obama's Kool-Aid--it's yummy!). But on this issue, the only thing either side cares about it gaining an advantage. Do you HRC folks truly believe she'd be clamoring for the inclusion of these states if the situation were revesed? Do any Obama people (besides me) truly believe that he'd be so set against seating the delegates if he were in Clinton's position? If you do, you aren't as smart as you think.

Let's face facts: the Democratic Party sets the rules for determining its nominee. But, this is a party that purports to support the right of everyone to cast their ballots and have their voices heard. Those two ideas are in tension and someone needs to step in and do the responsible thing. There is no way that Michigan can be given to HRC (even if Obama's folks pushed uncommitted because his name wasn't on the ballot).

Florida, we all know, was pushed early, at least in part, because of the GOP governor and state legislature. But those results have a bit more legitimacy because HRC and BHO were both on the ticket. However, when you throw an election without the full opportunity for voters to meet the candidates and engage in a debate on the issues, the results are suspect. (Let alone the diminished turnouts and the whole changing of the rules mid-stream problems.)

If the Democratic Party doesn't have the political will (BTW, the DNC should pony up the money. These candidates are raising hundreds of millions of dollars and they and the DNC can't spend $25 million to rerun the primaries? Puhleeese.) to send Obama and Clinton back ino those states to carry on a conversation about the issues and redo the vote, then the absolute best thing that can happen is an apportionment of the votes. Michigan gets split 50-50 and Florida is counted as is.

But it also proves what a mockery this party has become. Instead of being responsive to the will of the people and the idea that the people whould choose the candidate, it continues to be the plaything of powerful men and women who care for little but their own glory. That's Clinton for sure and that's my guy Obama, disappointingly.

I'll drink the Kool-Aid, but don't try to tell me it's grape flavor when it's really red (Yes. Red is a flavor to some of us in the know!)

There are so many factors that bias toward the well-known candidate that any assignment of delegates would be absolutely arbitrary. It could short-change Clinton just as easily as short-change Obama (not to mention the delegates that would have gone to Edwards and perhaps others). Worse, it would accomplish absolutely nothing except assuage the egos of the handful of officials who violated the rules. Any assignation of delegates would be no more legitimate than simply rolling the dice.

This is the Robert Mugabe solution to Michigan, give delegates regardless that no one but Hillary was running. Its a stooges solution. Tell this rep to shut up and go home. Solutions like this are stupid and unfair and offensive to people who actually voted in other state's legitimate primaries. No give aways in Michigan please.

Don't forget all those "disenfranchised" Republicans who have no else to vote for besides McCain. By pulling out, Romney and Huckabee made their votes not count.

Stop the spin here. It's a Party primary. The Party makes the rules, everyone knows what they are at the beginning. No one is being "disenfranchised". That's something Republicans like to do in the real elections, not something Democrats do in primaries.

Splitting or somehow arbitrarily assigning delegates like this or any of the other fanciful ways the Obamabots are proposing is not only the least democratic and least Democratic thing conceivable it is idiotic to the level of George W Bush. Both candidates have won fewer states than any potential nominee in history. Yet one is at least saying let's make sure we get all of the votes in. This isn't about cutting off Hillary's momentum. If Barack Obama can't win Michicgan or Florida then he just probably shouldn't be the nominee...same for Hillary. Let's get real here and put aside the disgusting win at any cost calculations that seem to be swirling around the Obama campaign. He is better than that. It's not a matter of whether Hillary wins PA by a large (enough) margin. If Obama is that great why aren't we talking about him winning this state, and Michigan, and Florida. You don't avoid holding an election, even if it is a re-do, because you think you'll loose...and then claim to be the rightful nominee. So very, very sad. If Barack or Hillary is the nominee I want America and the World to know that he or she actually won it! Barack should use some of his high-minded judgment and make the right decision to ensure EVERY vote counts, not just the votes for him.

I think the party should just follow the Republicans lead and cut the number of delegates in half and apportion them along the lines that Rep. Stupak has suggested. This would punish the Michigan party for going against the rules and also give them fair representation at the convention.

I'm sorry, but to me it is obvious what the Clinton campaign is doing: if they cannot win in 2008 they want to make sure that they get a shot against a Repub incumbent in 2012 to get the White House. They do not care about the democratic party, nor do they care about the will of the American populace. The whole Michigan/Florida vote/revote is a ruse in order to create enough doubt in independent voters as well as Repubs who are sick of the religous/neocon right who would consider voting for Obama. If the democrats cannot see through this charade then they deserve to lose the white house to McCain and his new right-wing friends. Justices Roberts and Alito are only the beginning thanks to your short-sightedness and misplaced vitriol.

>>>About private financing of American elections

There is a problem with private financing of an election. Questionable accountability is definitely an issue, since none of the contributing parties for the private funding would not be considered honest brokers in the arrangement. That is, those persons who contribute private funds for a public election have a stake in the outcome, while public funding typically comes from a non-interested entity that does not have a stake in the result. The MI delegation (including the governor) are Hillary Clinton supporters who a stake in ensuring that she comes out ahead. That's why the private option is mentioned by her people. Many people, even Clinton, are suspicious around that option and the perception that this leaves in the minds of voters.

MI (and FL for that matter) wants its delegates to weigh in on the presidential nomination, but it needs to pay for the revote. That's the penalty that MI signed up for when it decided with full knowledge of the outcome to shift its date for the primary.

MI and FL results should be validated. Obama should not be awarded any delegate from MI since he chose to take his name off the ballot. This is the only fair and viable solution. No matter where Obama people file their law suits, the result would not change.

This is Howard Deans mistake and no voter should be punished for it except for Mr. Dean, who should immediately resign as the chairman of DNC.

"I recognize that the DNC feels that both Michigan and Florida knowingly violated party rules in moving up their primary dates, but it seems unfair to punish so many for the actions of a select few,"

That is true and fair observation. Solution: seat MI and FL delegates on 50/50 basis and stripe of the MI and Fl superdelegates votes since they "knowingly violated party rules."

People
Let's get real. Everyone including the state parties in FL and MI who pushed for earlier dates after agreeing to the DNC rules and the state legislatures there who approved the dates for teh "early " primaries KNEW they were running a risk and took it anyway. In many aspects of life , there are consequences for one's actions and there is accountability. The state party officials, legislators and others like Debbie Dingell who wanted to become heroes and be courted by the candidates now have to 'fess up that they screwed up. Admit it and pledge to never let it happen again and , oh yes, maybe work to create a MUCH better system for the parties to select their nominees.
Also, let's make sure that people understand that these contests are NOT elections. They are "preference primaries" . No one is sworn into office after these primaries since no one is "elected".They are devices to determine how many delegates pledged to which candidates will go to the various conventions where those delegates will select their party's nominee ! Hence , no one is "disenfranchised" by not having their "votes" counted, any more than those people who live in states where caucuses are used to determine delegates to state and/or national conventions.
Please get a grip on the facts and realities and recognize the consequences of lousy decisions.

Politicians never make rules that apply to them. What good is it to even have rules if they can be broken?

Stick to the original rule.

I knew ther was a reason why I never voted for Bill Clinton.

No good. The only solution that will work in Michigan is one that either splits them 50/50 or allows for a revote. There's a good chance that Obama could beat Clinton there, evidenced by the recent poll at www.realclearpolitics.com that shows Obama doing better in Michigan than Clinton against McCain. I think he has more support there now that he's well known than he ever had back in January. If anything the fairest would be to give Obama more delegates from the state, if a revote is not possible.

In all of the big-state contests that have occurred--California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia--the Democratic turnout has dramatically exceeded the Republican turnout, by as much as 2:1.

With two exceptions: Michigan and Florida.

Now why do you suppose that is? Do you think maybe it had something to do with the fact that they were told the elections weren't goint to count? What about all those would-be voters who didn't want to waste their time with a pretend election? Too bad for them that they didn't shuffle their routines around to make time to cast a symbolic vote in an election that they were told wasn't going to count but--surprise!--is going to be counted anyway?

I don't care if you have to get a babysitter. It's your civic duty to make time to vote in a pretend election, just in case they change their minds later and decide to make it unpretend. What's that? Your candidate isn't even on the ballot? SO?!

Talk about disenfranchisement.

Fact of the matter is, proportionality doesn't matter - if the numbers stuck as voted initially in Florida and Michigan (with Obama getting MI's uncommitted), Hillary still is 50 or so shy of closing the gap.

That said, Stupak might be onto something. Gives the state voters a reduced voice but still a voice, and it helps to bring this assorted mess to an end.

Plus my man's gettin' national press. $10 says he runs for a statewide office soon....

Anyone else actually interested in how the Electoral College (the only vote that counts) is lining up:

McCain (324) vs. Obama (205)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

McCain (278) vs. Clinton (229)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html

josakeif:

You are indeed "missing" that the total winning number grows to 2,208 if
Florida and Michigan delegates are counted at full strength (majority, plus one).

Rick Sloan, Communications Director for the International Machinists and
Aerospace Workers Union, today emailed this scenario to the media:

1247 Delegates: Hold on to the 1247 pledged delegates HRC has amassed since
January 3rd

1497: Maintain the support of the 250 super delegates who have endorsed her
candidacy already

1648: Add 151 pledged delegates to her total with ten point wins in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico

1860: Add another 122 pledged delegates by winning or placing a close second in
Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota

2046: Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations adding 186 pledged delegates to
her total

2095: By seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, she gains 49 uncommitted
delegates or super delegates

2215: Secure the votes of 120 of the 330 remaining super delegates to surpass
the 2208 delegates to be nominated.

It's not "fuzzy" math.

josakeif | March 31, 2008 04:10 PM

I agree!

This is the best argument I've heard recently. Serious.

Hi Rozz, can you provide links please? I saw the article in the Washington Post and in Politico. But I want to read more about his "goofing" up during votes. Thanks.

50/50 split is basically the same as not counting the actual vote at all. I believe that's the measure of what Wolfson was referring to: Hillary WON more actual votes in both States (even in Florida where his name was still on the ballot).

I suggest first that the votes be apportioned in Florida as voted. Both candidates were on the ballot and technically neither campaigned there. This is to Clinton's advantage.
Second, Michigan should be split evenly as only one candidate was on the ballot. This is presumably to Obama's advantage.
Third, in response to the breaking of the rules, these two states have their delegate numbers cut in half. This is the same rule applied to the the Republicans. It would seat delegates but would send a message. This would be to the Democrats advantage.

In the end, as others have stated, it won't make a difference in delegate count, would seat delegates and would put an end to the debate.

Call it the Compromise.

Obama was an absolute fool for removing his name from the Michigan ballot, in a transparent attempt to suck up to Iowa voters. He made this bed, and now he has to lie in it.

Clinton's attack dog Wolfson was on Andrea mitchell today, and she let him say "Hillary won Florida and Michigan" without either calling him politely out or laughing in his face, which is what I would prefer to see. Hillary's people are much like Joseph Goebbels. They understand that the average person is so out of this that if they hear Hillary won often enough, they will believe it.

There is no way any fair minded person can justify anything other than a 50/50 split in both states. To do otherwise is to be both illogical and dumb.

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a committed and active Hillary supporter, so read into my comments what you will.

I would reluctantly support this plan. I agree with folks who argue that the original Michigan primary was illegitimate, since it only had one major candidate on the ballot. (Although, my disfavor is somewhat tempered by the fact that there was a substantial push for voting "uncommitted," which clearly had an effect on the vote.)

I think the problem with the original vote can only be solved by a new vote. I understand there are practical hurdles to holding another vote, but I believe that, with the support of both campaigns, those hurdles can be surmounted. For example, I truly do not see a problem with using private donations to fund the election, and this is coming from someone who worked for a very agressive government-run campaign finance program. Especially if both campaigns pony up an equal amount of money, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the election is being "bought" simply because the voting booths, monitors, etc. are being paid for by the candidates. To that end, I think Obama should drop his criticism of Hillary's supporters who offered to donate the funds, and pledge to share in the financing.

However, if a new election cannot be held, then I see no other fair way of representing Michigan than to somehow give credence to the original vote. Splitting the delegates 50/50 is an insincere proposal - if you do that, you might as well not seat them at all. I agree with the general idea of not fully recognizing the original votes, and instead allocating a portion of the delegates in some other fashion (e.g. based on the popular vote, 50/50, a caucus of the Michigan superdelegates, etc.).

The bottom line is that I truly believe Michigan has to be fairly and truly represented at the convention, no matter how we do it. Not just because it is an important state for the general, but because it is a fundamental tenet of democracy that the electorate be represented (notwithstanding our absurd treatment of D.C. "citizens").

It is just incredible that Hillary is screaming how unfair it is to not count an election where Obama's name was not on the ballot. If the vote is counted that would be unfair. Not to her of course. But to all those voters in Michigan who wanted to vote for anyone but her. But if you voted for Hillary in Michigan, she wants to fight for your rights. Or more importantly, your vote. Hillary's slam dunk hit the rim and has bounced out.

Maybe I'm missing something but . . . I believe that the magic 2024 delegates needed to reach a majority includes the number of delegates allocated to both Michigan and Florida. If these delegates, by DNC party rules are not to be seated and counted at the convention, then why are they still included in the number of delegates needed to reach a majority? Remove them from the magic 2025 number. This should allow one of the candidates to actually achieve a majority number of delegates needed for the nomination.

Hillary is placing her personal ambition over the interest of the party. She has threathened to fight on up to the convention floor. It is either she wins or the party loses.

Only lawfully cast votes should count in any free and fair election, anything else is election-rigging. Florida and Michigan votes were cast in defiance of party rules. What about people who did not bother to vote because they were told the votes were meaningless?

If Hillary was Al Gore, she would still be fighting GW Bush today! She went to court in Nevada when it seemed like she might lose the primaries in that state. She's destroying whatever is left of Bill's legacy.

Newagent99 - Obama has nothing to do with whether the votes are counted or not in either state. He has always said he would do whatever the DNC decides. The concept that he is the one objecting to counting the votes is another one of those statements that Clinton supporters think that if they say it often enough and loud enough, people will believe it. Looks like you took the bait.

I think it's important to remember that a given party can technically choose any candidate they want. It need not be based on primary elections and caucauses. I'm sure the Green Party and other fringe parties won't have state-by-state primaries.

That being said, I think the Democrats have gone to great lengths to use democratic means to choose their candidate. I think we should drop the Michigan and Florida thing.

Until I read an excellent article by Wayne Barrett that disects what really happened in Florida and Michigan, I may have thought Stupak's proposal was reasonable. The article changed my mind. It is the DNC that is playing fast and loose with the rules, not Florida and Michigan. For an enlightening read, go to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

Kelvin1 -- Who cares? Wright is not running for office and after listening to the whole of the sermons, I've heard Southern Baptist preachers who are worse. Besides, you're voting for opposition anyway.

As to the argument that the Democrats cannot win without FL and MI -- bunk... It is very possible to win without both, as long as you win either PA or OH, and knock of some of the purple western states.

FL and MI made their beds and they can now lie in them. There is no way to undo what has been done. If I were on the credentialling committee, I would apportion the delegates based on the proportion of the delegates held by each candidate for the valid elections and strip both states of their superdelegates for breaking the rules. The actual vote count for these states would not be included -- since it is not a valid measure.

Obama did not disenfranshise these voters; their state legislatures did. It seems interesting to me that Hilary Clinton out of one side of her mouth can talk about how these voters are being disenfranchised, then out of the other talk about how the superdelegates (and the elected ones for the matter)should vote their own conscience and ignore the voters.

i am so, very so sick & tired of clintons trying to get another illegal vote or delegate!! the every so intelligent democratic party of michigan screwed up & moved the primary date & lost it for our state. live with it!!!! and just because bhillary stayed on the ballot & the others played the game correctly & took their names off doesn't make the vote that took place a fair election. why can't you people live with your decisions - what do you teach your children? you live with your decisions - so, live with it people; stop trying to get around your wrong choice. you're out of it - maybe next time you'll follow the directions and do as you agreed. now, stop with the crying and bickering, shut up and go home. believe me, the election will do just fine without you - and maybe, just maybe you'll learn from your mistakes. florida isn't whimpering and crying that they've lost their votes - they're acting like adults!!!!

This NOT an election. No state has any democratic "right" to be considered at all. The party can select its candidates in a smoky backroom if it so wishes. This whole primary hullaballoo is a pointless exercize that unnecessarily divides the party.

How can anything other than a 50-50 split be fair? How many voters didn't bother to vote because they knew it "didn't count" so stayed home. Who knows what the outcome would have been had voters thought it would count & had both candidates names been on the ballot! You can't apportion delegates based on those results, & if they won't do a revote, then an equal split is the only fair solution to end the controversy.

If Hillary would like to weaken the Democratic ticket by staying in the contest with the sole purpose of leveraging herself into the VP slot... well that's her right. You go girl ;)

MSNBC-
OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION

Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre
Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

The WashigntonPost Fact Checker
ABCNEWS.COM
Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father
Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

converse:

Why would a set "average" (calculated BEFORE Jeremiah Wright, etc.) be fair? Shouldn't the special needs of each State's own voters count instead? Instead of an "average" do you think Obama would be willing to apportion the Michigan vote using the same percentage split Hillary got in her best State, Arkansas, I think it was?

LOL! The Blue Meanies trying to play Politics in a RED State! ;~)

McRomney Wins! :-)

I wish both Michigan and Florida would shut the hell up. You made your beds, now lie in them. Perhpas the time to speak up was before the dates were moved. If you vote Republican to hurt the party because you're butt-hurt about that, then you're a lowlife.

Barack "don't count the vote" obama!

Is he in the wrong party?
disenfranchising florida and michigan. wanting the superdelegates to commit BEFORE their state votes.

he's scum

Excuse me, I meant to write "eleven", not "six". Must be getting old!

On principle, it's wrong to give a non-election any determinative value over an election. In other words, if Obama is ahead in the count without counting the Michigan non-election, then it would be wrong to privilege the results of the non-election over the results of the elections.

That said, this isn't such a bad solution. All the Obama camp needs out of Michigan and Florida is for their results to not significantly change the Democratic race, which they won't in this case, and at least nominally counting Michigan should be enough to satisfy any voters who thought the non-election should count. Meanwhile, Hillary can hardly complain about being given six extra delegates when there wasn't a free or fair election.

Interesting proposition...Meanwhile Obama should answer to these 21 questions that are sure to come up by the Republicans if he is the nominee. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGVkY2NhYTkzZjIyYzRkYTIxNTU3MjBiMDVmZmE2Y2Y=

In any event, Clinton needs to win PA by a major amount. But when you see the support Obama is getting at rallies and online, then you have to wonder is she will win PA at all, at this point...

For those interested, I found this new article on the Online battle interesting;

Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83

In a nut-shell, it is Obama; game, set and match and it is not only the "younger" category but the middle aged folks as well.

Stupak's proposal is anything but "neutral". Here's an idea: award all Michigan delegates in the same proportion as all previously elected delegates as of June 4th. That would be fair.

As someone who really wants a Democrat in the White House my only question is, why not do this?

The controversies in MI and FLA are one ore needless distraction for the Democrats who need to be firing on McCain.

Let's do this deal and get past this issue tomorrow. This would mean that we'll have our nominee by the time NC and Indiana vote, and then we can start the national campaign to turn our country around.

In the end, I don't think it matters. Clinton absolutely needs a statewide re-vote in both Michigan and Florida to stay competitive, and I doubt that will ever happen. Every other solution involves splitting up the delegates based on arbitrary rules, and no matter how you slice it, it just won't be enough to give Clinton the boost she needs. Assuming the super delegates break largely for Obama - and it's looking more and more likely that that will happen - even Michigan and Florida won't be enough for Clinton to secure the nomination.

This is a non-starter. How can delegates possibly be apportioned on the basis of an "election" that had only two names on the ballot (Clinton + Gravel)?

In addition, in order to apportion delegates on the basis of the nationwide popular vote, we would need to know what the nationwide popular vote is. But there is no non-partisan way to calculate it (do we include Florida or not? do we include the caucus estimates or not?).