Matthew Yglesias (March 30, 2008)

in the (rather unlikely) event that HRC wins the nomination through all this back door shenanigans, then the Democrats simply don't deserve ever to hold the White House, ever again.

the public bloodstream needs to have the Clintons and the Bushes flushed from it in perpetuity. they are like Godzilla and Mothra, fighting it out amongst themselves while Tokyo gets crushed underfoot.

Posted by rob! | March 30, 2008 3:51 PM

Splitting the delegates 50-50 is a non-starter. That's not representation, that's election by fiat.

Dropping out is a non-starter, since about half of the Democratic Party supports her. Or so an influential Illinois Superdelegate has said.

But FL and MI will not vote, because the committee is controlled by Obama, who has the most delegates.

I think Obama supporters should be more worried about reaching out to Clinton supporters than resorting to name-calling.

Posted by Kuros | March 30, 2008 3:53 PM

I've asked these questions a million times and never gotten an answer: Why did she say, in December, that the Michigan primary wouldn't "count for anything", but change her mind once it became clear that she would need their delegates? Why did she only start talking about "not silencing their voices" AFTER she won their primaries? Is there any doubt, any at all, that if she had lost those two primaries, that she wouldn't give two shits about "their voices"?

The Florida press is starting to turn on her because of her refusal to negotiate. And the only poll I've seen said only 24% of Florida primary voters wanted the delegates seated according to the results of the primary.

Posted by Monster | March 30, 2008 3:54 PM

There are, however, any number of solutions to this problem. One, if Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama, the delegates could be seated no problem.

One-A: Obama could drop out and endorse Clinton, then the delegates could be seated no problem.

Two, 50-50 delegations could be seated without controversy, again removing the concern about MI and FL lacking representation. Three, leaders of the Democratic Party from all factions could reiterate that everybody knew the rules going in and the voters of Michigan and Florida have nobody to blame but their own state party leaders for creating this situation.

Four: Obama could have supported revotes, as Clinton did.

Oh, right, it's only Clinton who could ever possibly be selfish. No blame to Obama whatsoever.

Posted by Al | March 30, 2008 4:00 PM

"I've asked these questions a million times and never gotten an answer"

...and you never will get an answer because, deep down, Clinton supporters have told themselves that she simply HAS TO BE PRESIDENT--ITS HER TURN, so the ends justify the means.

to hell with the Democratic Party, to hell with Obama, to hell with possible down-ticket victories, Hillary Clinton MUST BECOME PRESIDENT. nothing else matters.

Posted by rob! | March 30, 2008 4:01 PM

This is one-sided: ultimately, isn't Barack Obama's "pledged delegates uber alles" strategy the same threat played from the other side? The idea that the pledged delegate distribution is sacrosanct and were it not obeyed, regardless of how many future primaries or superdelegates Clinton were to win, then large core constituencies will stay home or even vote Republican, so therefore the contest needs to end right this very second or more babies will cry?

Selfish, yes, but I don't see either as uniquely sinister.

Posted by dry_fish | March 30, 2008 4:02 PM

Oh, right, I forgot, FIVE: Obama could support seating delegates based on the primaries that occurred, despite the original rules.

But remember, Obama is blameless, it's only Clinton who is causing the problem.

Posted by Al | March 30, 2008 4:04 PM

Monster,

I concur on the "count for anything" remark. I don't know why the press doesn't do a remix of her talking about the importance of those states, set against that audio recording.

Posted by nattyb | March 30, 2008 4:04 PM

Why did she say, in December, that the Michigan primary wouldn't "count for anything", but change her mind once it became clear that she would need their delegates? Why did she only start talking about "not silencing their voices" AFTER she won their primaries?

Well, you answered your own question to some extent (one reason is she thinks she needs the votes now).

But actually I don't think it has everything to do with her thinking she needs these votes, but rather she thinks she'll benefit from the controversy in general:

When she looks like the underdog, the fighter, the victim, she does well with voters, and there are still a lot of states yet to vote. And it's important she win big in all states from here on out if she's going to make an argument to the superdelegates. Thus, her position on FL and MI plays well for her...

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 4:05 PM

Is there any doubt, any at all, that if she had lost those two primaries, that she wouldn't give two shits about "their voices"?

Is there any doubt at all that if Obama had won those two primaries, he'd be the one making the fuss?

I don't see any reason that revotes couldn't be worked out if Obama weren't standing in the way.
And why is he standing in the way? Because he's afraid he wouldn't do so well.

Posted by Swift Loris | March 30, 2008 4:07 PM

March 18, 2008 Gallup Tracking Poll:
Clinton 49, Obama 42

March 27-29:
Obama 52, Clinton 42

Looks like her "kitchen sink strategy" is really resonating with the public.

Now she'll seal the deal on the nomination by launching another non-issue character assassination, get big donors to commit extortion and endorse McCain--again.

Posted by Ella in NM | March 30, 2008 4:09 PM

The problem with Clinton's position on Florida and Michigan isn't so much her position; it's her lack of credibility as a spokesperson for what she believes or values--especially when the chips are down.

If she's so concerned about making our votes count, why is she talking up the desirability of turning pledged delegates? And why would her campaign drag out some of yesterday's Texas caucuses for hours with bogus credential challenges?

This is her weakness, her fundamental flaw under pressure. She doesn't trust herself or the voters with the truth on her vote for Iraq, her support of NAFTA, her opponent's positions, or her trip to Tuzla, Bosnia. She doesn't trust reality enough to be honest with herself or us. And that is dangerous for us because, well, look at Nixon and Bush.

Under normal circumstances, Clinton's a fine Democrat and does well as first lady or Senator. But being President is different--there's a higher level of accountability and consequence and the essence of the job, leadership, has much more to do with trust and communication and judgment.

Posted by Jeff | March 30, 2008 4:10 PM

Prediction -
1.) It will go to the convention.
2.) Obama will have the most pledged & superdelegates.
3.) His lead will be large by that time, buttressed by currently uncommitted superdelegates.
4.) He will agree to seat the Michigan & Florida delegations as is because it will not be enough to overturn his delegate lead.
5.) Clinton screams "Noooooooo"! as a camera zooms out from above.

I'm not as sure about prediction #5. However, from an aesthetic standpoint, I like it.

Posted by John B. | March 30, 2008 4:14 PM

Yes, this is really bugging me. The Clintonites harp on this vote, accusing Obama himself of personally disenfranchising these voters, in all threads on all the blogs and news stories. The Clinton campaign doesn't seem to mind if they poison the well for a Obama candidacy or not, by calling this an illegitimate election.

Rules are rules. I'm sick of the Calvinball rules she's been playing this entire campaign.

Posted by Beth in VA | March 30, 2008 4:17 PM

Swift Loris -

Absolutely not. Sen. Obama has enough of a lead in pledged delegates that I don't think he'd be crying over illegal primaries at all.

Posted by Trigger | March 30, 2008 4:18 PM

"Four: Obama could have supported revotes, as Clinton did.
Oh, right, it's only Clinton who could ever possibly be selfish. No blame to Obama whatsoever."

Al,

Last time I looked, neither Obama nor Clinton was a member of the Michgian state legislature. Whether or not Obama or Clinton supported a revote is immaterial, since he and she didn't get a vote in the matter.

Posted by eltoro | March 30, 2008 4:18 PM

Oh, right, it's only Clinton who could ever possibly be selfish. No blame to Obama whatsoever.

Be specific. Pertaining to this issue, what exactly is Obama to be blamed for?

Not agreeing to having the delegates seated based on the original results? Certainly there is a legitimate argument to be made against this, esp. in Michigan, outside of "selfish" reasons.

Not agreeing to a re-vote? This is a complex issue with many pragmatic barriers beyond the "selfish" pushback by either Obama or Clinton camps. No one side caused the failure for a re-vote in either state.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 4:20 PM

Clinton supporters are out in force today I see.

Kuros:
When Clinton finally drops out, you can bet that you'll see some reaching out towards Clinton supporters. In the meantime though, so far most of the Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign seems to have a crush on John McCain. They've gone at great lengths to insinuate that only a contest between McCain/Clinton would be one in which two capable, patriotic people who have passed the "Commander-In-Chief" threshold.

The implication, of course, is that Senator Obama is neither.

Al:
Why should the person that has what is, for all intents and purposes, in insurmountable lead drop out and endorse a lady who has virtually no chance of catching up in delegates, states won, money raised, or the popular vote?

Why is it selfish for the man who has won the Democratic nomination not to drop out and endorse the person who came in second?

Also, Clinton only supported re-votes once it became apparent that she needed them. Back when she was inevitable she was more than happy to support not counting the delegates.

Obama campaigned based on the rules that were in place. Rules that EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN agreed to. It isn't selfish to insist that he won fairly and be against changing the rules just to give Hillary Clinton a do-over on a campaign she has lost fairly.

dry_fish:
Same answer I gave Al. Obama has won this election under the same rules that have been in place for decades. Expecting to be the Democratic nominee because he followed the rules and won based on them isn't selfish.

Complaining after the fact and using "kitchen sink" attacks against the man who is all but officially the party's nominee IS selfish. Hillary cannot win unless either A) The rules of the primary that everyone agreed to are changed just for her or B) The Superdelegates overturn the will of the voters. The fact that she knows this and her entire strategy is based on this IS SELFISH.

Swift Loris:
Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, like all the other major candidates except Hillary. I'd say that is a pretty fair indication that HE at least was abiding by the agreed upon rules not to count Michigan. Therefore, I reject your insinuation that if he had won he'd be pushing for their delegates to be counted because HE DIDN'T TRY TO WIN!

Posted by Jim Crozier | March 30, 2008 4:22 PM

Is there any doubt at all that if Obama had won those two primaries, he'd be the one making the fuss?

I seriously don't think Obama would be making a fuss about seating the delegates in such a scenario. Call me crazy, but I believe in his integrity. Or at the least, appearing to have integrity is part of his schtick. (And that's good enough for me.)

Back in the real world, why should Obama feel obliged to play nice and seat the MI and FL delegates when everyone agreed ex ante not to? I believe part of the problem with a re-vote was that the Michigan powers-that-be were insisting that anybody who had previously voted in the GOP primary could not vote in the re-do Dem primary. The problem here is that Obama disproportionately appeals to independents, so this rule would screw him.

Posted by nbt | March 30, 2008 4:25 PM

It's the same bullshit they're spewing with caucuses. "They don't count because of some lame ass reason." The rules were set, Obama read them and prepared for them, and now Clinton is fucked because she didn't.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 30, 2008 4:25 PM

"5.) Clinton screams "Noooooooo"! as a camera zooms out from above."

I see that happening. Except that after saying "Nooooo!", she'll throw her microphone at the cameraman.

Posted by fostert | March 30, 2008 4:28 PM

I don't see any reason that revotes couldn't be worked out if Obama weren't standing in the way.

To blame this entire thing on Obama is really ludicrous.

There are too many variables to be worked out; it was bound to end up at credentials committee. And that's what has happened.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 4:29 PM

"5.) Clinton screams "Noooooooo"! as a camera zooms out from above.

I'm not as sure about prediction #5. However, from an aesthetic standpoint, I like it.

I'd prefer

"KAAAAAAAAHHHHHHNNN!"

Posted by Rihilism | March 30, 2008 4:33 PM

Oops, I meant

KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAANNN!

Posted by Rihilism | March 30, 2008 4:35 PM

Jim Crozier @4.22pm,

To add to what you said to Swift Loris:

When Hillary was asked why she kept her name on the ballot in Michigan after all the major candidates withdrew their names in accordances with their pledge to not participate in the Michigan and Florida Primaries, she avoided the question and instead replied, "well we all know the michigan primary isn't going to count for anything."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

I doubt any hillary supporter will actually listen to this because ya know, I'm sexist, or this is part of the VRWC, or ya know, it's hard to accept that you candidate it's a big phony . . .

Oh, and if a HRC supporter wants to argue that "well she meant that it wouldn't count for anything b/c she expected to have it won by then." Doesn't pass the smell test b/c the michigan primary was before Super Tuesday . . .

Posted by nattyb | March 30, 2008 4:42 PM

maybe someone postulating that "Obama would do the same thing it were him" could point out a situation where he, when he was at a disadvantage under the current rules, attempted to change them, wriggle out of them or even whined about them with anything approaching the intensity Clinton and her campaign are now doing. they've done it every step of the way, since Iowa ("caucus are unfair!"). whereas Obama has consistently abided by the rules of the Democratic party.

though it is somewhat amusing that Hillary's, and her supporters', primary argument against Obama this entire election has been a near-constant repetition of "he's just as bad as i am/Hillary is!".

Posted by BA | March 30, 2008 4:45 PM

(John B continued)

6. HRC's outer sheath skin melts revealing the Alien.

7. Al Gore dons the mechanical suit (or not) and drop kicks HRC into outer space.

8. Gore declines the VP nomination.

9. In a frenzy of appreciation for Gore's good sense, he's given the presidential nomination.

10. Obama is discovered silently going over the events of the day, his right hand index finger slowly going from finger to finger on his left hand while the ghost of Norman Rockwell quickly paints him as "WTF Just Happened?" for the rejeuvenated Saturday Evening Post.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 30, 2008 4:47 PM

The Clintons need to be taught a lesson: that the Democratic party is far bigger and more important than they are.

The Democratic party has been around a whole lot longer than the Clintons, has achieved a whole lot more than the Clintons, and has produced far greater presidents and leaders and politicians than the Clintons.

The Clintons would be nothing if it were not for the Democratic party.

On the other hand, the Clintons never were really that great for the Democratic party. And the party only started winning again in 2006 because it was led by someone other than the Clintonite and followed a path apart from the Clintons.

Right now Hillary is destructive for the party, and the party needs to understand that the sooner they shut her down the better.

Posted by cm | March 30, 2008 4:49 PM

The only way this is going to end is if Obama is able to win the rest of the states (or lose narrowly) to make the current breakdown of the MI and FL delegates and popular vote moot. Then the DNC can seat them as they split today, Clinton can declare victory for supporting the rights of voters, and we can move forward with the nomination.

In such a scenario, she might actually have the decency to support Obama. But without allowing Clinton to save face on this, she's unlikely to endorse Obama in a real way, which will be necessary to keep some of her more diehard supporters with him.

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 4:49 PM

Obama was afraid of revotes. In Michigan the reason it didn't happen was that HIS SUPPORTERS blocked it. A revote between Feb. 5 and June 10 would have been consistent with the DNC rules and the DNC said so. You can complain about this or that provision of the Michigan revote plan, but the underlying basis of the objection was fear that Obama would not win the primary. Obama was NOT interested in giving Michigan anything other than completely meaningless representation, i.e. a 50/50 split of the delegation, rendering it irrelevant.

So it's not even a strict adherence to "the rules" that is going on here, it is just an attempt to get nominated on the basis of disenfranchisement. Why won't the Obama supporters at least admit this? I think it is hard for them to admit this, even to themselves, b/c the WHOLE PURPOSE of supporting him is feeling morally superior to others, but it's the hard truth.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 30, 2008 4:54 PM

"5.) Clinton screams "Noooooooo"! as a camera zooms out from above.

I'm not as sure about prediction #5. However, from an aesthetic standpoint, I like it.

No, not going to happen. The approved Clinton survival technique is to duck and run to the armoured car amid sniper fire, while grabbing an innocent little girl's stuff.

Posted by morzer | March 30, 2008 4:54 PM

Out of curiosity, does anyone care about what WE the voters IN Florida think about all this? I mean, WE knew our votes weren't going to count LONG before we ever voted. It just so happened that on that same ballot, there was an important homeowner tax issue up for vote. But not one of the people who are screaming and carrying-on about OUR alleged disenfranchisement seems to bother to bring that up at all.

We weren't disenfranchised. We knew our vote wouldn't count. We voted that day for OTHER reasons. I hope I made that perfectly clear. Quit putting words in our mouths.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 4:55 PM

I know there is a tendency to want to say both sides are always equally wrong about everything, but in this case that's just absurd. Hillary is clearly the one in the wrong here... Jim Crozier laid out most of the key reasons pretty well.

Posted by DJ | March 30, 2008 4:56 PM

Since not a single reporter has asked Hillary this question, can one of her supporters here explain how she was just fine with "disenfranchising" the voters in MI and FL prior to IA, NH, NV and SC -- and it was only after SC voted did her concern for the voters of those states spike?

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 4:58 PM

1) All this whining is chickenshit. Of course, Hillary is going to do anything she can to win.

But it's silly get hung up over her tactics. Cut off her fucking air supply and it won't matter what she says or does.

2) Soldiers on the battlefield don't expect the enemy to lay down their arms and surrender just because of moral arguments.

So they fucking kill the enemy until the enemy surrenders or until there's nothing left.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 5:03 PM

My, my, my.

Lets see the guy who cannot close the deal wants it on a platter. Apparently "the narrow interests of the Clinton family" represent millions of Democratic voters which you have managed to dismiss in numerous ways. It's as if the millions that have voted for Hillary as the Democratic candidate, do not exist. It's as if the millions who still want to vote for Hillary are not to be permitted to vote.

Brilliant test of your Democratic ethics. I guess you kids did learn something during the Bush years.

Posted by stellaa | March 30, 2008 5:04 PM

And when you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slowly turns to stone
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone
Dragged down by the stone.

Posted by Just Karl | March 30, 2008 5:06 PM

"No, not going to happen. The approved Clinton survival technique is to duck and run to the armoured car amid sniper fire, while grabbing an innocent little girl's stuff."

Maybe, but how about...

"BBBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!"

Posted by Rihilism | March 30, 2008 5:07 PM

So it's not even a strict adherence to "the rules" that is going on here, it is just an attempt to get nominated on the basis of disenfranchisement. Why won't the Obama supporters at least admit this?

Really, why should Obama be blamed for this ENTIRE fiasco?

Why not the FL and MI dems who voted for the move-up date? Why not the DNC, who kept the strict rules in place KNOWING this could be an issue?

I don't blame Clinton for trying and certainly I don't blame Obama either.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 5:08 PM

stellaa, yes, your candidate did learn a lot during the Bush years. She learned to vote for wars without reading the intelligence reports, to race bait Democrats, to lie about her experience, and to sit down with Richard Scaife and make nice with Republican sleaze. Congratulations! Your new Hillary 2.0 is ready to go. Now approved by Karl Rove for distribution to liberals everywhere.

Posted by stellab | March 30, 2008 5:08 PM

The blogosphere has lost its mind--seriously. They used to criticize the "group think" of the MSM, but the group-think of the blogosphere is about as bad.

"Hillary only thinks of herself, not the Democratic Party." That's rich, considering that Obama can barely bring himself to say that he even IS a Democrat, and always blames Dems and Reps equally for how bad things are.

Give me a break.

Posted by John Petty | March 30, 2008 5:09 PM

Actually, Hillary's behavior is a HUGE GIFT to Obama.

Obama has her beaten. But the WORST danger Hillary poses to Obama is if she tried to argued that she deserved to be Vice President -- and that her supporters deserve 40% of the political appointments.

As I've explained before, that poison pill would doom the Obama Administration -- every morning would open with a parade of leaks in the Washington Post from Hillary' spies designed to sabotage/cripple Obama's decisions and destroy his Presidency so Hillary could take over in 2012.
Haim Saban would be running the State Department.

But this way, Hillary's own actions provide the justification for Obama to exile her --and Bill -- to the wilderness. Obama now has plenty of examples of Hillary's attacks to argue to Democrats that it was Hillary who poisoned the well.

And if Hillary's backers don't agree, then they can go into exile with her. I personally doubt that NOW,etc are that stupid, but we will see.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Obama's camp blocked one provision of one revote proposal (the "No previous voters" business). Clinton blocked a caucus, which is what the Michigan legislature preferred.

"Lets see the guy who cannot close the deal wants it on a platter."

Winning more than twice as many states against the candidate dubbed "inevitable" in every election story from '06-late '07 is not closing the deal?

Posted by Monster | March 30, 2008 5:12 PM

"In Michigan the reason it didn't happen was that HIS SUPPORTERS blocked it."

Vito,

There is a logical flaw in your argument. If Hillary has the majority of Michigan voters behind her, then her supporters in the Michigan legislature among the Democrats should far exceed those of Obama's. Therefore, Obama's supporters should not have been able to block the revote.

The truth is not that Obama killed the revote, but that supporters of the revote in the Michigan state legislature couldn't get enough votes, even among the Clinton supporters in the state legislature.

BTW, are you any relation to late Chicago alderman Vito Marzullo, who was a member of the Vrdolyak 29 that opposed Harold Washington?

Posted by eltoro | March 30, 2008 5:15 PM

"That's rich, considering that Obama can barely bring himself to say that he even IS a Democrat, and always blames Dems and Reps equally for how bad things are."

Yeah, he's so ashamed of being a Democrat that he decided to run in their primary. Is this the best people have?

And do you NOT partially blame Democrats for this mess? Like the Democrats that voted for AUMF or Kyl-Lieberman?

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 30, 2008 5:16 PM

Lets see the guy who cannot close the deal wants it on a platter.

Hillary isn't closing the deal either. And neither of them is being handed anything; they're both having to work very hard for the nomination.

BTW...The people who will be delivering the nomination on a platter are the superdelegates. Let's see who they hand it to.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 5:17 PM

The worst danger posed to Obama is himself - the guy who can't close a deal.

Why is Obama afraid of a revote?

Posted by Undecided | March 30, 2008 5:21 PM

"Is there any doubt at all that if Obama had won those two primaries, he'd be the one making the fuss?"

I don't believe he would.

"I don't see any reason that revotes couldn't be worked out if Obama weren't standing in the way.
And why is he standing in the way? Because he's afraid he wouldn't do so well."

Rules are for chumps and losers? Come on now, this is getting just a bit ridiculous. THE CANDIDATES AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE RULES.... UNTIL SHE FELL BEHIND.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Pennsylvania is bigger than Michigan --and almost as large as Florida. Yet we are willing to have our primary on April 22 -- whereas Michigan and Florida caused a train wreck simply because they would't obey the Party's decision/rules and move their primary forward a week or so to Feb 5.

Can anyone explain to me why Democrats in the other 48 states shouldn't tell the Michigan and Florida delegations to go fuck themselves?

WE didn't disenfranchise them -- their own stupidity and immature temper tantrums did that.

And why doesn't Hillary's throughly DISHONEST behavior in this matter disqualify her as a candidate??

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 5:25 PM

we live in ft lauderdale and you are saying EXACTLY what my husband has been saying for weeks - exactly

Thanks Matt for putting it into print

Posted by alison | March 30, 2008 5:27 PM

Hey Mr. Petty @5.09pm,

"Obama can barely bring himself to say that he even IS a democrat?"

Could you be a little bit more specific? Last time I checked he was winning the DEMOCRATIC Nomination, so I don't think he has to actually SAY it. Or is your concern that he speaks respectfully towards people who's views he is not likely to share i.e. republicans, then that's not really a critique. That's a compliment.

bitch about "group think" all you want, but when i play the word(s) association game, and the phrase "group think" is used, I tend to think of all the dumbasses who went along with selling this stupid f------ war, like your candidate HRC.

Why don't you make an argument on why you believe Hillary's unfairly losing, and we'll respond to your argument . . .

but just bitching about the fact that yah, the informed ppl who spend all day reading the blogs and news, tend to believe that HRC is putting herself above the party, just sounds kinda petty . . .

Posted by nattyb | March 30, 2008 5:28 PM

"The worst danger posed to Obama is himself - the guy who can't close a deal.

Why is Obama afraid of a revote?"

Why do we have to go over this again and again and again and again?

THE CANDIDATES AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE RULES.... UNTIL SHE FELL BEHIND.

What would happen if Florida and Michigan were allowed to proceed with no consequences? The next election would be total chaos. A disaster. My state moved our primary up to super Tuesday. We didn't flaunt the rules that were in place FOR A REASON. We wanted a voice.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 5:30 PM

I am tired of Obama supporters in the media and Congress telling Hillary to drop out. Get it through your thick heads: She is not a quitter and she is not dropping out. Second, splitting the Florida and Michigan delegates 50/50 gives Obama delegates he has not won, so that doesn't solve the problem. Third, ignoring the voters of Florida and Michigan by once again telling them that they "broke the rules" is a cop out. You cannot disenfranchise millions of voters and still expect the process to be seen as fair and legitimate. Dean is an arrogant fool if he thinks the voters in those states will forget the fact that they weren't allowed to vote in such a closely contested primary. And last, stop blaming Hillary for the incompetence of the DNC. The media keep saying that Hillary can't win enough delegates to secure the nomination. Well, guess what? Neither can Obama! He can only win if he has no competition. Well, Hillary isn't Alan Keyes. She is a formidable opponent who will stay in the race until somebody reaches 2025 delegates. And if you don't like it--Too Bad!

Posted by KA | March 30, 2008 5:30 PM

Still no word from Hillary supporters on her magnanimous change of heart.

Honestly, I want to understand what the positioning is on this.

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 5:30 PM

The democrats should just seat half the delegates from each state, like the republicans are doing.

Posted by mad6798j | March 30, 2008 5:35 PM

"Third, ignoring the voters of Florida and Michigan by once again telling them that they "broke the rules" is a cop out."

BULLSHIT. To say they should be able to do whatever they please and break the rules when it benefits THEM i a cop out.

"You cannot disenfranchise millions of voters and still expect the process to be seen as fair and legitimate."

Oh bullshit. They did it to themselves. Why can't you be honest about it?

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 5:36 PM

She is not a quitter and she is not dropping out.

Quitters never win, and winners never quit, but people who never quit and can't win are stupid.

Posted by Tyro | March 30, 2008 5:37 PM

"Now approved by Karl Rove for distribution to liberals everywhere.".

Speaking of, as well as name calling and reaching out, what's with all the shmoozin' and lovin' going on between Clinton and some of her followers with Karl Rove, Viceroy David Hansen, Richard Mellon Chafe, Deliverance Joe, etc.

Seems rather short-sited, dontcha think? Fer crying out loud, does Clinton, or Taylor Marsh or others think this is a good idea? Somebody needs to sit them down and explain to them that "you don't win friends with salad". Barbs I can take. Insults I can live with. Guilt by association, anyone can overcome. Out and out lies can be mended. It's politics and it's always ugly.

But lovingly stroking the seriously inflated egos and adoringly massaging the nonexistent intellects of the American right-wing "braintrust" makes me feel just plain icky....and FYI, if Hillary gets nominated, I refuse to give Pat "everyone gets an erection when they wrestle" Buchanin a hand job....

Posted by Rihilism | March 30, 2008 5:38 PM

KA is right. This will be over the day after the last primary when the SDs feel safe to go with the leader (Obama) to put him over 2025.

My concern, however, is that even that won't be enough to stop Hillary from fighting. We'll see.

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 5:39 PM

"Apparently "the narrow interests of the Clinton family" represent millions of Democratic voters which you have managed to dismiss in numerous ways. It's as if the millions that have voted for Hillary as the Democratic candidate, do not exist. It's as if the millions who still want to vote for Hillary are not to be permitted to vote."

This kind of argument is something that I can't really understand. In any election one candidate wins and the others loose. They do this according to established rules. Giving the election to the person who won is not dismissing the people who voted for the loosing candidates.

The fact that the primary process takes place over several months allows us to see how it will play out. So, while Clinton has not yet officially lost - something that will happen at the convention - she is in a position where she has little to know chance of winning. Recognizing that fact is not disenfranchising anyone.

Posted by justaguy | March 30, 2008 5:40 PM

"He can only win if he has no competition"

Oh come on, Hillary was some competition. She won what, 12 states?

Posted by Monster | March 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Monster -- I laughed the first three times I saw someone use this name, but honestly, there is no sense in needlessly antagonizing Hillary supporters with it. What do you gain?

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 5:45 PM

And despite all the hand-wringing by everyone on this post, on both sides, this election will still, at the end, come down to the votes cast by the superdelegates.

Disenfranchising the voters!?
Democracy at work!?

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 5:52 PM

Oh come on, Hillary was some competition. She won what, 12 states?

Yeah, I know, primary wins in CA, NY, MA and OH are nothing compared to winning the Wyoming Caucus where Obama got 8,000 votes. You can bash Hillary all you want, but Obama doesn't have 2025 delegates, does he? And he's afraid to let Florida and Michigan revote because he knows he will lose.

Posted by KA | March 30, 2008 5:54 PM

5.) Clinton screams "Noooooooo"! as a camera zooms out from above."

Needs some elaboration.

Emperor: Lord Hillary, can you hear me?
Darth Hillary: Yes, my master. Where is the nomination? Is she safe, is she all right?
Emperor: I'm afraid she died... it seems in your anger, you killed her.
Darth Hillary: I couldn't have! She was alive! I felt her! She was alive! It's impossible! NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Posted by Tim H. | March 30, 2008 5:55 PM

I must say that I feel really bad about Michigan’s and Florida’s not getting to participate in the selection of the nominee. If a means could be devised to hold a second round of voting, including resolving the financing, why shouldn’t it have been done? If, as I’ve read, Obama’s lawyers opposed this option, I would like to see them explain their reasons.

Posted by jason | March 30, 2008 5:55 PM

One thing that amuses me is the repeated assertion Obama was AFRAID of a revote in MI.
Let's be clear that recent polls in MI showed Obama and Clinton with equal support (which compared with the illegitimate primary would be a huge bounce for him).
He was not afraid of losing. He did not want to lenghten the primary even longer. He did not want Clinton to be able to use MI as a "Maybe I can still win" crutch. So indeed he sat on his hands and didn't let it go through.
It is quite different from being afraid of the result that, by all accounts, he probably would have won (not so much in FL but the revote was even harder to get there)

Posted by Benjamin | March 30, 2008 6:00 PM

Why Hillary will win: She's fighting for it, and Obama's trying to back in to it.

Posted by John Petty | March 30, 2008 6:02 PM

Still no word from Hillary supporters on her magnanimous change of heart.

They're too busy dodging sniper fire.

Posted by Jake | March 30, 2008 6:03 PM

Alas, evie, I am an incredibly lazy person, and "Remember personal info?" is just too tempting of a box. I shall go by a new name from now on, unless I get lazy again and can't think of anything.

KA- first, polls now show Obama doing better in California. More importantly, you named three of the states most likely to go blue this November and one where Hillary won partially on a lie (NAFTAgate).

The point was: there's no sense deriding the campaign Obama has run. It is making history, and we will never see a "conventional," top-down campaign again. For a guy with almost zero name recognition a year ago to be this close to the nomination is remarkable, no matter how you want to spin it.

Posted by Monster | March 30, 2008 6:04 PM

"And he's afraid to let Florida and Michigan revote because he knows he will lose."

Just stop this bullshit. THE CANDIDATES AGREED TO THE RULES NOW SHE WANTS TO CHANGE THEM. That is a crock of shit.

What would happen NEXT election? Total friggin chaos. Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing and went ahead anyway. My state moved it's primary too but we still had a voice. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GO EARLY.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 6:09 PM

Ralph Nader, who recently announced his own 2008 presidential bid, has now also weighed in on the battle between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In a blog posting on his campaign’s website, Nader advised Clinton to stay in the Democratic nomination race, despite recent calls for her to drop out from high-ranking members of the Democratic Party who back Obama.

“Just like every other citizen, you have the right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you like,” wrote Nader.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/29/nader-to-clinton-stay-in/

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 6:14 PM

My concern, however, is that even that won't be enough to stop Hillary from fighting. We'll see.
I fully expect Obama to take the oath of office in January with Hillary clinging to his ankle, still trying to get in one more bite.

Posted by Deborah | March 30, 2008 6:15 PM

Rush Limbaugh is laughing at the DNC, thanks to Hillary.

The superdelegates need to step in and put an end to Hillary's campaign very soon.

Posted by cm | March 30, 2008 6:18 PM

He will agree to seat the Michigan & Florida delegations as is because it will not be enough to overturn his delegate lead.

This is most likely. If I were Obama, I'd be tempted to say 'oh, have Michigan and Florida, it's not as if you're going to win.' A bit like letting the spoilt toddler eat the damn ice cream, then puke it up as a lesson.

Except that that rewards bad behaviour from the state parties, and screws over the DNC.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 30, 2008 6:28 PM

1) Let's compare the larger States by population and date of their primary:

California / 37 Million / Feb 5
Texas / 24 Million / March 4
New York / 19 Million / Feb 5
Florida / 18 Mil / Jan 29
Illnois / 13 Million / Feb 5
Pennsylvania / 12 Million / April 22
Ohio / 11 Million / March 4
Michigan / 10 Million / Jan 15
Georgia / 10 Million / Feb 5
North Carolina / 9 Million / May 6
New Jersey / 9 Million / Feb 5

2) Based on the above, how can Hillary argue that Florida and Michigan were treated unfairly by being told to hold their primaries no earlier than Feb 5?

3) Why is it that Hillary argues that we should debate with her in a fair, rational,
compromising, and gentle fashion -- while at the same time she feels entitled to use every
dishonest tactic and to make every unreasonable demand possible ??

4) Obama's people should simply shutdown any further Hillary demands re Michigan and Florida
by stating that she's arguing in a dishonest fashion that makes any further discussion
impossible.

Just say it over and over:
"Hillary's arguing in a dishonest fashion.
Hillary's arguing in a dishonest fashion.
..."

5) Oh, and why should Florida and Michigan be allowed to disenfranchise the roughly
50 Million Democrats in the other 48 States who followed Party rules?

It's a universal rule that if you're not willing to obey the laws of a group, then you're not entitled to claim the privileges of being a member of the group. Every other state was willing to make reasonable compromises.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 6:31 PM

"Except that that rewards bad behaviour from the state parties, and screws over the DNC."

It also would throw a wrench in all the future primaries. If Florida and Michigan can get away with it why shouldn't my state leapfrog too?

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 6:32 PM

Re "why shouldn't my state leapfrog too?"
-----------------
Newsflash. Pennsylvania's April 22 primary isn't just to choose the 2008 candidate. We're also going to choose who will be the Democratic candidate for 2012, 2016, 2020,and 2024.

So far, the Long Ranger is leading the pack but Tonto's pulling up fast.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 6:36 PM

"We're also going to choose who will be the Democratic candidate for 2012, 2016, 2020,and 2024."

How so? I can understand 2012 but how about the others? You mean the method?

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 6:40 PM

Re artmann11 "How so? I can understand 2012 but how about the others? You mean the method?"
----------
Nah. Given that nihilistic, unilateral decision-making is the coming thing, we decided that we would just preempt choosing the candidate -- and the other 49 states have to accept our choice.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2008 6:44 PM

oh. OK. lol.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 6:48 PM

Not up to Matt's usual acuity. By the same token, wouldn't it solve the problem for Obama to set the delegates as-is? It's no more sensible to see Clinton's withdrawal, or an arbitrary 50-50 split as solution.

Posted by Rich in PA | March 30, 2008 6:53 PM

This most recent thuggish threat, and Bill’s continued flattering comments about McCain, have betrayed their clear willingness to destroy the Dems chances in November, not only for the Presidential election but also for Congress and local elections.

They really are coming across as ruthless thugs. The Superdelegates and the other party leaders are going to shove her and Bill to the side lines.

They are looking more and more like Lieberman… and that can not last.

Posted by benny | March 30, 2008 6:55 PM

Jason @5:55pm,

regarding the explanation of why Obama did not go along with the revote plan:

Facts
1. The GOP primary was a real primary, although, only 50% of the delegates were counted. Whereas in the DEM primary, 0% of the delegates were counted. This information was well known prior to the election.

2. Michigan is an open primary, meaning dems or gop can vote in either primary, just not both.

3. Since the Dem primary was worth nothing and the GOP primary was worth something, there was a large amount of cross over votes in the GOP primary. (myself included, I am a dem but I voted in the GOP primary instead of the Dem primary)

Obama's reason:
4. The plans for the revote would not have allowed those people who had voted in the GOP primary to vote in the Dem Primary. This would have put Obama at a disadvantage as he generally does better amongst ind. and GOP voters. And I would be pretty pissed too because I'm a big Obama supporter and myself, and Obama would each be punished for following the rules.(I am punished b/c I voted in the election that actually counted, whereas, I would have preferred to have voted in a real Dem primary of course)

My Rant:

IF YOU ARE NOT FROM FL OR MI STOP TALKING ABOUT OUR DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

I'm pissed at our governor and state legislature.

Hillary wasn't so concerned about our primary votes before the election, "[w]e all know that Michigan won't count for anything," she told NPR in December. And now she wants to fight to make sure "our votes are counted" under the name of democracy and legitimacy.

I really strain to understand how HRC people can be comfortable with this tactic. Make your experience, her good work in the Senate (notwithstanding the AUMF Iraq vote) and knowledge of how the White House operates arguments. Oh but I see. Those arguments will not allow her to catch up in elected delegates, and that the only way she can win is by getting those non-sanctioned elections counted. Pretty shameless.

OH! Even worse in the "promoting democracy" argument is that HRC has been arguing that elected delegates are free to vote their conscious (this is true about the super delegates, and "legally" true about the elected delegates, but completely antithetical to any notion of "democracy" ), so let's say, we have a revote and HRC wins 60-40, under her line of reasoning, it would still be appropriate for a majority of delegates to vote Obama if they felt he would be the best gen. election candidate. What a fucking hypocrite!!!

Posted by nattyb | March 30, 2008 7:01 PM

Caucuses are still possible & wouldn't need the approval of the legislatures. Nor would have to be financed by either campaign- & thereby setting the rules to one's advantage. They could use the Iowa rules for caucuses & set them for the beginning of June. At least here in Michigan, we would like to see the candidates have to campaign here.

Posted by Eric | March 30, 2008 7:21 PM

THE CANDIDATES AGREED TO THE RULES NOW SHE WANTS TO CHANGE THEM.

You don't get it. Any rules that disenfranchise voters are bad for America. If Hillary suddenly opposed a revote, it would still be wrong. It's not up to her. You're only thinking about what will help Obama in the short term, but you aren't considering what effect disenfranchising these states will have on the November election. Florida and Michigan are two big swing states that Democrats need in November. How hard is it to let every state vote! This shouldn't even be a controversial issue! If Hillary were trying to block a revote, Obama's supporters would charge everybody and his uncle with the R-word and Obama would be making speeches decrying "the way Washington works." But he sure likes how Washington works if it keeps Hillary's voters at home!

Obama should agree to a revote in both states, which will help prevent a floor fight in Denver. As for Howard Dean, his leadership has been awful. When this is all over, I hope he steps down.

Posted by KA | March 30, 2008 7:27 PM

IF YOU ARE NOT FROM FL OR MI STOP TALKING ABOUT OUR DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

Amen. We Floridians were NOT disenfranchised. Our legislature chose to move their primary ahead even after being told what the repercussions of that action would be. That is in no way disenfranchisement. Stupid, moronic, and short-sighted, yes - disenfranchisement. No.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 7:31 PM

Any rules that disenfranchise voters are bad for America.

Like the rule that gives superdelegates the ability to decide the election, against the will of the voters?

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 7:31 PM

Obama should agree to a revote in both states, which will help prevent a floor fight in Denver. As for Howard Dean, his leadership has been awful. When this is all over, I hope he steps down.

I think you need to pay attention more. Florida has already turned down the revote idea. It's not Hillary's OR Obama's place to demand anything. We have turned it down because WE don't want it. Once again, we knew LONG before hand our votes were nothing in this primary, and we accepted that. YOU are the one trying to speak for us, trying to tell us how to vote, and trying to tell us your version of events which have no bearing on reality. You're not in our state and you opinion has no place here. We were not disenfranchised. We broke the rules, and we accepted the consequences. Do you get it yet?

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 7:37 PM

Boy, are primaries a messy way to choose a candidate, but I still wish we Europeans had them instead of having to depend on whoever was chosen in the different parties' cigar-smoke filled rooms.

Nattyb, I'm not from MI or FL or even USA, excuse me for weighing in! Just to say that something is missing in this discussion: the fact that the Florida primary date was chosen by the Florida Republicans, not by the Democrats. (I don't know how it was in Michigan.) I certainly would call that blameless disenfranchisement. And I don't think finding a solution would have created chaos in future elections, on the contrary, it would have sent a signal that the Democratic Party will not allow its rules to be written by its opponents.

That being said, obviously the primary results cannot be honored and another solution must be found. In Florida Clinton had a name-recognition advantage that Obama could not catch up with because he was not allowed to campaign, and that's unfair, and of course in Michigan he wasn't even on the ballot.

Posted by Hans B | March 30, 2008 7:40 PM

If people are so committed to this MI and FL issue on principal, tell me what you did in Aug 2006 when the calendar and the rules were set or Aug 2007 when final decisions were made? It's completely disingenuous to pretend this is a matter of principal when nothing has changed about the rules in more than a year.

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 7:42 PM

Hans B - the DNC pleaded with the FL Dems to choose a separate date for the presidential race voting. They promised them money and vigorous GOTV support because they knew that a second voting date was difficult, and they knew that the Republicans set the main voting date (which, apparently, also had important referendums on it).

Yes. The irony. The DNC begged FL to set a second vote and FL Dems said screw you. Now, of course, everyone wants that second vote.

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 7:47 PM

The DNC also offered Florida more delegates if they agreed to wait, but they turned that down as well.

Posted by 55 | March 30, 2008 7:56 PM

When it comes down to it, they tried to leapfrog over the other states so they could have an earlier primary. What else could Dean do?

How hard was it for them to follow the rules? Seriously. Answer that. HOW HARD WAS IT?

They basically said screw the national DNC and all the rules IN ADVANCE. The state's Democratic leadership knew exactly what they were doing but did it anyway. Their own arrogance cost their voters. BLAME THEM. Like I said before, Illinois changed their primary too but didn't break the rules. Because we knew better.

Don't you even care what kind of precedent that would set? It would be total chaos in the next election.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 7:57 PM

Yes. The irony. The DNC begged FL to set a second vote and FL Dems said screw you. Now, of course, everyone wants that second vote.

Everyone, that is, except those of us who actually live in the state.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 7:57 PM

Just to say that something is missing in this discussion: the fact that the Florida primary date was chosen by the Florida Republicans, not by the Democrats.

While the Dems are the minority party in FL, all the Dems voted "for" moving up the primary.

Moreover, Florida could have APPLIED to hold an early primary when the DNC was developing the calendar, but didn’t! And what reason do they give for failing to do so? They were busy working on other issues.

So it's not that the DNC rejected Florida's application, they never sent one in! This is why they were penalized.

The Dems in Florida can't play "victims" when they were so complicit in causing this mess.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 7:58 PM

Evie - I didn't know that. Thanks.

Posted by Hans B | March 30, 2008 7:58 PM

The Dems in Florida can't play "victims" when they were so complicit in causing this mess.

Uh, we're not. Dems in OTHER states are saying we're victims. There's a BIG difference there.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 8:00 PM

@KA: "You don't get it. Any rules that disenfranchise voters are bad for America."

No, KA. What would be much, much worse for America, or any kind of democracy, or any just and equitable society, would be if we haphazardly overturned previously agreed-to rules in the name of any number of "higher ideals" we might come up with. Our votes aren't worth anything if whatever we vote for can be overturned after the fact because we voted for the "wrong" thing.

This isn't a perfect situation, but the way to fix it isn't to assume that the right to vote is automatically more important than the infrastructure that makes voting useful.

Posted by moff | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

...taodon

i should have said Dem "legislature" can't play victims....re: Hans B claim.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

...taodon
i should have said Dem "legislature" can't play victims....re: Hans B claim.

I don't believe that is entirely accurate either. The legislature has already discussed the matter of revote, and the methodologies therein, and it was voted against by most of the Dems.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 8:10 PM

"the Florida primary date was chosen by the Florida Republicans, not by the Democrats"

They went right along with it. The Republicans set the date and Democrats joined right in.

Florida Democrats Affirm an Early Primary

By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: September 24, 2007

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Sept. 23 — The Florida Democratic Party announced Sunday that it would move ahead with its plan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29 despite the national party’s decision to block the state delegation from the 2008 Democratic convention.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and State Senator Steven A. Geller on Sunday in Pembroke Pines, Fla. The Florida Democratic Party decided to stick with plans for a Jan. 29 primary, even if it costs the state a place at next summer’s Democratic convention.

WOW. DID YOU READ THAT?

even if it costs the state a place at next summer’s Democratic convention.

State party leaders said that even if none of the state’s delegates were seated at next summer’s Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee.

The Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip Florida of its delegates unless it decided by Sept. 29 to obey party rules and delay its primary until Feb. 5 or later. Then, under pressure from the four states permitted to hold contests in January, the major Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida if the primary was moved ahead.

Ever since, state party leaders have agonized over whether to accept the sanctions and stand firm on Jan. 29 or to yield and hold a smaller contest, like a caucus or vote-by-mail primary, later in the year. They decided to stick to January, said Karen Thurman, the party chairwoman, to ensure the largest possible turnout and to avoid accusations of disenfranchisement from Democrats still bitter about the 2000 recount.

“We came down on the side of having a fair and open election,” Ms. Thurman said at a news conference.

Florida Democratic leaders also noted that many municipal races would be on the ballot on Jan. 29, as will a state referendum that could significantly reduce property taxes.

Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are the only states that both national parties allow to hold presidential contests earlier than Feb. 5. Nonetheless, the Florida Legislature voted in May to schedule primaries for Jan. 29, saying the state deserved a more prominent role in choosing presidential nominees.

Whether to seat Florida’s delegates at the convention would ultimately be up to the presumptive nominee, said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Broward County. Rather than risk the wrath of Florida voters, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, the party nominee will undoubtedly seat the delegates.

THIS IS THE CLINCHER:

“We’re going to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear on that convention floor,” she said, adding that the state’s entire Democratic Congressional delegation supported the decision to stick with Jan. 29.

In recent years, Florida’s presidential primaries have been held in March, by which time a candidate has locked up the nomination. Democratic leaders said Sunday that holding a primary a week before Feb. 5, when roughly 25 states are to vote, would ensure that national attention is focused on Florida regardless of whether its delegates are seated.

State Senator Steven A. Geller, the minority leader, used the news conference to rail against Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which he called “rogue states” for putting pressure on the presidential candidates to skip campaigning here for a January primary.

“If they choose not to campaign here and they lose? Not our problem,” Mr. Geller said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/us/politics/24florida.html

Is that good enough for you?

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 8:10 PM

artmann11 -- thanks. The arrogance is pretty stunning.

Let's face it, FL Dems (leadership) assumed the election would not be close, that it would be over by Feb 5, and that FL would be seated at the convention anyway because "how can you possibly leave FL out?"

Posted by evie | March 30, 2008 8:15 PM

I have to say that, as much as I despise the devil monster, I am getting a bit concerned for her safety. Since she has revealed herself as the most despicable creature in the history of the United States, I'm concerned that some misguided patriot will assassinate her. I myself would never advocate political violence, of course, but it seems a disturbingly likely possibility.

Posted by LarryM | March 30, 2008 8:20 PM

You're welcome evie. Their arrogance was stunning. And now those responsible don't even want to acknowlege the truth. I suggest you save the link because if you're going to try to talk to these folks you're going to need it.

By the way, I appreciate your honesty taodon.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 8:21 PM

Don Williams wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why Democrats in the other 48 states shouldn't tell the Michigan and Florida delegations to go fuck themselves?

WE didn't disenfranchise them -- their own stupidity and immature temper tantrums did that.

Because such a move will probably backfire on Democrats in the general election. All of those angry Democrats could back McCain. I think that some way will be found to seat them.

Posted by mollycoddle | March 30, 2008 8:38 PM

El Toro: No I am not related to Alderman Marzullo. Are you related to Ferdinand the Bull? In any case I think you know a lot about bull, given your argument that the Obama supporters can't have blocked the Michigan revote b/c if HRC were popular there her supporters would dominate the legislature. Leave aside the many Republicans in the legislature for the moment. Did Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or Bill Richardson back the candidate supported by a majority of their states' voters? No. They are with Obama, their constituents' wishes nothwithstanding. And in fairness there are also Clinton backers whose states or districts voted for Obama. The point is there is no necessary relationship between attitudes of the voters and the loyalties of their elected officials.

Taodon: How nice of you to speak for all of your state's residents to the effect that they are all OK with their disenfranchisement. What's that you say? Your spouse and your friends who also support Obama agree? Well all right then! Problem solved!

The facile equation of -at most- a couple hundred politicos in each of these states with the millions of residents is shameful. So if Carl Levin or Bill Nelson was wrong millions of Floridians or Michiganders should suffer? Somehow when the political leader in question is Fidel Castro or (in the 1990s) Saddam Hussein, progressives can see flaws in policies that punish millions of ordinary people for the sins of a few leaders.

A caucus is not a good solution. It is telling though that the fallback for Obama people who want to achieve maximal disenfranchisement is a process that we know includes far fewer voters than primaries. Still running scared of Florida and Michigan voters! There should be primaries. They don't have to be state-run. The party can run a "firehouse" primary as well.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 30, 2008 8:49 PM

KA

Great comments!

Evie & Artmann II

Read the posts of KA for a more thoughtfull analysis of FL and MI. It doesn't matter what the Democratic politicians said or how they acted to move the Primary calendar. The key question is how will the voters of FL and MI react if they are shut out of the process? The Democratic nominee will lose legitimacy and votes to a Republican or Independent candidate in November. Obama is scared that he will lose his small lead in the race. If anyone is being selfish, it is Obama and his supporters.

One more thing, how does this look through the eyes of other countries where we are promoting Democracy? We come across as hypocrites.

Posted by EWard | March 30, 2008 8:53 PM

"Obama is scared that he will lose his small lead in the race. If anyone is being selfish, it is Obama and his supporters."

Oh good grief. (shakes head) It's all their fault now?

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 8:56 PM

Vito: The Michigan legislature preferred a caucus, not Obama. Clinton blocked it, as was her right.

Translation of EWard: Ignore the posts with quotes and facts and spew McCain-like platitudes like "being shut out" or "silenced."

Oh, and trust me, the FL/MI thing is the last thing other nations are pointing to as examples of our hypocrisy. Ever heard of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay or the freaking War in Iraq? Yeah, those pale in comparison over the question of how to seat delegates.

Posted by 55 | March 30, 2008 9:00 PM

"One more thing, how does this look through the eyes of other countries where we are promoting Democracy?"

To tell you the truth I really don't care what they think. This our election not theirs.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 9:06 PM

"Oh, and trust me, the FL/MI thing is the last thing other nations are pointing to as examples of our hypocrisy. Ever heard of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay or the freaking War in Iraq? Yeah, those pale in comparison over the question of how to seat delegates."

Amen.

Posted by artmann11 | March 30, 2008 9:09 PM

Here is a DailyKos diary with multiple links from the Florida press (to the poster whining about "just two people," this is for you): http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/28/15332/8032

Important part from the St. Pete Times:

"At least the Obama campaign, which for so long was dismissive of the Florida results, is opening the door for viable solutions to this primary debacle.
...
The Clinton campaign has shown no interest in negotiating. Nor did it show much enthusiasm for the Florida Democrats' proposal to hold a statewide mail-in primary — until after the state party finally killed that idea."

Posted by 55 | March 30, 2008 9:10 PM

Taodon: How nice of you to speak for all of your state's residents to the effect that they are all OK with their disenfranchisement. What's that you say? Your spouse and your friends who also support Obama agree? Well all right then! Problem solved!

Oh brother. First, it's not legal in Florida for me to have a spouse. Second, me, my boyfriend, and all our friends voted for Clinton in the primary, despite the fact we KNEW it wasn't going to count. And finally, the last time I checked, Webster said that disfranchisement was to "deny a person the right to vote." Well, I was allowed to vote, I knew that my vote wasn't going to count and I *still* voted. That's no where near disenfranchisement, no matter how many assumptions you make.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 9:10 PM

55: The Michigan legislature would have nothing to do with a caucus. Caucuses are run by parties, not state governments.

The proposal under discussion in the legislature there was a primary:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080321/POLITICS01/803210441/1361

Other proposals were discussed by party leaders.It is true that Clinton did not want a caucus. If the original delegation would not be seated she wanted a primary, whether run by the state or the party in a mail-in version. I agree that both candidates are being self-interested, but Clinton's self-interest here coincides with allowing more voters into the process and Obama's lies in blocking votes of any kind and, failing that, having caucuses in which comparatively few voters will take part. It's one thing to repeat the "the rules are the rules mantra", but once Obama starts pushing for a caucus that kind of gives the game away doesn't it? It's just about what's in HIS interest.

Taodon: The disenfranchisement is the fact that millions of your state's residents have no voice in the Democratic nomination. People "vote" in Cuba, in Syria and in North Korea. That doesn't mean they are enfranchised.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 30, 2008 9:24 PM

Taodon: The disenfranchisement is the fact that millions of your state's residents have no voice in the Democratic nomination. People "vote" in Cuba, in Syria and in North Korea. That doesn't mean they are enfranchised.

Oooh! I have another example, say, like, if the superdelegates overturned the primary popular vote? That's disenfranchisement too, then, right?

And seriously, comparing a state who broke the rules to a communist country? I think that's too far a stretch even for Anne Coulter.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 9:29 PM

"I have to say that, as much as I despise the devil monster, I am getting a bit concerned for her safety. Since she has revealed herself as the most despicable creature in the history of the United States,"

Posted by LarryM

I like to emphasize Obama folk.

Posted by Andruw | March 30, 2008 9:40 PM

Making much ado about nothing Clintonistas. Little known fact, who ever is the nominee controls the DNC and therby controls the credentialing committee. Obama will effectively shut down Clinton after he wins NC and Ind on May 6th during that time the flood gates of superdelegates will be opened. The campaign will wind thru the other states and end in Puerto Rico June 1st. By that time, Obama will reach 2024 and take over the DNC. Then he will propose to seat the delegates of Mich/FL as they voted. This sign of graciousness will be the final nail in the Clinton coffin. He will not make Hillary his Vice President, he doesn't trust her and her negative tactics of saying he has met the Commander and Chief test would play well for the Republicans if she is chosen as VP. Hillary killed any dream ticket chances with those words, that is why Nancy was so adamant that there will not be a dream ticket. Hillary will be forced to eat crow by campaigning heavily for Obama and other Democrats because the Senate has long memories and she is not warmly regarded by her fellow Democrats anymore.

People should have checked out CSPAN when they all recovened the Senate to pass the budget. Clinton was a lonely figure, only talking to one or two other Senators. Obama and her talked for a while, but the other Senators where flocking around Obama and rallied around him when a Republican put forth a bill mocking one of his budget positions. There was a screaming match, with Democrats against the Republican who sponsored the bill.

As for all the Clintonista vowing to support McCain- well go ahead then and kiss Roe vs Wade good bye since two or three Supreme Court Justices will probably retire in the next four years.

Also kiss your sons and daughters good bye since McCain is itching to start a war with Iran.

Kiss your money good bye and your pension and social security and welcome cut backs in medicaid. Because McCain doesn't know anything about the economy and basically said in his economic speech that he will be just like Hoover who did nothing while the Great Depression spread.

The only thing the Clinton have in their aresnal is to incite fear itself. And, I was more afraid of them returning to the White house then anything.

Clinton bullying didn't move Michagan toward a revote, her little ploy of going there with her big donors backfired and the Mich legistature just shut down all chances of a revote by recessing for Easter. They too were tired of all the bullying.

Now the Clintons have Iowa and NH made at them for saying that they moved up their dates and weren't punished. But forgetting the fact that they had too because of Fl/ Mich move and plus their charter requires them to be first/second in the primary. And my family in Mich voted for Rommney to stop McCain because they knew their votes didn't count.

Posted by sonya | March 30, 2008 9:51 PM

Sonya @9.51pm,

Great recap

Posted by nattyb | March 30, 2008 9:54 PM

Of course Obama won't make Clinton his VP. He doesn't want to die in office, and with Clinton as his VP, the chances of that greatly increase.

Posted by Glaivester | March 30, 2008 10:23 PM

Just reprising nattyb's post here regarding Michigan, because I think it's an argument that hasn't gotten enough attention:

1. The GOP primary was a real primary, although, only 50% of the delegates were counted. Whereas in the DEM primary, 0% of the delegates were counted. This information was well known prior to the election.

2. Michigan is an open primary, meaning dems or gop can vote in either primary, just not both.

3. Since the Dem primary was worth nothing and the GOP primary was worth something, there was a large amount of cross over votes in the GOP primary. (myself included, I am a dem but I voted in the GOP primary instead of the Dem primary)

Obama's reason:
4. The plans for the revote would not have allowed those people who had voted in the GOP primary to vote in the Dem Primary. This would have put Obama at a disadvantage as he generally does better amongst ind. and GOP voters.

The problem with a Michigan revote was that there was no fair way to do it since the open Republican primary had already taken place. You'd either have to bar those who voted in the Republican primary couldn't participate, which would have barred 42,000 to 72,000 Democrats and some of the 200,000 independents who did so, or you'd have to allow everyone to vote which would open up the process to malicious meddling. The idea of a revote sounds nice, but it's hard to see how to implement one here. Given no way to resolve that dilemma, it's a perfectly reasonable position to say that there should be no revote, regardless of which candidate one supports.

For some stats on crossover voters in the Michigan Republican primary, see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

Posted by dsimon | March 30, 2008 10:29 PM

Our votes aren't worth anything if whatever we vote for can be overturned after the fact because we voted for the "wrong" thing.

This isn't a perfect situation, but the way to fix it isn't to assume that the right to vote is automatically more important than the infrastructure that makes voting useful.

Nobody is suggesting that a vote be "overturned." What I am saying is that the DNC does not have the right to cancel a primary election, much less two! Disenfranchisement is a disproportionate penalty for moving the date of an election. I don't know where you get the idea that letting all 50 states vote in this primary will create a slipery slope leading to the overturning of elections. You remind me of Scalia in Bush v Gore when he said that counting all of the votes would cast "a cloud upon what [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election." You are acting as though Obama is already the nominee and that by demanding elections in Florida and Michigan Hillary is trying to overturn his victory. Newsflash: Obama does not have 2025 delegates. He is not the nominee.

And to those few who here who are trying to convince us that the voters of Florida and Michigan don't care: You don't speak for all of the voters in those states, and any search online will reveal that many Florida and Michigan voters want to participate in this primary.

And yes, the right to vote here is paramount. It will not harm any "infrastructure." Again, you act as though rescheduling these primaries is tantamount to anarchy, when in fact, it's just the opposite. The DNC should not be allowed to strip any state of its right to vote in a primary because of something as minor as a scheduling conflict.

Posted by KA | March 30, 2008 10:33 PM

Agree with Sonya. Clinton isn't going to win this by any strategem that can't be countered by the simple fact that Obama is going to win most of the pledged delegates, and gain the support of most of the superdelegates, and then handle any remaining problems as Sonya has suggested.

Clinton is toast. It's all over but the angst. Unless Obama is suddenly proven to be a drug dealer or a child molester, gets hit by a truck, or assassinated by a Clinton supporter (or some freak Zionist like SLC), it's over.

Her campaign can't even pay its bills, according to the latest report.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 30, 2008 10:38 PM

Remember it is ALL about 2012 with the Clintons now.....party be damned. She is on a roll to assure McCain is elected in 08, she goes back to the Senate and makes McCain's life 'living hell', McCain (because of age) can't take the stress and does not run for a 2nd term, in waltzes Ms. Hillary....saves the day for the party and the country in 2012!

They realize 2008 is lost, but they can use this primary season to build for 2012. If only PA, NC, and IN voters would find their VOICE and vote Obama so this ends!! To save the party and our country - I hope they vote Obama.

Posted by Mary from TN | March 30, 2008 10:45 PM

Remember it is ALL about 2012 with the Clintons now.....party be damned. She is on a roll to assure McCain is elected in 08, she goes back to the Senate and makes McCain's life 'living hell', McCain (because of age) can't take the stress and does not run for a 2nd term, in waltzes Ms. Hillary....saves the day for the party and the country in 2012!

They realize 2008 is lost, but they can use this primary season to build for 2012. If only PA, NC, and IN voters would find their VOICE and vote Obama so this ends!! To save the party and our country - I hope they vote Obama.

Posted by Mary from TN | March 30, 2008 10:46 PM

And yes, the right to vote here is paramount. It will not harm any "infrastructure." Again, you act as though rescheduling these primaries is tantamount to anarchy, when in fact, it's just the opposite.

It would be anarchy--four years from now. If there's no sanction for jumping the line, then everyone will jump and we'll be having primaries two Labor Days before the general election. It will make this year's process look like a picnic.

People may not like the caucus/primary schedule. But if states and their parties feel they can schedule as they individually see fit, there will be anarchy. And that won't be good for anybody.

Posted by dsimon | March 30, 2008 10:48 PM

KA - I'm not really sure what alternate reality you hail from, but what you are saying completely distorts the sequence of events.

First, neither primary was canceled. They went ahead as schedule despite being told that if they did so, they would be stripped of their delegates.

Second, you cannot disfranchise someone already has the right to vote. The votes were cast, and delegates were contacted, but the DNC stated that the delegates would not be seated. That is wholly different from disfranchising anyone.

Finally, here in Florida, we have already voted AGAINST any form of revote. So there is no chance that a revote is going to occur, regardless of your claims. So, really, all the crying in the world isn't going to change that fact. Florida considered a mail-in vote, and decided wholly against it.

Stop, already, with the twisting of the facts. Florida wasn't going to count, Florida doesn't count, and Florida didn't want to re-vote. We are NOT disfranchised, because we were allowed to vote, and our votes produced delegates.

I hope this will, once again, clear up your misconceptions about what is actually happening in Florida.

Posted by taodon | March 30, 2008 10:54 PM

re: Florida Democratic legislators disenfranchising FL residents

Florida and Michigan residents have recourse if they feel they have been disenfranchised. They can vote their state legislators out of office the next time they come up for primary elections. That would certainly send a strong message to future party officials who decide to arrogantly disregard DNC rules. The other 48 states have no recourse against the stupidity of officials in FL and MI.

Posted by Just Karl | March 30, 2008 11:02 PM

Stop, already, with the twisting of the facts. Florida wasn't going to count, Florida doesn't count, and Florida didn't want to re-vote. We are NOT disfranchised, because we were allowed to vote, and our votes produced delegates.

Do you see the contradictions in your statement? You can't have it both ways. You're saying that the election "wasn't going to count," and that Florida "doesn't count," but insisting that you were allowed to vote and that your votes produced delegates. Yes, Florida voted, but the delegates will not be seated according to the results of that vote, if at all. For some reason this is supposed to be evidence that nobody is being disenfranchised. I think the USSR used to hold elections like that too.

Posted by KA | March 30, 2008 11:24 PM

One point that is important to remember about this situation is that the state parties control how to select their delegates. The FLA dems could have held an entirely separate election, in a manner of their own choosing, and, as mentioned above, the national party was willing to help them with that. But they chose not to, and there doesn't seem to be any real enthusiasm for a redo.

In MI, BOTH candidates have raised objections to various solutions, not just Obama. Clinton nixed the caucus idea put for by the party-and its important to remember that the MI-style caucus is essentially a primary-you show up and drop your vote in box and leave, and I think the polling places are open for a good chunk of time 8-10 hours. Her rejection of that plan suggests to me that MI is of more use to her as an unresolved issue-she can claim to be fighting for the little guy (after having disentangled his battered body from the axle of the bus she tossed him under in December). Any real election there now is likely to be pretty even, if not a small gain for Obama. That's why she was only for the primary that would have cut out people who voted in the repub primary-which would be disproportionally Obama voters.

I think they'll get seated with penalty of some sort, after Obama clinches the nominee.

Posted by Chris | March 30, 2008 11:25 PM

Chris: Senator Levin, who is neutral, was on one of the Sunday shows weeks ago saying that the vote-in-person all day caucus you are talking about -i.e. a firehouse primary- couldn't work b/c they couldn't get enough locations on short notice. In principle, I don't think it is such a bad system. Better than Iowa anyway, but a mail-in vote would include more people.

That said, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Michigan Democrats who voted in the Republican Primary. I realize some would not have done this under other circumstances, but even so Republicans deserve to have their own primary and people who voted in bad faith in someone else's primary are a lot more culpable than those who just want to vote in their own party's process but are being blocked by the machinations of a candidate seeking to run out the clock.

Yes, a mail-in party-run vote might allow Republicans to participate, but they have been doing that already in many states esp. since Feb 5 as their race is effectively over.

This raises a larger issue. Should state governments really manage primaries anyway?

Should there be a national primary (perhaps with a runoff), putting an end to the scheduling conflict once and for all?
This whole thing started with Michigan and Florida Dems challenging the sacrosanct status of IA and NH. In all the Clinton vs. Obama talk this has gotten lost.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 31, 2008 12:11 AM

1) The behavior of the Florida State Democratic Party is especially infuriating. After all, George W Bush became President in 2000 because these stupid motherfuckers could NOT do something as simple as count the vote and ensure registered voters were allowed to vote.

2) As a result, we now have $5 Trillion more in debt -- roughly $60,000 more in debt per middle class household. We have 4000 dead in Iraq -- and thousands more crippled for life. We have Republican FEMA to take care of Florida when the next major hurricane strikes. And --as a result of years of deeply corrupt Republican rule -- we may be falling into another Great Depression.

3) And yet those stupid cocksuckers in Florida had the gall to deliberately cause a train wreck . Not because of any DEFENSIBLE claim of right but simply because of a Joe Lieberman-like idea that if they were a big enough pain in the ass, they would be rewarded far beyond what they deserve.

4)Why don't Democrats in the other states join together to DESTROY Florida? Turn it into a stinking Third World shithole like Haiti. Not give one damm cent of aid when the Hurricanes strike.

Because Florida is pretty damm indifferent to the misery and harm that it's incompetence and stupidity is inflicting on the rest of country. It is becoming the Zell Miller of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Don Williams | March 31, 2008 12:15 AM

Should there be a national primary (perhaps with a runoff), putting an end to the scheduling conflict once and for all?

As a large-state denizen, I used to think so, and quite strongly.

But looking at the process now, I think a national primary would be terrible. The cost of running a campaign would be huge because it would literally be nationwide, even much more so than a presidential campaign which is limited to several battleground states. Only the best-known candidates with big financial backing could ever hope to compete, and even they would find it difficult.

I think the small-states-go-first process really does a good initial vetting of the candidates. The campaigning is retail, door-to-door, and those citizens take it seriously, some even focusing on the issues. Good candidates without big budgets have a chance to make an impact, and possibly even a run at the nomination. A national primary, for those who have the money, would rely on big image ads, affordable if at all only to the few heavyweights in the contest.

But I don't see why it has to be Iowa and New Hampshire all the time. Delaware and Rhode Island might be possibilities; the populations are not large, they have something resembling urban areas, and the media markets shouldn't be too expensive. After some small states go, there could be regional primaries that rotate every four years, as have been proposed by others. I think that's a reasonable system, and a reasonable compromise.

Posted by dsimon | March 31, 2008 12:26 AM

Matt,

It's so disappointing to see your self-righteousness continually popping up here. Florida and Michigan, I guess don't matter because Obama lost hands down. How can you possibly support a nominee and diss 3-5 million dem votes? The reality is that Obama is hanging on by the skin of his teeth due entirely to a flawed nomination process that depends on caucuses, the direct intimidation of delegates and super-delegates, and the continued fluffing by blogsphere pundits like yourself.

Please do us all a favor and put a sock in it already. Stick to important topics like basket ball.

Life in America is very much not like the Harvard campus. If you would like to discover why so many people see through Obama's bullshit, why not step down from web punditry, take a job in a Target in the rust belt for several months with no health insurance. Then come back and tell us, how much the big tent matters to you. Or maybe you could do an in depth investigation into why so few Harvard grads of color are writing for the Atlantic. The freepers are running from Condi Rice. The Wright controversy is on constant repeat across the right wing machine. If we are so foolish as to put him on the top of the ticket this cycle, you really think there is any hope at all that Obama won't be Harold Forded in November, especially when his coalition of the willing depends so heavily on the red states. And it's all because of the big tent bullshit. If he acknowledged the profound differences that split this country and would fight for them, he would be a solid candidate. We can't afford sugar plum fairy fantasies.

Obama's time as every primary and every poll shows is 8-10 years from now. Why push it? You guys liked the John Kerry, Al Gore situation from past cycles? Because that's what you are looking at if you take the big states like PA, OH, NJ, and FL off the table. MI itself goes up for grabs as well. And you really think CT is going Dem this time around with Lieberman giving the reach around for McCain?

How many of those Ron Paulites are going to be Pro-Obama now that he has come out loud and proud for the Federal Reserve, as his sub-prime solution. Think those cross-over votes are going to make it to September?

Here's a thought, leave Georgetown for a while, and learn about how the rest of us are living these days, by trying to live without your brand name certificate. Then come back and tell us just who that "We" are in the "yes we can". Cause it doesn't look like the millionaire celebrities in the music videos are going to do anything beyond sing passionately to fix the country.

Posted by patience | March 31, 2008 12:54 AM

What has Clinton proposed to do differently to help the Target worker than Obama? Both aim to make health care available to all, both aim to get a middle-class tax cut, protect American jobs, move beyond gas dependency, etc. Unless there's something in Clinton's legislative history that suggests she's more likely to succeed in getting her initiatives passed? I've looked at both their records closely, and I haven't found anything suggesting that.

Also, you do realize that the people in the music video did it independently, right? They're not associated with the campaign. Funny thing to complain about.

And do you actually think the Paul voters will somehow cross over to Hillary? If they're a crucial swing vote, as you suggest, then Obama is a must: I have read at least two dozen comments from Paul supporters that they would vote for Obama because of his war stance in '02 and the fact that he knows the constitution better than any candidate. I can't imagine a "Paulite" voting Clinton. But my stance is, they're not really a big swing vote.

The Wright controversy has not sunk Obama. If you believe the latest Gallup poll, it has only made him stronger. I'm far more scared of the rumored Murdoch list of Bill Clinton's "lady friends" over the past decade.

Finally, what the hell is with people constantly attacking Matt, in really personal ways?

/not a Harvard grad, not in Georgetown

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 31, 2008 1:15 AM

Must say I admire the ability of some Clinton supporters on this board to avoid unpleasant realities. But bluster and dogged reiteration of unconvincing talking points isn't going to alter the basic situation.

I doubt Hillary will be able to hang on through to the convention, despite what she's saying now. Next month's fundraising figures probably won't be kind to her, and there'll be a steady drumbeat of superdelegates declaring for Obama. By the time PA rolls around she'll be needing a blowout win, and it won't be forthcoming. (At best she'll get a narrow win, though I'll not be surprised if she suffers an outright loss.) From then on Obama will simply ignore her if she won't leave on her own. With little money and no realistic prospects, she'll be another Gravel.

At that point, her choice won't be between staying in or dropping out. It'll be between keeping a bit of her self-respect vs. becoming an absurd irrelevancy.

Posted by jimBOB | March 31, 2008 1:17 AM

Vito,

I was unaware of Sen. Levin's comments. I thought I recalled reading the firehouse caucus would include mail in ballots-which might reduce the crush at voting sites.

As to your other points, I don't think its fair to assume that anyone who voted in the repub primary was just trying to screw up their process. In 2000, back when Washington had a totally open primary, I voted for McCain over Bush in the repub primary rather than validate the foregone Gore victory over Bradley. I wasn't trying to cause chaos on the repub side, but i would rather have seen McCain as the opponent, since he wasn't a complete idiot.

At any rate, I believe the recent court ruling in MI basically torpedoed any chance of a primary redo, regardless of what either campaign might like.

Posted by Chris | March 31, 2008 1:23 AM

Obama's time as every primary and every poll shows is 8-10 years from now.

Yes, indeed. For Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, we'll just have to settle for President.

And so sweet to have a "time" at all, in contrast to HRC, who seems well past her use-by date.

Posted by sunsin | March 31, 2008 1:44 AM

jimBob

Obama raised $60 million dollars in March. He outspent Hillary 2 to 1 and still lost in RI, OH, and TX. You can spin his fundraising numbers anyway you like. This race is close, and they both need superdelegates to win. All the votes should count including MI and FL.

Posted by EWard | March 31, 2008 1:50 AM

How many of those Ron Paulites are going to be Pro-Obama now that he has come out loud and proud for the Federal Reserve, as his sub-prime solution. Think those cross-over votes are going to make it to September?

Oh, no, Obama has pissed off the Ron Paulites? He's toast!

Posted by fp | March 31, 2008 2:00 AM

You're either hypocrites or morons. It's undemocratic not to seat those who broke the rules, but it's perfectly fine for superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate leader. Got it.

Posted by 55 | March 31, 2008 2:03 AM

EWard

Odd victory of Hillary's in TX - Obama got a decent majority of the TX delegates.

This race is close, and they both need superdelegates to win. All the votes should count including MI and FL.

Thanks for giving a sterling example of what I was referring to with "dogged reiteration of unconvincing talking points."

Posted by jimBOB | March 31, 2008 2:44 AM

We still have these idiots who can't do delegate math. Must be Harvard grads...

Last thing I heard (which was five minutes ago), Clinton is behind in pledged delegates by a number so large that to catch up she would have to win 60% or more of EVERY primary from now until the end. Which as everyone with a brain knows is not going to happen.

As for superdelegates, Matt is correct. She's NOT going to get the overwhelming majority of those, or they would have committed by now to even the race IF they really care. The groundswell of superdelegates has clearly shifted to Obama and dried up for Clinton

Two, as Sonja pointed out, all Obama has to do is get the nomination, and seat MI and FL under some reasonable rules that allow the delegates to count - which will not change the overall situation.

Stop fantasizing and do the fucking math! And by "the math", I don't mean "well, if we don't count this, and we don't count that, and we assume this and we assume that, Clinton MIGHT win".

Clinton is toast! Get over it!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 5:35 AM

A 50-50 split is of course no reasonable solution at all. Why not just commission Democratic pollsters to call registered Dems. there, make the sample large enough that the error is less than 1% say, award pledged delegates proportionately, and maybe the popular vote based on how many turned out first time? Probably HRC will narrow but not eliminate Obama's leads.

For Obama to go into November with many Democrats feeling that his mandate is illegitimate, and with Republicans tieing him closely to Pastor Dirtbag's choicest comments, will be very inauspicious.

Posted by bob h | March 31, 2008 7:18 AM

At some point, the parties will likely need a lottery system for scheduling primaries.

Both candidates are fighting hard for the nomination. My hope would be to save the vitriol for the general election. McCain is busy washing the feet of the likes of John Hagee, out of sight, while the Dems club each other.

Karl Rove was twisting the spin on C-span yesterday. Hopefully, PA will end the struggle.

Posted by zinc | March 31, 2008 7:27 AM

The behavior of the Florida State Democratic Party is especially infuriating. After all, George W Bush became President in 2000 because these stupid motherfuckers could NOT do something as simple as count the vote and ensure registered voters were allowed to vote.

Uh, no. Gore lost because the state of Florida changed its method of dealing with double marked ballots. In prior years, if a ballot had a write-in name that was the same as one of the candidates, they counted the ballot as 1 vote for the candidate. Florida voters often did this because of Florida's history of electoral hijinx -- i.e. finding someway of discounting a ballot. Gore won by several 10s of thousands of votes.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 31, 2008 8:45 AM

"3) And yet those stupid cocksuckers in Florida had the gall to deliberately cause a train wreck . Not because of any DEFENSIBLE claim of right but simply because of a Joe Lieberman-like idea that if they were a big enough pain in the ass, they would be rewarded far beyond what they deserve."

You got that right. They knew full well what could happen and they even said so UP FRONT. Deliberately.

"We're so important we can do anything and get away with it". They spit in the DNC's eye.

Like I said before, Illinois moved our primary up too but didn't go so early we were penalized.

Posted by artmann11 | March 31, 2008 9:18 AM

Clinton supporter here. I don't understand why pundits and Obama supporters can't figure out how politics is played. Clinton will continue until she has demonstratably lost. That means 50% plus 1 delegates committed to Obama. If Florida and Michigan aren't seated and superdelagates aren't publicly committed then the game goes on. If that doesn't happen until the convention, then it will be at the convention.

She won't quit. I admire her for that. If Obama wants her out, then he needs to get the delegate numbers. Period.

Posted by tamalecoma | March 31, 2008 9:30 AM

150 or so comments here, and not one Clinton supporter has even attempted to take on her change of heart regarding these primaries. Someone want to try and explain why she publically and clearly supported the DNC rules, except now she doesn't? Since it can't be her sense of entitlement driving the change, what is it?

Posted by Michael | March 31, 2008 10:08 AM

"The point is there is no necessary relationship between attitudes of the voters and the loyalties of their elected officials."

There is no necessary relationship between the endorsements that an elected official gives and the wishes of their constituents, but on issues of direct concern to their constituents, such as whether or not there should be a do-over of a primary for the Democratic Presidential nomination, a state legislator would be very heedful of their constituents. This is the sort of issue that could cause a state legislator to lose his or her seat, unlike an endorsement.

Therefore, Vito, how do you explain the inability of Clinton's supporters to get enough votes in the Michigan state legislature for a primary redo? If Hillary is the overwhelming favorite of Democrats throughout the state, then the ability of Obama supporters to block the redo would be very limited under normal circumstances.

Vito, can provide specifics about the Michigan state legislature vote for the redo? Identify which Democrats supported it, and which Democrats opposed it, and tell me if they were Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, Edwards supporters, etc. In addition, identify which Republicans said yes,and which Republicans said no. This will determine if your assertion is actually true, and not just propaganda.

Posted by eltoro | March 31, 2008 10:42 AM

Why do you hate democracy, Matthew?

Posted by myiq2xu | March 31, 2008 12:50 PM

Clinton is behind in pledged delegates by a number so large that to catch up she would have to win 60% or more of EVERY primary from now until the end. Which as everyone with a brain knows is not going to happen.

Everybody said she would lose New Hampshire and Everybody said she would lose California and Everybody said she would lose Ohio and Everybody said...

You don't think she can beat Obama 60/40 in PA, IN, KY and WV? I do. Not sure about Oregon.

Posted by KA | March 31, 2008 1:48 PM

No one has ever predicted Clinton to win anything. She has been an underdog from the very beginning of the race -- no name recognition, no financial backing, no institutional support, no endorsements, no nothing. She has fought and fought and fought to get where she is today, never surrendering. Meanwhile Obama has had everything handed to him on a silver platter -- endorsements from a Boys Club determined to keep women down, support from black voters that was guaranteed because of his fortunate skin coloring. It's no wonder that Barack just wants Hillary to go home and give up -- but she's a FIGHTER.

Keep on fighting, Hillary. For me. And for the rest of America.

Posted by Barbar | March 31, 2008 1:54 PM

[i]No one has ever predicted Clinton to win anything.[/i]

Seriously? Are you really arguing that Clinton wasn't presented in the press as the presumptive nominee until this January.

Please explain why your "fighter" gave up on MI and FL and accepted her party's rules, but those same rules - which she agreed to, in ink - are somehow now "disnefranchising" the voters.

Posted by Michael | March 31, 2008 2:24 PM

No, Clinton wasn't the favorite before the primaries. No one even knew who she was.

She had to work really hard to get her name out there. It wasn't easy but she did it. Because she's a fighter.

Posted by Barbar | March 31, 2008 2:35 PM

WTF??? The arguments get dumber and dumber. There was not a single poll that ever showed Obama ahead in Ohio and only one that ever showed him ahead in California (IIRC). You fell for the media spin, that anything at all (which was really Hillary not blowing 20-point leads in one month) was a victory for her. QUIT MOVING THE DAMN GOALPOSTS.

Posted by 55 | March 31, 2008 3:15 PM

No, Clinton wasn't the favorite before the primaries. No one even knew who she was.

You're either delusional or I failed to detect your subtle irony and sarcasm.

Posted by Michael | March 31, 2008 3:42 PM

Everybody said she would lose New Hampshire and Everybody said she would lose California and Everybody said she would lose Ohio and Everybody said...

You don't think she can beat Obama 60/40 in PA, IN, KY and WV? I do.

Clinton was the underdog in NH only for the five days between it and Iowa. She was the favorite the rest of the time.

I never heard anything about her trailing in CA or OH; just the opposite, actually.

If she does extremely well, she might get 60% in PA, but it's unlikely. The only place where she's reached that mark so far is AK, her former home state.

And she probably won't win NC, and it may not be close there. That would raise the threshold she'd need everywhere else to match Obama's pledged delegate count.

It's fine to root for your candidate. She can take it all the way to the end of the process if she wants to. But the numbers are what they are. Yes, she could pull it out, but objectively the chances are very, very slim. It's not a dis on Clinton; it's the math at this point.

Posted by dsimon | March 31, 2008 3:49 PM

See, this is where people get hallucinogenic.

Clinton can win every primary with 60% or more - if Obama drops dead or is demonstrated to be a drug dealer, a child molester or takes money from Marc Rich..

Period. End of story. Any other notion is hallucinations.

It's over.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 4:02 PM

Michael - He was joking.

Posted by nbt | March 31, 2008 4:37 PM

jimBob

Obama's candidacy has no legitimacy without counting the votes of MI and FL. The voters did not make the rules. We are talking about alienating 2,000,000 people from the Democratic Party.

Posted by EWard | March 31, 2008 8:58 PM

Re EWard's comment "Obama's candidacy has no legitimacy without counting the votes of MI and FL. The voters did not make the rules. We are talking about alienating 2,000,000 people from the Democratic Party"
-------------
But there's NO WAY that the delegates elected by a fatally flawed and illegal process can represent the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan.

Many Demorcrats did not vote --because it was contrary to the Party's rules. Others voted in the Republican primary because they understood the Democratic primary to be illegitimate. And , of course, Obama and Edwards names did not even appear. Plus those candidates --per agreement with Hillary -- did not campaign in those states.

To claim that the results of the January primaries should now be used is the equivalent of arguing for ELECTION FRAUD. And THAT should disqualify Hillary from further consideration.

The WILL of the voters of Fl and Michigan can only be defined by open and fair elections conducted to mutually agreed rules. The State leaders of MI and FL have refused to hold such elections. THAT -- Not the DNC -- is what has disenfranchised the voters of those states.

Posted by Don Williams | March 31, 2008 9:52 PM

Don Williams

Hillary is arguing that the votes of MI and FL be counted either by a a new election or another mechanism. However, Obama's side is opposed to it. It would narrow his small lead.

Posted by EWard | April 1, 2008 9:56 AM

You say Hillary's strategy is "selfish," but here's the thing: of the four scenarios you laid out as plausible ways to seat Florida and Michigan, the first three just HAPPEN to help Obama (and you, since you support him and now see things exclusively from his point of view). The fourth you rule out as self-serving, because it helps her. Now, WHO'S being selfish here?

Posted by Sue | April 1, 2008 1:10 PM

Threats

Comments (164)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories