Threats

One thing to note about Hillary Clinton's Florida and Michigan strategy is the utter selfishness of it. Her best shot at getting her way on this issue is to keep observing, in a meta kind of way, that if the DNC disses Florida and Michigan by not seating their delegates, that this could hurt Democratic fortunes in Florida and Michigan in November.

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. 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. But instead Clinton has chosen path four of deliberately setting up a train wreck, hoping that by credibly committing to the idea that she's happy to sink the party's fortunes in FL and MI if she doesn't get her way, she can thereby get her way.

Basically, it's the same old kind of threats you saw with her big dollar fundraisers -- either the Democratic Party needs to serve the narrow needs of the Clinton family, or else the Clinton family will do their best to hobble the party. It's not a very appealing kind of message and I have a hard time imagining it'll work in the end.

Comments

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