« Let Them Sell Rice | Main | The House/School Treadmill »

McAuliffe on Michigan

27 Apr 2008 03:39 pm

Here's Terry McAuliffe in his book explaining his own personal role in the delegitimation of the Michigan primary that he now decries:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

This kind of thing is why when you see "Michigan" featuring in a Clinton campaign account of something or other you shouldn't take it very seriously.

Share This

Comments (99)

Matthew will post thousands of posts like this, but he'll never do one post that mentions that Obama blocked the MI re-vote the DNC was pushing for.

He's a practitioner of the exact same intellectual dishonesty he's decrying in this post.

"This kind of thing is why when you see "Michigan" featuring in a Clinton campaign account of something or other you shouldn't take it very seriously."

And, of course, the delegate allocation rules have nothing to do with the popular vote.

We all understand that the intellectually dishonest Obama crowd isn't big on elections, but still...

-----

Tangentially, has anyone else noticed that HBO's telemovie about the 2000 Florida recount is going to be aired 4 days before the Rules and Bylaws Committee meets?

That'll set up an "interesting" atmosphere for Team Obama's attempt to play Katherine Harris at the RBC.

Petey, do you have any links or such to support the point that Obama's opposition specifically blocked the MI re-vote?

I was under the impression that it was a matter of financial constraints, organizational difficulties, etc.

"Petey, do you have any links or such to support the point that Obama's opposition specifically blocked the MI re-vote?"

Been pretty widely reported among folks covering the nomination race outside of the two camps. My 30 seconds of googling for you came up with this from Ambinder:

The Obama campaign is opposed to a Michigan re-vote mainly for reasons of politics. That's a descriptive truth I arrived at from reporting and talking to numerous sources within the campaign. It may well be true that there are legitimate grievances and obstacles to a new primary that the campaign has found -- indeed -- there appear to be some. Pointing out that the main reason for the opposition is political has pushed some readers to conclude that I have a pro-Clinton bias. Think what you wish. There are sand boxes out back.

If you do the research, you'll find many, many more. The most definitive smoking gun is the stuff that took place when the Obama forces acted at the end of the Michigan legislature session to actually block the resolution.

While I think that it's obviously unhelpful for November to have Hillary and Bill running around swing states telling voters that Obama looks down on them, this sort of demagoguing on Florida, Michigan, and the "popular vote" is far more dangerous and destructive. It's the type of sensible sounding nonsense that resonates with her low-information supporters who don't understand how the process works or what a caucus is. She's basically setting them up to feel that the nomination has been stolen when the higher-information superdelegates side with the candidate who played by the rules and won more delegates.

Sez le douchebag named Petey: He's a practitioner of the exact same intellectual dishonesty he's decrying in this post.

Pot calling the kettle black as usual.

C'mon Neil, a professor of the internets should know better than to feed the trolls. Petey's just trying to pump and dump his Intrade holdings.

What Petey is ignoring is that the MI revote wouldn't allow anyone to vote who previously voted in the Rep primary, which a lot of people did since they knew the Dem primary didn't count. What he also ignores is that under MI absentee ballot rules the way the revote would be done would prevent anyone who was voting for the first time, like you know college students, from voting. Gee I wonder why the Obama team was oppossed to a revote that basically said anyone who voted for Clitnon in the previous sham primary could revote but big chunks of Obama supporters coudln't.

But it is only intellectual dishonesty when Obama supporters make their case, when a wanker like Petey does it is because he cares about real voters or something. I suspect the real issue is Obama took out his guy Edwards and that pissed him off so much that now he has convinced himself that Clinton is some sort of populaist champion. Srisouly dude you actually think Hillar, one of the foudners of the DLC, Clinton is now gonna take up the Edwards mantel? Hillary who screwed up Health care reform the first time and got rolled by the Healthcare industry is gonna accomplish it now? You are hanging your entire irrational hatred of Obama on Hillary saying she is for mandates? Dude haven't you caught on yet that Clinton will say anything she thinks she needs to at a given time? They are just words to her, she'll say the exact opposite the next day.

Seriously Petey there are very few posters who annoy me enough to care, you seriously need to fuck off, your blatant up is downism is getting really old. You are either an egotistical attention freak or mentally unhinged.

"I was under the impression that it was a matter of financial constraints, organizational difficulties, etc."

Without links:

There was a plan set-up where either Clinton partisans would pay for the whole primary, or would split the cost 50/50 with Obama partisans, with Obama free to choose either option.

There was space on the calendar to hold the primary.

The plan was endorsed by the DNC.

The plan had the support of the MI Governor, and MI Dems allied with Clinton.

The only obstacle was the unified opposition of MI Dems allied with Obama, under instructions from Chicago to block the re-vote.

The Clinton campaign also opposed caucuses and a "firehouse" primary. The only thing acceptable was some sort of re-vote.... and one with all the technical disenfranchising BS described by Eric K. Clearly the Clinton campaign only wanted the will of the electorate to be heard. Please.

There you are Petey! I was afraid you'd forgotten about our 4 o'clock. Open wide!

1) Why are we still discussing this? Fuck Michigan. States far larger than Michigan -- like Pennsylvania -- held their primaries much later than Feb 5.

2) You can't seat delegates from Michigan and Florida now because doing so would disenfranchise Obama supporters in those states who followed the DNC rules. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ticket.

3) Why isn't Hillary's extremely DISHONEST position on this matter enough to disqualify her as a candidate for President?

Just to add, it's really bizarre that you have a candidate who signed a pledge not to participate in an election, announced that the only reason she left her name on the ballot is because it didn't matter, since "it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything", now arguing that the votes should count when her opponent wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary's hypocrisy on this issue is really stunning, even by her very low standards.

As to the issue of whether or not Obama obstructed a revote, there is very little actual evidence and it is not relevant. There was only about a one week period when Clinton was even pushing a revote, and that revote was supposed to be financed by her allies and exclude anyone who voted in the Republican primary, which may have included many Obama supporting independents. Obama played by the rules and it's not his job to help Clinton schedule new elections for political expediency. The reason rules are set in advance is because there is no such thing as a "compromise" in a zero-sum game.

Once and for all Michigan and Florida do not count. Hillary stated they do not count. To say anything else is simply bullshit.

McAuliffe, like his boss is a lying hypocrite. And please ban Petey.

Gee Petey, what a surprise, all the Clinton supporters were in favor of the vote by mail revote that was set up by the Clinton team to generate the same vote totals as the orginal sham primary.

What does McCauliffe have anything to do with question of whether we should count MI's voices?

Plus, this crap is something Tim Russert would push. I thought this overly reductive reasoning was beneath you. These lapses of mediocrity can be suffocating.

"What Petey is ignoring is that the MI revote wouldn't allow anyone to vote who previously voted in the Rep primary"

The DNC rules prevent double-voting.

If MI had done a re-vote that allowed double-voting, the DNC wouldn't have approved it.

Team Obama's position on the re-vote was that they'd agree to a re-vote only under conditions where it wouldn't count.

Team Clinton's position on the re-vote was that they'd accept almost any terms that got a primary re-vote that would count.

It's really not too complicated if you're operating on the basis of intellectual honesty.

And it's no coincidence that the DNC and Team Clinton had the exact same position on the re-vote. Perhaps you think Dean is in the tank for Clinton?

I thought that the issue of Michigan doing a revote was left up to Michigan's STATE legislature to decide --NOT the Obama campaign.

Maybe Petey can explain what he is talking about.

Michigan state legislators are elected by the voters of Michigan and REPRESENT the will of those voters. They are not appointed by Obama.
They are ACCOUNTABLE to the VOTERS of Michigan -- NOT to Petey, not to Obama, and not to Hillary.

Maybe Petey is complaining that Hillary failed to convince the Michigan legistature to approve a major deviation from the electoral process. If that is what he is really complaining about, then --in my opinion -- he is going about it in an extremely dishonest fashion.

What does McCauliffe have anything to do with question of whether we should count MI's voices?

He was head of the DNC at the time. It's not like Dean is departing at all from the DNC position. That's all. I don't see how this is "overly reductive reasoning" at all.

1) Hillary and Petey seem to think that Obama is somehow REQUIRED to give STRONG SUPPORT to whatever hare-brained proposal Hillary comes up with -- whether it's seating illegal delegates from Florida and Michigan, a debate without moderators,etc.

And if Obama does not do exactly what they want, then they argue that means he is acting in an unfair, underhanded fashion.

2) That's NOT a political position. Rather, that's the whining complaint of a spoiled brat that should be grounded and given a timeout in it's room for a few months.

The DNC Rules for this election were set last year. End of Story.

"Why are we still discussing this?"

I understand that you think that the worse Obama does in elections, the more entitled he is to the nomination.

And I understand that you'd rather lose with Obama in November than win with Clinton.

But most Democrats aren't down with your kamikaze mission.

And we're still discussing it because the RBC meets in a month, and we're going to have to get some type of mutually acceptable conclusion then if we want to wrap up the race in June rather than August.

Team Obama's decision to reject the DNC position and block the re-votes was a big gamble on their part that they'd be able to shut down the race before June. They've failed in that gamble, and now we're all looking at a summer of chaos if the RBC can't find consensus, due to Team Obama's irresponsibility.

LOL at Petey and his DLC buds, T-mac and Hillary.

Re Petey's comment "we're all looking at a summer of chaos if the RBC can't find consensus,"
-------------
1) Wrong. We're looking at the destruction of the Democratic Party if Hillary's faction is allowed to break the established rules in an illegal fashion.

2) More realistically, we're looking at Hillary being forced out of this race in --oh, 10 to 12 days. At which point, Petey can go give oral ..er..advice to Ralph Nader.

The DNC rules prevent double-voting.

As anyone with intellectual honesty could see, this changes absolutely nothing Eric K said. If the only rules under which the DNC would accept a re-vote would thwart the apparent will of MI (see polls), then no re-vote should be held, and no delegates counted. That's the fairest solution within DNC rules.

If we're just going to flout those rules, as Clinton would ask, and count whatever delegates MI happens to send, it would be far more sensible to flout the rules by having an honest primary.

"Hillary and Petey seem to think that Obama is somehow REQUIRED to give STRONG SUPPORT to whatever hare-brained proposal Hillary comes up with"

The plan had the strong support of the very DNC whose rules you claim to be trying to uphold.

And Obama didn't have to give the plan STRONG SUPPORT, he just had to not block it. That's all that would've been necessary for Michigan voters to not be disenfranchised.

But Obama thought he'd likely lose MI and FL, so he blocked the re-votes. Maybe you're fine with that. It sure seems like Matthew is fine with that.

But Katherine Harris is not a role model for most Democrats.

I love the Obama people arguing in the alternative:

He didn't block the revote and so what if he did?

Which is it? If the Michigan revote was such a terrible idea why do you have to try and hide the fact that Obama blocked it? Why can't you admit that? In his first state senate race he got all his opponents knocked off the ballot by challenging their petitions. That was about maximizing his advantage rather than giving voters choices. This is of a piece with that. Fine, he's a politician. Lots of them do it. But at least own up to it! Is it b/c you're emotionally invested in the idea that he is the Messiah that you can't admit he does these things?

He did it via his supporters in the Michigan legislature who were told to raise objections to any revote that was logistically feasible and could actually pass muster with all the players involved i.e. the DNC and the Michigan GOP legislators.


"If the only rules under which the DNC would accept a re-vote would thwart the apparent will of MI (see polls), then no re-vote should be held, and no delegates counted."

Well, let's assume you're just being a bit slow and not being utterly disingenuous, and so try once again to explain:

There was a DNC approved re-vote plan that would've allowed the results to count. Obama rejected DNC approved plan, came back with a plan that the DNC couldn't approve, and then when MI tried to pass the DNC plan, Obama had his allies in MI block it.

In short, Obama's position was that he wouldn't accept any re-vote that the DNC would count.

Did I explain slowly enough this time?

Re "That's all that would've been necessary for Michigan voters to not be disenfranchised."
-----------
Isn't that an extremely dishonest argument given that you've already acknowledged that many Obama voters would BE disenfranchised by the Hillary proposal -- i.e., would NOT be allowed to vote in the re-vote even though they are Democrats?

That's some serious hypocrisy that McAuliffe's smoking.

FWIW, there never was a way to have a fair revote in Michigan, nor is there a way to seat the delegation now that's fair. Spread the blame however you like, but it won't make any difference.

Well, it seems to me that the crucial issue is that the votes of Michigan and Florida WILL count in November. And if we're trying to decide which of those two nasty choices---Saint Obama and Hillary Satanus---are more likely to win in November, we should look at how they do in FL and MI, which are both very large swing states. Just pretending that those states don't exist is a little too solipsistic to be sensible.

Look, the DNC can do whatever they want in their own primaries. They can give Vermont and DC more delegates than California and New York. But that's just not a smart way to pick the strongest candidate for November.

I wouldn't have minded a revote terribly, and I imagine Obama had a hand in blocking it.

But I still have yet to hear a principled argument for why the Democrats should reverse themselves on Michigan's punishment for deliberately violating party rules. As T-Mac is well aware, if you don't stand by the rules you make today, you won't be able to make any rules tomorrow. It's always inconvenient to hand out punishments, but it's really the only way to have an orderly process going forward.

Adults understand that the rules set and agreed to before any contest are the rules that will be followed.

It's not that hard.

Vote hope, not divide and conquer.

Where's Walter Sobchak when you need him? MARK IT ZERO HILLARY!

Petey's last post quotes mine, but refutes absolutely nothing I said. It doesn't even contradict anything I said. Note that DNC rules specify how elections can count, not whether they should. It says what you can do, but not what you should. If you can't do what you should do, you should do nothing. In this case, it appears that the only circumstances under which the DNC would accept a re-vote would be those violating MI law mandating open primaries, and the will of the MI public. Note also that while the DNC said the re-vote was consistent with their rules, this is not at all equivalent to an endorsement of the re-vote.

He's being not merely disingenous about the issue at hand, he's being disingenuous about other people's response to him, and about responses to those responses, et cetera. Fractally disingenuous.

"i.e., would NOT be allowed to vote in the re-vote even though they are Democrats?"

So, upthread you are the loyal defender of DNC rules, and in the same fucking thread, you metamorphose into a bitter opponent of the unfairness of DNC rules?

Smarter Obama hacks, please.

Even Matthew isn't willing to argue both sides in the same post.

Even McAuliffe waited a couple of years before flipping his position. He didn't flip in the same fucking thread.

Re "Obama had his allies in MI block it."
-------------
Oh, NOW we seem to be getting closer to the truth.

Because earlier, Petey was telling us that Matthew would "never do one post that mentions that Obama blocked the MI re-vote the DNC was pushing for."

One can see why Matthew wouldn't put up such a stupid ass post. Because it wasn't Obama that decided to block a re-vote -- it was the Michigan State legislature.

Petey darkly hints at "Obama allies" but cut through his bullshit and you're left with one result:

The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the Voters of Michigan listened to Hillary's proposal,

listened to Obama's objections,

considered that Hillary's proposal would prevent many Obama supporters from voting in the revote even though they are Democrats ,

and decided not to approve Hillary's proposal.

This decision by the Michigan State legislature seems to me to better represent the will of the voters of Michigan than any juju process Hillary has put up. It's seems to be extremely dishonest of her to suggest that she's trying to "enfranchise" the voters of Michigan when it's clear that she's acted to disenfranchise Obama supporters from the start.

So, upthread you are the loyal defender of DNC rules, and in the same fucking thread, you metamorphose into a bitter opponent of the unfairness of DNC rules?

Not counting any delegates is also consistent with the rules, and is preferable to the selective disenfranchisement that election thieves like you and your candidate endorse.

If we are going to bend the rules and count any delegates, the best way to have done that would have been a re-vote that allowed anyone to vote. Second best would be 50/50 split. Counting the current, fraudulent delegates would be a joke.

This isn't hard, but going slow won't help, as it's clearly lack of integrity, not cognition, that's you problem here.

One thing I hate about myself is that I find Rush Limbaugh's little epithets for the Clintons much more appealing over the last two months... That is to say "Terry McAwful"

Re Petey's comment "So, upthread you are the loyal defender of DNC rules, and in the same fucking thread, you metamorphose into a bitter opponent of the unfairness of DNC rules?"
---------------
WHERE? Did the DNC MANDATE a Michigan revote and Obama refused to recognize it? Gee, how did the DNC let him get away with that? Or is Petey describing the situation in a dishonest fashion?

I do think that if the DNC sets the rules for an election , then those rules should be fixed once the campaign begins and binding on all candidates. Otherwise , you don't have a political party -- you have a clusterfuck.

I personally don't care if Michigan and Florida had voted way back in November 2007 -- if the other states agreed. But once the campaign begins, the die is cast.

If Hillary supporters in Michigan and Florida can't accept that , then fuck them. Because any attempt by the DNC to seat Hillary delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point will hurt the Democratic Party in November FAR more than anything Hillary voters in Florida and Michigan could do.

Petey: let's assume you're just being a bit slow and not being utterly disingenuous,

Petey: It's really time for the Clintons to go

"I wouldn't have minded a revote terribly, and I imagine Obama had a hand in blocking it."

The other numbskulls could take a lesson from you. Maintain intellectual honesty and consistency, and you actually become relevant to the discussion.

-----

"But I still have yet to hear a principled argument for why the Democrats should reverse themselves on Michigan's punishment for deliberately violating party rules."

It's always been assumed by all parties that a consensus agreement would arrived at for MI & FL.

Consensus option #1: Seat the delegations because the nomination was going to be decided ahead of time and their votes wouldn't matter. Everyone though this likely until Tsunami Tuesday. Dead now due to the competitiveness of the race.

Consensus option #2: Arrange re-votes. Dead by the hand of Obama.

Consensus option #3: Come up with some compromise agreement at the RBC acceptable to all parties. Who knows if a compromise will be found or not? If not, do not pass Go, go directly to step #4:

Unconsensus option #4: Floor fight on the convention floor in August. No nominee in place for the chaotic summer.

-----

I was on record during the blocking of the re-votes as saying Team Obama was making a huuuuuuge error in strategy. The extra delegates Clinton would've picked up wouldn't have been able to eliminate Obama's lead in The Math. And at least it would've led to a clean end game.

Given their lead in The Math, the last thing Team Obama wanted was a ragged process at the end game. And unless consensus gets reached next month at the RBC, ragged is exactly what they're going to get - a chaotic summer where The Math won't be as useful to Team Obama as it would've been in a more controlled situation.

ha ha ha

Petey seems to have picked up some Clintonian morals from his Vulcan mind meld with Hillary.

Once I nailed down every rathole and closed off this little rodent's every escape, he suddenly tried to morph from Hillary partisan into an Objective Sage just looking at the situation with a Dispassionate Eye so that he could give Obama some Good Advice. Acting in Obama's Best Interests, as it were.

Ha ha ha. I've haven't been so entertained since i saw Bill Clinton's blank look on TV when Paula Jones' lawyer asked him under oath if he knew someone named Monica Lewinsky.

When Edwards was still in the race, Petey praised Howard Dean for stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates.

Petey: Good for Howard

Consumatopia! Yes! MARK IT ZERO!

"Not counting any delegates is also consistent with the rules, and is preferable to..."

Preferable to DNC sanctioned re-votes?

Is that you, Katherine Harris?

------

I can just imagine how the negotiations went between Obama and Dean on the re-votes.

Obama: We're fine with any MI primary held on a Tuesday.

Dean: Great! Tuesday it is!

Obama: Oh, wait. Can we do it on Thursday instead?

Dean: No. Sorry. Thursday elections are against the rules. But we can do it any other day of the week.

Obama: ohhhhhh. Sorry. I guess we can only do it on Thursday. Guess we don't have a agreement, Howard.

Dean: Fuck you, Barack. What goes around, comes around.

Just one more example of what we all already know.

The Clintons and their muppets will Say Anything and Do Anything to get the nomination.

Ickies stated as much when asked how now as a campaign advisor for Clinton he is railing against the same rules he created. His reponse was that was his old job, now he's doing his new job. Just shameless.

America will be a better place without the Clintons.

Option #5: play by the rules both parties agreed to at the beginning rather than making the Democratic primary process into Calvinball.

I have trouble deciding who's a bigger idiot, Petey, or the people who keep coming back to argue with him.

Petey is a dumbass who constantly contradicts himself and never makes sense (see hlah's posts). Debating someone of his level of stupidity and dishonesty is like, I don't know, trying to educate a fucking dog or a wall or something.

"When Edwards was still in the race, Petey praised Howard Dean for stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates."

Yup. It was the right thing to do.

The folks who seem mightily disingenuous to me are those who were on the DLC and Dean's side about the stripping, but were opposed to the DLC and Dean on the re-votes.

It's that kind of situational ethics that leaves one as a liar and a fraud.

I supported the DNC on stripping, and I also supported the DNC on having re-votes. Can you taste the yummy consistency?

If you can't grasp your mind around that, you may no longer ever be aware when you're lying, (or you may be aware, and simply not care that you're lying.)

The other numbskulls could take a lesson from you. Maintain intellectual honesty and consistency, and you actually become relevant to the discussion.

Cue the next hlah quote.

Petey: you may no longer ever be aware when you're lying, (or you may be aware, and simply not care that you're lying.)

Petey: It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator. You have my sympathies.

"Option #5: play by the rules both parties agreed to at the beginning rather than making the Democratic primary process"

I gave you 4 options, all of which involved both parties playing by the rules agreed to at the beginning.

Legitimate options #1 is dead.

Legitimate options #2 is dead by the hand of Obama.

Legitimate options #3 is coming up next month, and will require consensus between the two campaigns.

Legitimate options #4 would happen between the RBC and convention. It's a perfectly legitimate way of resolving things within the rules, but it'd be very messy in delaying the beginning of the general election campaign.

Petey's intent on smearing his feces across every blog post that mentions Obama. It's such a bring-down.

Re Petey's comment "Dean: Fuck you, Barack. What goes around, comes around."
--------------
Ah, since Petey's attempt to pose as Objective Sage didn't fly either, it's time to retreat from Reality into that rich inner world inside Petey's head.

In which Reality behaves the way it's supposed to. And instead of Facts, one can introduce selected "narratives" from any one of several Alternate Universes.

It doesn't matter to Petey what Howard Dean ACTUALLY said to Obama in THIS Reality --

what matters is what "Mirror Spock with the Goatee in the Evil Alternative Universe" said.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror%2C_Mirror_%28TOS_episode%29

The one at 6:26pm isn't really relevant to the quote, hlah, no?

Better biographers, por favor.

Regarding Petey, what's not to like about him if you're Matt? A hit is a hit as far as The Atlantic is concerned, and if Petey helps push Matt's ranking higher than Megan McArdle's, I'm all for it myself.

It's not like Michigan's delegation is going to get counted now in any case, and the only item of note here is still McAuliffe's own flaming hypocrisy on the subject.

Petey is still slinging accusations of people "opposing the DNC" while at the same time he refuses to answer the question:

"Did the DNC MANDATE a Michigan revote and Obama refused to recognize it? Gee, how did the DNC let him get away with that? Or is Petey describing the situation in a dishonest fashion?"

I gotta say that it's odd when I'm trying to engage on a thread and 85% of the commenters are intentionally lying.

You do realize that should anyone actually bother to read the thread, you're only making the other 15% of us look even smarter than we really are, right?

I know the rules works differently on that kind of stuff over at dKos, you've crossed an international border to get to this land with different customs and foodstuffs.

The folks who seem mightily disingenuous to me are those who were on the DLC and Dean's side about the stripping, but were opposed to the DLC and Dean on the re-votes. It's that kind of situational ethics that leaves one as a liar and a fraud. Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Uh sorry, but no. Re-voting creates its own issues of fairness and equity.

For one, once people vote for a candidate, their support of that candidate has hardened and they would now be unpersuadable to change their vote just a few weeks later. Other factors that could affect the outcome of a re-vote is the perception of who is winning or losing at the time. Most people also like to vote for the winner and that could affect outcomes.

Second, the Clinton campaign did not want to open up the revote to Republicans and Independents who voted in the Republican primary because they wanted their vote to count for something, although they would have voted in the Dem primary if they had the opportunity.

Third, the Republicans in the legislature were creating obstacles to passing legislation for a primary revote and the Dems in the state legislature did not want to have to pay them off to get 2/3rds of the vote necessary for the measure to pass.

Fourth, there was no requirement at all for them to have another primary and there was no requirement for the legislature to intervene on this issue at all. The state party could have organized caucuses without the imprimateur of the legislature and could have gone ahead with them, but of course the Clinton campaign would not agree to that.

So get your facts straight. I am tired of the ridiculousness of you Clinton supporters. As the end comes nearer, reality moves farther away.

Why should we be concerned about "Democrats" who voted in the Republican Primary not getting to vote for Mitt Romney (or whoever) and Obama in the primaries? If they are Democrats they were voting on the GOP side in bad faith anyway. I have a lot less sympathy for people like that than for ordinary Michigan Democrats who tried to vote in their own primary but then were disenfranchised through no fault of their own.

If the DNC rule blocking participation in the GOP primary and the Dem one in the same year was the only hold-up Obama could have gone public and said that if the DNC would waive it for Michigan he would support a Michigan revote. He could have put the Clinton campaign on the spot that way. But really he didn't want a revote and his supporters in Michigan decide to shield him from one.

Truly, he is inspiring and empowering!

Re Vito's comment "Truly, he [Obama] is inspiring and empowering!"
------------
Well, Obama does have a 150 head lead in delegates hence the Democratic nomination hence the Presidency.

Whereas the wealthy people who have put up a hundred million dollars for Hillary are left facing the fact that they only have a comical sophistry that smells like the mens' room at the chili cookoff competition.

I don't know whether to call that "inspiring" or "hilarious".


1- It doesn't matter. If, given the math when this issue is looked into again, Clinton agrees to a resolution that will not impact the outcome, Obama will agree.

If not, Obama will be about 100 or so superdelegates from winning on the first ballot and he'll get them at the convention, and everyone will know he'll get them after the first week in June.

There isn't a scenario where this gets messy.

This is not a big deal. Petey thinks it is because of the post-Edwards emotional vortex he finds himself in.

2- Hillary pledged not to participate in the election but left her name on the ballot when she could have removed it. Hillary isn't supposed to get closer to the nomination by breaking her pledge, and she will not.

When it is clear that the delegates no longer matter, Obama will be magnanimous and allow them to count at full strength or whatever.

3- None of Michigan's legistlators are accountable to Obama. Representatives of Michigan's voters blocked the revote. They probably were sympathetic to Obama's arguments but they blocked the revote on behalf of the Michigan voters they represent. Obama didn't block anything.

This is not something halfway intelligent people can disagree on. The only reason anyone would say Obama blocked the revote to express some bizarre kind of demonization.

4- Petey, your idol John Edwards lost. Cry. Find someone to talk to who you can share your feelings with. At some point you're going to have to get on with your life.

I've found Petey's behavior the last couple of months to be ridiculous, to say the least, but I think he's making a valid point here. Does anybody believe that if the positions were reversed - e.g. if it were Hilary was quietly blocking a revote in Michigan that would almost surely go to Obama if it were held - that Matt & most of the commenters here wouldn't be outraged? Not that there isn't a valid argument against a re-vote, but don't pretend your feelings about it aren't influenced by which candidate you're supporting.

"I gotta say that it's odd when I'm trying to engage on a thread and 85% of the commenters are intentionally lying."

Ah, intentionally, the siren's call of the narcissist. You give away your pathologies too easily, Petey.

You know nothing of anyone's intentions, let alone everyone's. But since they do not accept your reading of the situation, they must be intentionally lying, as your narcissistic defense mechanism will not let you have an honest disagreement.

Does anybody believe that if the positions were reversed - e.g. if it were Hilary was quietly blocking a revote in Michigan

If the roles were reversed Obama would no longer be in the race.

Peter H, it wasn't Obama (or Edwards for that matter) who opportunistically kept his name on the Michigan ballot after going along with the sanctions for jumping the gun. So it isn't simply about Obama being ahead of Clinton, and therefore your hypothetical reversal of position doesn't apply.

Of course some think it was mighty clever of Clinton to keep her name on the ballot, and so it is. Doesn't make it any less opportunistic and two-faced though.

Petey typically gets the first comment in on one of MY's posts, where he takes his (by now) typical jab at MY, Obama, trust funds, etc.

The guy clearly does not have a life folks. He really does need to get one.

"if it were Hilary was quietly blocking a revote in Michigan that would almost surely go to Obama"

You seem to be assuming that a revote in Michigan would almost surely go to Clinton - I'm not sure what you base that on. The last poll I'm aware of (Rasmussen) had them exactly tied, and Obama has been doing better than Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain. The reason Obama supporters were not enthused about a revote was not because Obama would lose but because it would create added uncertainty and drag out the process.

Arguments could be made for and against a revote, but that's why rules are agreed upon in advance, because it is impossible to achieve consensus on rule changes. And the fact is that the DNC and all candidates agreed in advance that Michigan would not get delegates because it jumped the line. The Clinton campaign did not even begin calling for a revote until Februrary, and the Michigan state legislature did not approve it.


In response to Arnold

There isn't a scenario where this gets messy.
Um, yes there is. The Clintons could continue to threaten SD's to stay on the fence until the Convention. Then they could continue to run a campaign against Obama after all the voting was finished. So Obama would be running against Hillary, Bill and John McCain for June and July and a good chunk of August. They would continue to drive his numbers down to make unelectable a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They probably were sympathetic to Obama's arguments but they blocked the revote on behalf of the Michigan voters they represent.
While it is probably true that Obama did not do anything to help a revote, I don't think the primary reason it did not happen was because his supporters in the state blocked one. From what I have read, the primary reason was that to pass the measure for a special election would require 2/3 of the vote and that meant that they would need a lot of Republican votes to get it done and the Republicans saw an opportunity and wouldn't do it for free. There was another significant issue with the constitutional challenges to the primary in the Michigan Supreme court which would have created other issues further complicating the situation. I think it is far too simplistic to say that Obama supporters in MI blocked a revote. I think the reality is much more complicated.

As for Florida, it is totally disingenous for anyone to suggest that Obama should support the apportionment of the vote as it stood after the primary. There are 3 obvious reasons for this.

1. Obama has closed leads, even in elections he lost in every state he campaigned in.

2. The Panhandle and northern portion of the state is indistinguishable from neighboring Alabama and Georgia and Obama won those states handily. But to get large turnout among those voter groups requires GOTV. You could make the case that Florida has cultural affinities to the south where Obama is strong as far down as Tampa and Orlando.

3. In South Florida, ther is only two words that anyone needs to know Elian Gonzales. I know Obama doesn't play dirty, but that would just be an easy one. Plus he does really well with Carribbean's, winning all of the VI delegates, so he would capture the West Indian and Haitian communities.

In a full race between Obama and Clinton in Florida, I think in an ordinary race Obama would not lose by greater than single digits. And because northern Florida is culturally the south and Hillary has an Elian problem in South Florida, she wouldn't win there in the fall anyways.

Re Peter H's comment "Not that there isn't a valid argument against a re-vote, but don't pretend your feelings about it aren't influenced by which candidate you're supporting. "
-----------
1) When Obama loses --as he did here in Pennsylvania -- he and his supporters do not piss, moan, gripe, and try to change the rules to force a re-do.

2) We have the odd belief that someone wishing to be President of the United States should have a minimum standard of dignity and integrity -- that they should not be a cowardly cur who resorts to every dishonest, disloyal and deceitful trick in the books to cover up her shortcomings.

Re DW's claim that Obama and his fan club are noble b/c they didn't ask for a revote after losing PA: HRC DIDN'T LOSE IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN! What a specious comparison! She's not asking for a revote in Wisconsin or Virginia any place she legitimately lost. She's asking for voters to be allowed to have a say in Florida and Michigan.

It seems Mr. Hope and his friends are more interested in blocking Democrats from FL and MI from voting for fear that they might vote the wrong way, the way "bitter" working-class folks who "cling" to guns and religion sometimes do. That's several million people disenfranchised for the sins of a few hundred politicians, many of whom weren't even Democrats.

Consensus option #2: Arrange re-votes. Dead by the hand of Obama.

Consensus option #3: Come up with some compromise agreement at the RBC acceptable to all parties. Who knows if a compromise will be found or not? If not, do not pass Go, go directly to step #4:

Consensus option 2a: have a revote in which everyone has the option to vote, rather than one illegal under Michigan election law as Petey and Clinton would have in which only people who voted in the Clinton-only primary could vote.

This would violate DNC rules, but if it were agreeable to all parties the RBC could agree to seat the resulting delegates. If Clinton were willing to agree to an election in which everyone could vote, an election that would actually be legal in Michigan, then the delegates could have been seated.

Make no mistake--primary blame for MI delegates not counting belongs to whoever set their primary date too early. Secondary blame goes to Clinton for not agreeing to any MI election in which anyone but people who already voted for her or "uncommitted" gets to vote.

Like Petey says, people reading through this will see who's full of crap. He is. Clinton was the one who ended any possibility of a fair MI vote. Which is probably why she's way down in vs. McCain matchups relative to Obama. Make no mistake--Petey and Clinton are on one side, the actual people of Michigan are on the other.

It isn't about whether Hillary lost at all, it's about Michigan leapfrogging the agreed-upon process and what the consequences of that are. The Michigan Democratic Party is indeed responsible for that rash act, and McAuliffe's hypocrisy about sanctions and Clinton's opportunism of keeping her name on the MI ballot is also duly noted. Blaming Obama is just so much special pleading at the pity party as far as I'm concerned.

I supported the DNC on stripping, and I also supported the DNC on having re-votes. Can you taste the yummy consistency?

If you are yummily consistent, you will oppose seating the MI delegates in any form now that the revote has failed.

If you're willing to seat the delegates now by RBC, you consistently would have been willing to have the RBC seat the results of a MI re-vote that allows all Democrats to vote (my option 2a). Otherwise, you have a weird definition of consistency. But we already kind of knew that.

I would have supported the latter, and would continue to support a 50/50 split in MI seated by RBC. Thus, consistency.

85% of the people here are telling the truth, Petey is lying.

HRC DIDN'T LOSE IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN!

There are only 4 states where the Republican turnout was higher than the Democratic states: Arizona (McCain), Utah(Romney, Florida and Michigan.
Why was the Democratic turnout lower in Florida and Michigan? Because the voters where told their votes would not count.
The elections in Florida and Michigan are not valid, and they will not be counted. That you think they should be shows you have no respect for the democratic process.

Ban Petey!

Ambinder: "Think what you wish. There are sand boxes out back."

Yeah, and Ambinder needs to hook up with Petey and go play in them. Ambinder cites no sources but the back of his head.

Christ, this nitwit Petey gets hammered with facts by fifty posters, and he comes back with the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT every day. He's like Robert Powell - except that Powell is apparently paid to be a bullshit propagandist for right wing talking points, and Petey is just a stubborn nitwit.

Not to mention that according to the delegate counts and popular vote counts I've seen that even redoing Michigan and Florida WILL NOT REMOVE OBAMA'S LEAD. It will merely reduce that lead, not eliminate it.

So it's bullshit to keep bringing it up in any case.

The Clintons are losers, which is why they are being abandoned by Clyburn and Guerra-Mondragón. You have to wonder if the latter's defection to the Obama camp will change the outcome in Puerto Rico.

There are some great Petey lines in this thread (mostly re "intellectual dishonesty") but this comment should win some sort of irony award:

I understand that you think that the worse Obama does in elections, the more entitled he is to the nomination. And I understand that you'd rather lose with Obama in November than win with Clinton. ...

But most Democrats aren't down with your kamikaze mission.

Team Obama's decision to reject the DNC position and block the re-votes was a big gamble on their part that they'd be able to shut down the race before June. They've failed in that gamble, and now we're all looking at a summer of chaos if the RBC can't find consensus, due to Team Obama's irresponsibility.

As an Obama supporter, I think that Michigan and Florida must be counted. The voters cannot be punished for the antics of their politicians -- not if the Democrats want to have a chance to win in FL and MI in the fall.

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

I hope that shortly thereafter, the DNC and Obama's campaign will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

A few hundred superdelegates will announce their committment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won't do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee.

I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

Isn't that filthy animal Hillary dead yet? I have been praying hard for her death for weeks. So much for the efficacy of prayer.

May the Devil Monster die tonight and burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

What's the difference between Hillary and a vicious rabid dog?

I brake for rabid dogs.

Hobbes,

You are correct that I was wrong to say that a revote in Michigan would almost surely go to Clinton. However, the fact that is Clinton would have had a good chance of winning there and cutting into Obama's lead.

The DNC explicitly said that it would support a revote in Michigan, so I don't buy that it would violating the rules to hold another primary in June (A revote is a separate issue from whether the RBC should seat the delegates on the basis of January primary).

"if you start badly, you may be sure you will end your course badly; perhaps be dismissed the service with disgrace, or discharged from your first ship on paying off as an objectionable character, being ever after shunned by your old shipmates as a man unworthy of being known, thus becoming a burden to yourself; and die at an early age, unregretted and uncared for. "

-- Royal Navy's "Boy's Manual of Seamanship and Gunnery", 1871
(Boy = young enlistees into the Royal Navy )

The only obstacle was the unified opposition of MI Dems allied with Obama, under instructions from Chicago to block the re-vote.

Well, that, and the opposition of a federal judge (on the orders of Obama, no doubt):

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443

What Katherine Harris did in Florida was selective disenfranchisement that rigged the system so that Gore supporters, primarily African-Americans and Native Americans (but not Cuban-Americans, whose votes went to Bush), would not count once they were falsely labeled ex-cons right around election time. What Clinton is proposing is selective disenfranchisement: not allowing first-time voters (who are often Obama supporters) and Republicans who decided to vote in the Republican primary but would be willing to cross-over out of support for Obama (the very sort of supporters a Democrat is going to need to win in November) because they were following the pre-established rules and trying to follow the rules. The re-vote she is pushing for selectively makes sure key groups of Obama supporters would not be able to vote, otherwise Obama would probably win. Changing the rules of an election in the middle of an election is what is done in Zimbabwe, not in mature democracies. What message is it sending when the wife of a former president wants to make the entire system with pre-established rules bend her way to legitimize the result of an uncontested election?

In addition, if we allow a re-vote now, that just shows the pre-established rules won't matter in the future. It's a bit like the Scooter Libby pardon: he had a punishment handed down by a judge, but he was set free before he even served a day. The incentives in the future thus say there will be no price to pay for pulling stunts like MI and FL pulled. If there are re-votes, in 2012 or 2016 more states tried to pull this type of shit and then the DNC tried to enforce their rules, the enforcement would be completely arbitrary.

Also, if Clinton really believed that MI and FL should not have been stripped of their delegates, then she would have fire Ickes and MacAuliffe by now. The fact she hasn't just shows she thinks her supporters are stupid.