Mark Schmitt may be right about the Clinton preference for uncertainty over math, but my reporting suggests that most -- though by no means all -- of the folks in Florida and Michigan who are fighting for a revote are Clinton allies, and almost everyone who is fighting against a revote are Obama allies.
« An Update From Michigan | Main | A Better Case Against Obama's Electability » Clinton And Revotes14 Mar 2008 02:54 pm Comments (18)
I imagine numerous psychiatric PhD candidates are studying the Internets these days to study an entire population descending into madness. I suspect that by the time we reach Pa., there will be pigs heads on stakes while we all hunt down the fat kid. 
I don't know why Obama fans are against a revote - he'll draw her to a 50-50 tie, and reduce the "delegates still to be gained" amount. I guess to avoid "momentum." As for the Clinton allies, well... I guess they're buying her schtick.
Best case scenario for Hillary is a revote by the two states as close as possible to the convention. I don't think they will really turn up the heat for awhile yet. Preferably post Pennsylvania, which looks pretty much like a certainty at the moment. In the interem, I think they would like to keep things low key, let buyer's remorse set in as the suddenly bored media starts to dig deeper into the life of their opponent. As they are starting to do with Obama's church and pastor. In that sense, not only Michigan and Florida become "do overs", but really the entire primary process becomes a "do over" to the largest extent possible.
"the folks in Florida and Michigan who are fighting for a revote are Clinton allies" ...so suggesting unrealistic proposals buys her time.
Obama fan here for a revote.
If at first you don't succeed, vote, vote again! NHCt gets the award for best analogy in a blog comment thus far! Sucks to your ass-mar!
is it going to matter? I mean won't O drop out now because of this pastor situation? I mean surely this must turn off some of the supers who are probably wondering why O has said so little. I want a miracle right now, but judging from the rightwing radio reaction and some on the blogs, it looks as though the Obama party is over. Huh? what do u think?
ap, Drop out? Are you for real? Maybe you should turn off the right wing radio and I don't know, read a newspaper or a blog or something. The Obama party isn't over...we've only just begun!
When asked to review the re-vote proposal in Florida I responded with the following: Ms. Thurman, One 23 September 2007, you were quoted, "There will be no other primary. Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on January 29th. We make this election matter. Not the DNC, not the delegates, not the candidates, but Florida Democrats like you and me voting together. We make it count." You went on to say, "Don't let anybody call this vote a 'beauty contest' or a 'straw poll.' On January 29, 2008, there will be a fair and open election in Florida, which will provide for maximum voter participation. The nation will be paying attention, and Florida Democrats will have a major impact in determining who the next President of the United States of America will be." You recommended and pushed for a primary you knew was in violation of the DNC rules and now you are telling us that this new proposal of a mail-in ballot will be the 'real' one. I am sorry but your credibility is in question. I have only been a resident of Florida for nine years, but in that time we have been at the forefront in this country of voting irregularities. I don't need to itemize them here, everyone is aware. But we have had problems with both punch cards and voting machines and now you want to suggest a new scheme. As it has been pointed out by many, it took Oregon 10 years to work out the issues with mail-in ballots but you are confident that Florida can do it on a whim? I think not. There should be no 'do over' primary election in Florida. Between the Republican Legislature, the competing Democratic campaigns, the lack of experience in running a mail-in ballot and the history of our elections, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. The Florida Democratic Party should be working on an equitable way to seat the Florida delegates without adversely affecting the Democratic primary and to ensure that the votes of Democrats will be properly counted in November.
I don't really see how being "for" the rules that were set and agreed upon from the beginning is an "opinion" in the same way that being "for" a new policy is when you consider that all the candidates had essentially the same "opinion" on the matter at the outset.
Obama supporter here, for a revote. But I also think that, and there should be no question about this, that the revote should be allowed to seat pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan, but that these states should be able to send NO super-delegates to the convention. The party leaders in each state that supported the move to hold early primaries against party rules should be punished. It's only fair.
Here is Senator Obama's response: Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue. Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context. As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS. Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn. The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church. Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country. With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
Lets talk about VP...I really think Kathleen Sebelius would be Obama's best choice. I really like and respect here and she is a Governor of a Red State. She brings integrity as a woman with her own experince and a calming effect much like Obama.
Ok, this whole argument is bordering on RIDICULOUS. Consider that the real issue is whether or not the votes of FL and MI should count in the primary. The entire DNC (not just Dean) sat down and reasoned out a position. They said DO NOT move up the date or you will lose the delegates. Both states decided that they would still move up the dates anyway. End of story. Of course Hillary is going to do anything she can to turn this thing on its ass. But what I don't understand is why is the DNC letting her. To me its like a child who is testing the waters to see what they can get away with. NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR A DEBATE ON THE RULES, THAT WAS BACK IN 2007. Nothing against the citizens of FL & MI, but the primary system is up by the DNC and those two states did not respect the DNC's authority. They broke the rules that were issued way back in 2007, and the result is that they had something happen that they knew was a possibility. You can argue whether those rules were good or bad, but the time for that is way beyond consideration now. Democracy is governed by rules, as is society. Where do you draw the line for "re-votes" anyway? Certainly other states could be included based on circumstances. FL & MI bet that the DNC would NOT strip the delegates. I don't care how close this primary is, IF THE DNC WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, THEN THEY NEED TO STAND THEIR GROUND and stick to the original rules they decided on. I hate to liken it to this, but if you say you're gonna punish your child for doing something wrong then as hard as it is you must fulfill that and follow through with the original punishment. At the end of the day, not doing so encourages the behaivior.
There is no reason why Obama should accept any compromise that nets Hillary an advantage in delegates, like the lame 1/2 of the votes plan put forward by Nelson in FL. Why should Obama agree to any plan that in some manner legitimizes an illegitimate election and allows Hillary to gain delegates? Not to mention that Hillary will claim another "big state" win and claim the popular vote margin as well. I also agree with Dan; if the DNC caves on this, then they will lose all respect for the future. In future contests many more states, candidates, etc. would not take the DNC rules seriously, knowing that all they had to do was whine loudly enough to avoid consequences.
Save the money; split the votes and popular vote down the middle - period. BUT DO NOT ALLOW THEM ANY SUPERDELEGATES. There must be a penalty in here somewhere.
I am completely dismayed that this is even an issue. FL and MI knew the rules and chose to break them anyway. I completely agree with Dan who posted on March 14, 2008 10:11 PM. The rules are there and have been in place for years. FL and MI chose to take the risk and hold primaries early, therefore each state should have to suffer the penalty of their actions. Senator Clinton knew every candidate agreed to not campaign or participate in any way in these two states due to the fact that they broke the rules. "... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall." This is a direct and unequivocable violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters. She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE. Here's the relevant section of the pledge (pdf): THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). By her own admission, she has broken her pledge.
Just the fact that ALL candidates AGREED and SIGNED the pledge should nullify this ENTIRE argument. period. The voters in FL and MI should direct their anger at their state representatives who broke the rules and cost them their say in this nomination. Senator Clintons supporters should not threaten to pull the money they have already donated to the DNC, they should threaten to pull the money they donated to a campaign led by a Senator who is trying her best to cheat her way through this election process.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
How about a revolt instead of a revote?
Posted by D | March 14, 2008 2:58 PM