Obama's Memo On Michigan

« The World v. Obama On Michigan | Main | Racial Realities And Obama's Speech »

Obama's Memo On Michigan

19 Mar 2008 01:51 pm

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. (OK, that's unfair. Sorry.) This is the blog, after all, that sounded the pre-clearance alarm (see below)....

Here's a memo from Obama counsel Bob Bauer describing some of the Obama campaign's worries about Michigan.
TO:

Interested Parties

FROM:

Robert F. Bauer

RE:

Michigan Primary

DA:

March 19, 2008

In the short time available, I have reviewed the proposed legislation to establish the June 3, 2008 primary, considering primarily those issues that bear on the central question of whether this election can be conducted successfully without undue risk of legal challenges, including those challenges arising out of errors or other breakdown induced by the schedule the State has proposed.

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative—questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

Voter Disqualification

Although Michigan has always run open elections, which allow voters to vote in whatever primary they prefer, voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the proposed law. This class of voters includes Democrats and Independents who chose not to vote in the invalid Democratic primary at the time because the majority of active candidates did not appear on the ballot and the results would not be accepted under party rules.

This provision raises a significant constitutional question and, along with it, the prospect for litigation that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election and bring preparations to a standstill under circumstances in which such delay is effectively fatal. The claim here could also be presented to the party, under party rules, with a similar effect of putting the election and its results in serious question.

The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.

Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. Michigan cannot argue that it wants to limit the June primary to those who are genuinely Democrats, because it has always run fully open primaries. Voters, in other words, have a state-conferred right to vote in the Democratic party no matter what their affiliation. The primaries in January were fully open; and the decision to close them in June will not easily stand constitutional scrutiny. In any challenge, Michigan will be criticized for proposing a re-run without, in effect, restoring to voters the original choice they had—whether to participate in a meaningful Democratic primary.

In other words, the proposal offers a re-run for the State but not for all the voters. The state will have to assert an interest sufficient to justify this infringement on the voting rights of its citizens. Its challenge will be to show how, when the state is seeking to remedy a problem of its own making—failure in the first instance to observe party rules on timing—it can somehow discriminate against groups of its own citizens.

The State is also vulnerable to challenge under the party rules. Since any Republican or independent who did not vote in January in the Republican primary is fully free to participate in the June primary, the effect of the proposal is to enfranchise a class of Republicans while disenfranchising a class of Democrats—the ones who chose to vote in the Republican primary when they correctly understood that the Democratic contest was meaningless. A challenge along these lines would consume time, when time is not available, and it is not clear that the party would or could approve this exclusionary feature even if the participating candidates were to agree to it. The DNC would subject itself to legal action if it proceeds with approval of the plan with these terms included.

These voting rights issues constitute a serious vulnerability in the proposed legislation and a threat to its successful enactment and implementation.

Voting Rights Act Pre-Clearance

The June primary proposal is clearly subject to pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. Because of the voter disqualification feature, together with the other extraordinary circumstances, there is no reason to believe that this review will conclude promptly or without issues raised. The Justice Department is not even required to issue its ruling until 60 days have elapsed. This timeline simply does not fit within the state timeline and may only further delay preparations.

Further, should the Department of Justice object, the state would be barred from proceeding with its plan. Even if the Department pre-clears the election, objections could be pursued further in litigation initiated under another provision (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act.

Additional Issues: Implications for Litigation

Under the bill, and in connection with meeting the demands of an election under the schedule it establishes, there are additional sources of potential legal challenge. Each of these is addressed briefly here:

(1) Voter Affirmation

The proposed legislation would call for voters to affirm that they have not participated in any other Presidential primary election in this calendar year. Should the election be close, it foreseeable that these affirmations would become a source of challenges, as we have already seen, in Texas, similar demands for the verification of up to one million voters' eligibility. Any such challenge would delay results on a timetable that does not allow for delay.

There is also a significant danger here of potential voter confusion: a voter might affirm that he or she did not participate in any other Presidential primary, by which the voter might mean the prior Democratic primary, with the result that the voter would be subject to investigation for falsely affirming what he or she believed to be true.

The result here could be extensive litigation, embarrassment to the voters, and eventual loss of credibility for the election.

(2) UOCAVA

.It is a serious risk that, under the highly compressed timetables established under the proposed bill, Michigan will be unable to satisfy the requirements for compliance with the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA),, which was designed to protect our men and women in uniform, among others. The Election Assistance Commission's report in September, 2007 on the low turn-out in overseas voting called on States and local election authorities to attend closely to the requirements for the timely and reliable delivery and receipt of ballots. The fact that, as noted below, election administrators within Michigan have already raised the potential for administrative strain, if not breakdown, in the proposed June election squarely raises the foreseeable consequences for Michigan's performance of its obligations to these voters under the law.

(3) Strain on Election Preparations

Those with the most detailed knowledge about, and the greatest responsibility for, how well the proposed election will work—the clerks who will actually be charged with administering the election—have stated that the election cannot be planned and administered within this time frame. http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/03/saginaw_county_clerk_says_redo.html (reporting the President of the Michigan Association of County Clerks conclusion that "Our software and other equipment are not designed to run (multiple) elections at the same time. There are just so many reasons why this [June election] wouldn't work").

The professional judgments in advance of the election, warning of breakdown, will be cited in litigation over any difficulties Michigan experiences over the course of endeavoring to run this election. If breakdowns occur, and especially if the election is close, it is likely that Michigan's attempt to hold this election on this timetable, in the face of these warnings from the responsible local officials, will weigh heavily against its legal position. In any litigation, it is sure to be noted, as in the past, that "Michigan is the largest . . . state that today place[s] responsibility for conducting elections primarily at the municipal level. . . . Some 274 city clerks and 1,242 township clerks . . . are primarily responsible for the actual administration of Michigan elections." Steven F. Huefner, et al., From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States 88 (2007). An election held without regard to the independent and professional judgment of the responsible officials will, in the event of breakdown, subject the state and the party to adverse consequences in any subsequent legal accounting.

A Note on Financing

I have further reviewed the state's plan to collect the funds needed for this election from private sources. It appears that, under Michigan law, the State may, if it "appropriates" the money by separate enactment, invite private parties, individuals or groups, to contribute on an unlimited basis to support a public function such as this conduct of this election.

To the extent that this extraordinary financing provision raises issues, these arise under the Federal Election Campaign Act of l971. Throughout press accounts, supporters of the proposal and others commenting on it have referred to the private funding as "soft money." Now in formal use following the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this term covers any funds raised and spent outside the FECA's contribution limits, source restrictions and reporting requirements to influence a federal election. Neither the national party nor candidates may solicit such funds, nor may others "acting on their behalf" as their agents.

We could expect that this issue may be raised—and it has already been identified by a leading reform organization, Democracy 21, a leading supporters of the BCRA "soft money" reforms. http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={93E58584-8019-4201-A02C-4519BC65B974

Since the state is acting on behalf of the party, with the expected assistance of the candidates, a creditable case may be made that all soft monies raised have been impermissibly solicited on behalf of at least the Democratic National Committee and, possibly, Senators Obama and Clinton (to the extent that their donors are encouraged or motivated to volunteer funds). It is therefore well within the realm of possibility that such a case will be made, subjecting the party and its candidates to potential liability.

Comments (59)

And your point is what, exactly? That it is inappropriate to raise concerns?

As I pointed out before, if the DNC agrees Obama agrees.

I am not calling you a Clinton shill, but if you are going to make accusations, at least provide evidence. I would expect the same if it was something said about the Clinton camp.

Posted by john m | March 19, 2008 2:06 PM

Find me a sports coach who, when ahead in the count, is willing to go into overtime. Find me a coach who, behind in the count, isn't willing to exploit any technicality within reach to get overtime.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaigns are really waging this fight in the interests of Florida and Michigan voters. It's disingenuous (although typical) of either campaign to propose that they are.

Posted by baudelairien | March 19, 2008 2:08 PM

Well, no shit. Scheduling a revote in the future, rather than agreeing right now to a 50-50 split which is about what a revote would produce, prolongs the zombie existence of the Clinton campaign, buying her time in which she can continue trying to fatally damage Obama. The only mystery is why the party is letting her get away with it, when it can only lead to a lost general election in what should be a massively Democratic year. But we've all learned never to underestimate this party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 19, 2008 2:13 PM

I'm sure you're right, Marc. I would just say that, while Obama's resistance to the revote is surely political, SO IS CLINTON'S SUPPORT FOR IT. The two political arguments cancelling one another out, Obama gets the better of this, since the a) a primary wouldn't decide anything anyway, and b) the points Bauer raises are utterly valid.

Posted by alex | March 19, 2008 2:16 PM

Exactly, and, isn't she lucky to have enablers in the media like Marc. They have a shared interest in prolonging the bloodletting. Charming.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 19, 2008 2:20 PM

The biggest concern seems to be Voter Disqualification/Affirmation because of the previous primary.
Since this is unprecedented, could the DNC/Michigan Dems approve a 1 time exception that allows any voter (voted in Dem primary, voted in Repub primary, didn't vote at all) to participate in the new primary?

Aside from the $$$ (which could probably be found), this would solve most problems?

I'm not a lawyer, so tell me why this option is bad/illegal/wrong?

Posted by John B. | March 19, 2008 2:20 PM

If you aren't biased towards Clinton, you will point out that Hillary's support of a revote is also "for reasons of politics". So I hope you point that out in your next blog post, or argue why this isn't the case. Because if you don't, you are in fact acting in a biased manner.

Posted by Walker | March 19, 2008 2:21 PM

"The Obama campaign is opposed to a Michigan re-vote mainly for reasons of politics."

In this public forum, rather than simply in your personal opinion, this statement is not a "descriptive truth," unless and until it is supported by "descriptive" reporting of facts, and (if necessary, anonymous) statements of relevant figures.

Posted by al | March 19, 2008 2:21 PM

This is top-notch reporting. The Michigan primary failed because of Bob Bauer's lawyering and Obama's opposition on political grounds. Thanks for reporting it. Obama wants the primary to not happen for political reasons as much as Hilllary wants it to happen for political reasons.

Posted by Good reporting | March 19, 2008 2:23 PM

I believe the DNC has agreed to a revote, John. It appears from multiple news reports, not just from Marc Ambinder's blog, that Obama supporters in the MI legislature have effectively killed the idea of a revote. Baudelairien (I like Baudelaire myself), you're right that a coach would ride out the clock. But Obama has set himself up as different. He has spoken passionately about the importance of every single vote. Why is that not true in this case? It's clear that Obama opposes a revote for political reasons as much as Clinton hopes for one for political reasons. The difference is that Obama pitches himself as the anti-Clinton, the principled idealist who does nothing for political reasons.

Until yesterday I was on the fence about the two Democratic candidates. I found much of Obama's speech thrilling and truthful. But I deeply regret that he cast the racial divide in the same old tired light of black versus white, a unidimensional view that excludes other groups and that obscures the importance of social class. And I regret that he essentially changed the subject, obfuscating (though in the most elegant oratorical terms) the deep philosophical divide he, if we are to believe him, must have felt between himself and Rev. Wright. And yet he stayed, and dove deeply into the life of the congregation. Changing the subject, regardless of how gorgeous the speech was, does not answer the questions that many voters now hold. I was on the fence, but I'm not any longer. I'm looking for a president, not a healer-in-chief, which is how his wife casts him; I'm not looking for a messiah. The grandiosity has long grated on me, but I was willing to accept it as long as I could believe Obama truly was different. It has become clear to me that he is not. If he believed his own rhetoric, he would welcome a revote. What a disappointment.

Posted by ezr | March 19, 2008 2:27 PM

Except he DIDN'T report the second half of that equation, now did he.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 19, 2008 2:29 PM

Wait a second...

Marc doesn't have a pro-Clinton bias?

Posted by DSG | March 19, 2008 2:30 PM

Chill. No one thinks that you are pro-Clinton.

You might be wrong, or you might be eliding equivalent Clinton motivations, but your blog is clearly fair to Obama.

All anyone is suggesting is that you may not be pointing out that Clinton's motivations are similarly political.

Let's ask ourselves this: if Obama was in similar need of delegates and pure votes, would the DNC be bending over backwards to change the rules in the midlle of the game for him?

Posted by Mike | March 19, 2008 2:30 PM

"The Obama campaign is opposed to a Michigan re-vote mainly for reasons of politics."

No! Say it so! Not from the new kinda poltics candidate.

obama blew MI. In a suck up to IA obama took his name off the MI ballot. Now he has to man up and except the consequences of his poor judgment. Unfortunately that’s not what obama is doing. In yet another shameful display of his Chicago political roots obama is willing to disenfranchise millions of dem voters in FL and MI. For obama it’s all about winning. For obama he is only doing what is necessary to claim the prize that he deserves. Shameful. The only thing he could do to try and save any credibility he might have left is to go back to Chicago and get lost in the daley machine where he belongs.

Posted by hadenough | March 19, 2008 2:31 PM

My problem with the statement is its utter banality... OF COURSE Obama's opposition is a matter of politics. He's playing this game to win, just as Hillary is playing to win (or, at the very least, scuttle).

Posted by Jerry Medium | March 19, 2008 2:41 PM

Well, if hadenough actually tried to talk (write) with any degree of logic, I might respond to him, but he doesn't.

ezr makes a somwhat reasonable statement. Factually wrong, however. At least in important ways.

First of all, Obama has said all along that he would support whatever the DNC decision is.

Secondly, the campaign did raise some legitimate issues, but did not say they would go against the DNC.

Thirdly, the decision to go forward with a revote is dependent on a 2/3 majority of a Republican held state legislature, so Obama supporters are not the problem

And finally, several Clinton supporters also said it was unworkable, just like several Clinton supporters were against a revote in FL.

In fact, last week, the Clinton campaign was vehemently against a revote in MI.

Posted by john m | March 19, 2008 2:44 PM

Sorry, ezr, but if a revote plan goes forward that doesn't permit everyone to participate who was entitled to vote the first time around, then that will produce a fraudulent result. And I don't see any reason why Obama should agree to such a stupidly structured proposal. If Obama's refusal to participate in such a hair-brained scheme loses you his vote, that's too bad. But it increases my respect for him as someone who is smart and strategic -- and certainly ready to govern on Day One.

Posted by BHLnyc | March 19, 2008 2:44 PM

Thanks, John. So help me understand what happened. The DNC said it would support a revote, and you say Obama said he'd go along with it. How do I square that with the news reports stating that it was Obama supporters, in a Democratic caucus, who refused to move, which means the issue won't go to the floor for a vote? I really do want to understand, because I want to be able to support the Democratic nominee in the fall.

BHLnyc, is your objection that the revote would be limited to Democrats? If so, can you help me understand what role you think Republicans and Independents should play in selecting the Democratic nominee?

Posted by ezr | March 19, 2008 2:54 PM

Re: ezr
I think that the ability of Indys and Repubs to vote in Dem primaries is a fair topic for debate. In theory, I think it is an ok idea. Given the possible impact of strategic voting, I sometimes have 2nd thoughts.

Even if you exclude Indys and Repubs, don't the current rules still exclude Dems who voted in the Repub primary? And if so, aren't they disenfranchised?

Posted by John B. | March 19, 2008 3:04 PM

ezr, Republicans and Independents -- and DEMOCRATS who decided to take a GOP ballot because they didn't think their vote would count if they took a Dem ballot -- should be allowed to take part in the re-vote because they could have voted in the Dem primary originally. They were told by the DNC that their votes wouldn't count, so they took a Republican ballot to cast a vote that WOULD count. Had they thought there would be a re-vote from which they would have been disqualified, they might have chosen differently.

This whole thing stinks. There is no way to put the genie back into the bottle. The way things stand now, the available pool of voters will already be heavily skewed in favor of Hillary and the pool for Obama will be diluted. He still might stand a chance of winning because there were a lot of people who didn't bother to vote at all. But I'm guessing that Hillary (and her lackey, the totally incompetent governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm) already know that Hillary will be a runaway winner.

My guess is that Obama will allow the vote to happen, but that he's showing in advance that it will not be a fair vote in any sense.

Posted by Amy | March 19, 2008 3:10 PM

Aw, come on, the sandbox comment was funny. Will Bill Clinton be out back too? I'll bring sandcastle molds.

Posted by Jack | March 19, 2008 3:10 PM

Clearly Obama does not want to seat any delegates from Michigan. Clearly Obama said he would support a revote if the DNC did.

Well, the DNC has now supported the proposed revote but Democratic Obama supporters in the MI state legislature are 'concerned' - they are concerned that their candidate is going to lose.

How convenient for Obama - hide behind state legislators (how many are his superdelegates?) instead of standing up for the average Democratic voter who wants to be represented when it comes time to select the Democratic nominee.

Obama doesn't support a revote; he never has. He'll fight in the creds cmte and he'll fight on the convention floor to silence the voters of MI and FL.

And Obama fans support these tactics?

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 3:13 PM

I am a Michigan Democrat. When time came to vote in my party's primary, I knew that if I voted on the Democratic ticket that my vote would not count. Further, I did not see anyone on the Democratic ticket that I would even want to support. If Obama or Edwards were there, I probably would have cast my vote on the democratic ticket to at least show my support.

However, rather then throw my vote away on an 'uncommited' vote, I voted for the candidate on the Republican ticket that I liked the most, who happened to be Ron Paul, the only Republican I would ever support.

Unfortunatly, the fairest manner to end this situation is to not seat michigan's delegates. You cannot change rules halfway through the game without giving someone an advantage over the other, and a re-vote is changing the rules.

Posted by Brian | March 19, 2008 3:21 PM

"And Obama fans support these tactics?"

Of course we do. Hillary's only path to the nomination at this point is uncertainty and doubt; the more delegates that have yet to be awarded, the more she can seek the mystical "momentum" and try everything she can to destroy the candidate and the party.

Slamming the door on a highly dubious election that would undoubtedly be a net gain or loss of less than 5-10 delegates for either candidate is not disenfranchising anyone. The Michigan legislature did that last year, and all the candidates agreed wholeheartedly with the DNC's decision.

Once Hillary concedes after Indiana, Michigan will be seated in full. Anyone who wants this to go through surely does not realize the extensive damage done to Democrats everywhere every day by the continuance of this fight.

Posted by Racht | March 19, 2008 3:23 PM

ezr,

These were the rules established by the state party, which determined that the primary should be open to Republicans and independents. You can argue whether or not the original decision was to the party's benefit, but the idea of changing those rules after-the-fact strikes me as profoundly unfair, and I don't see why the Obama campaign is compelled to support them.

Personally, I think a re-do is a mistake anyway. Forty-eight states, Puerto Rico, Guam and a host of other entities all managed somehow to work within the established rules of the party. Michigan and Florida, however, made their decision to flaunt them (even when they were offered BONUS DELEGATES as an incentive to hold their primaries later!) and I believe there should be a price paid for their arrogance. Is it unfortunate for the voters of those states? Absolutely. But life comes with disappointments and I don't see why these states should be rewarded with special treatment.

Posted by BHLnyc | March 19, 2008 3:33 PM

Florida and Michigan voted early and were not counted because of it. They are both in the same boat. Now, Florida is not able to re-vote. Unless they both can re-vote neither should.

Posted by Kai in LA | March 19, 2008 3:34 PM

In other words, Obama's objections are that the do-over is designed so that a good number of his potential supporters that WOULD have voted for him in January would be excluded by the proposal, which would necessarily provide a result that would advantage the other side - the same "other side" who agreed months ago that Michigan wouldn't be seated, but now wants to change the rules so that either she gets them or so that she can go and TRY to get them 'anew'...

Yeah, I really fault the guy for not being idiotic enough to go with Clinton's plan. Tell ya what, why doesn't Hillary just focus on winning enough votes from the states that she agreed last summer WOULD count. There are still several of them in play...

Posted by Marcus | March 19, 2008 3:41 PM

I do find it interesting that many of the Clinton supporters who said she was the fighter and that Obama was too naive to play hardball are now complaining because Obama's campaign is playing some hardball.

Posted by jpm | March 19, 2008 3:55 PM

the same "other side" who ... now wants to change the rules so that either she gets them or so that she can go and TRY to get them 'anew'...

"the idea of changing those rules after-the-fact strikes me as profoundly unfair"

Sheesh. - Let's have just one Obama fan here - pleeease - explain how Hillary has changed the rules. What freakin' rule is Hillary trying to change?

Why are y'all propogating this lie?

Hillary is, indeed, abiding by the rules everyone agreed to a year ago. Per Howard Dean:

"The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates."

The state parties are trying to come up with revote plans to submit to the RBC. Hillary plans to urge her representatives on the credentials committee to find a way to seat FL and MI delegations.

She hasn't broken any damn rule and it's really ridiculous for all of the Obama fans to claim that she is. What rule did she break? None - quit lying.

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 3:59 PM

sbj,

One of Hillary's closest advisors, Harold Ickes, was one of the DNC members who voted to make sure that Florida and Michigan's primaries did not count. Now, as part of Camp Clinton, he's arguing that they should count.

What part of "changing the rules to suit your strategy" do you not understand?

Posted by BHLnyc | March 19, 2008 4:08 PM

Why is Obama trying to thwart democracy by opposing revotes in Florida and Michigan? Full primary revotes are the obvious, fair solution. Victories there by Obama will stop Clinton once and for all. And anyway, he's so far ahead in the delegate race that it wouldn't matter even if he loses. Right?

Posted by Obama's glass jaw is beginning to shatter | March 19, 2008 4:16 PM

Er, uh, hmm, BHLync? Can you read? I asked you to tell me what rule Hillary changed - you did not provide any rule.

How is Ickes 'changing the rules' when the rules he agreed to provide for exactly what the state parties and Hillary are now trying to do?

The rules that Howard Dean set up (and that Ickes agreed to) provided "either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee"

To be precise - which you are not - the Hillary camp wants to seat the MI and FL delegates, but they aren't demanding that any specific metric be used to determine how they are seated. It is quite true that the primaries will not count for anything. They are arguing that the delegations should be seated with members to be determined by some rationale that the credentials committee will develop (barring a revote).

I don't understand why the DNC couldn't simply conduct a random poll of MI and FL Democratic voters to determine who gets how many delegates.

But you are being dishonest or you just don't understand. To appeal for a revote or to appeal to the credentials committee - AS THE RULES ALLOW - is not somehow changing rules. Ickes voted for the penalty and for the right of appeal as Howard Dean specified. It's pretty simple. And it's shameful for anyone here to call Hill a liar based on that. You're just wrong.

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 4:19 PM

My impression from reading this blog and others is that Clinton allies in the state legislator, as well as the governor and both US senators and some House members were the driving force behind the January primary. They thought it would help Hillary Clinton. Now, Obama supporters in the state legislature are not agreeing to a re-vote because they feel a re-vote would be unhelpful to Obama's candidacy. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why would it be otherwise?

Posted by Karen S. | March 19, 2008 4:20 PM

"Pointing out that the main reason for the opposition is political has pushed some readers to conclude that I have a pro-Clinton bias."

Marc, just stop reading comments. I have and I am much happier.

There will be some sorting out and adjustments needed in the world of political blogging after this election. The campaign has revealed biases that I did not know existed, as I naively assumed we would get real and sophisticated political commentary, not open shilling. Right now the blogosphere reminds me of the old journalistic days of the 1700's and 1800's where there were hundreds of newspapers and they all had a pronounced and open political bias and agenda. The notion of bias free reporting and commentary is relatively recent, and then the Right Wing basically destroyed it with the nonsense about a liberal media.

I think the blogosphere is taking some lumps this season as it divides into pro Clinton - pro Obama sides, and the people in the comments sections engage in internet bullying and open campaigning. It has left a sour taste, drastically reduced my own blog reading, and probably not attracted great increases in clicks or viewer-ship in any demographic group other than partisans for the candidate supported by the blog.

Posted by Jammer | March 19, 2008 4:21 PM

Slamming the door on a highly dubious election...

What would be "dubious" about simple, fair, straightforward revotes in those two states?

...would undoubtedly be a net gain or loss of less than 5-10 delegates for either candidate is not disenfranchising anyone.

Of course it's disenfranchising someone -- Democrats in Florida and Michigan. Besides, if it's such a modest delegate swing either way, what's the harm to Obama?

Anyone who wants this to go through surely does not realize the extensive damage done to Democrats everywhere every day by the continuance of this fight.

Looks to me like the Democrats are alive and well, and are hardly suffering from "damage" when you look at statistics like voter registration, voter party identification, and political contributions. This is just more mindless Obamaspin from a campaign eager to further suppress votes in order to secure a shady nomination. Besides, not allowing Michigan and Florida Democrats a say in their party's nominee will cause far more damage to the party -- by making both of those states much more difficult to win in November -- than a full and free revote will ever do.

What part of "changing the rules to suit your strategy" do you not understand?

I don't give a rat's ass about refraining from changing the rules if doing so makes it less likely -- by denying us wins in Michigan and November -- that John McCain will be defeated.

What's more important, punishing Florida and Michigan, or defeating John McCain? Wait, don't answer that, Obamabots.

Posted by Why oh why is Barry afraid to face the voters of Fla and Mich? | March 19, 2008 4:29 PM

Pointing out that the main reason for the opposition is political has pushed some readers to conclude that I have a pro-Clinton bias.

Marc: Objective readers know you're a valued, objective source of political commentary. Besides, failing to engage in endless rounds of pro-Obama spin undoubtedly increases your traffic as the Obamabot hordes flock to your site in righteous indignation and white hot fury to shill for their champion. They simply can't help themselves.

Anyway, any person who has been following the campaign in even a cursory manner realizes Michigan and Florida revotes are not in Obama's interest, and are naturally being opposed by the campaign and its allies. Even hysterical pro-Obama shill Andrew Sullivan is willing to admit that.

Posted by Why oh why is Barry afraid to face the voters of Fla and Mich? | March 19, 2008 4:37 PM

Oh, lookie lookie. It appears Barry used The Speech to spin some tall tails about his relationship with Pastor Farakk...er, Pastor Right.

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage. "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month. "He has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that," Obama said on March 2. His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air. But yesterday, he told a different story. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia. Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1

Oh, Obie. Doncha just hate it when a story that implicates you in lies just won't go away, and continues to dog you? Hmmmm, good thing the Democrats have in place that neeato keen Superdelegate system to deal with examples of campaign implosions...

Posted by Obama: just another lying politician | March 19, 2008 4:46 PM

sbj,

I find your parsing of Hillary's Florida/Michigan positions so Clintonian that it's impossible to have an honest debate with you.

Good luck with that re-vote, ok?

Posted by BHLnyc | March 19, 2008 4:49 PM

BHLnyc, I understand what you're saying. I do believe, just as a matter of philosophy, that registered Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee. The breathtaking array of primary and caucus options in the Democratic party, along with the proportional delegate system, has, I think, created this mess for us.

I admit, though, that I'm still confused. Obama's campaign said it would agree to a revote if the DNC approved. The DNC approved. The Detroit Free Press (no friend of Hillary) reports, as do other sources, that Obama supporters blocked the in caucus. Isn't there a contradiction here? I further confess that I cannot find any rule that Clinton has broken. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, but I have yet to meet a Dem insider in DC, at least, who didn't think the delegates would be seated.

Racht, I have to disagree with your statement about "the extensive damage done to Democrats everywhere every day by the continuance of this fight." First of all, party registration and donations are at an all-time high, and the party benefits from that enthusiasm. Second, from where I sit, living half time in DC and half time in California, it's clear that registered Democrats are deeply and almost evenly divided between the two candidates. Democratic insiders are concerned that neither candidate's core supporters be alienated. Each candidate desperately needs the other's core voters in the general election. In other words, while it's true that Clinton cannot win unless blacks turn out for her in the fall (if she were the nominee), it is equally true that Obama can't win unless white women, Latinos, and seniors turn out for him. Latinos and seniors in particular may be drawn to McCain. I think it's difficult for those who simply support a candidate to see these facts, but it's easier for those who are primarily concerned with a Democratic victory.

Posted by ezr | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM

So BHLYnc - can't find that rule that Hill has 'changed' so you're gonna stop playing and take your ball home. Waaa!

At least after this you might be less inclined to lie and say that Hill is changing the rules. She isn't. You know I'm right. Go ahead and go home. There are probably some good cartoons on.

Parsing? Or did you mean parsley? Do you know the difference? Gimmee a break. Hill said the primaries won't count - and they won't. Hill says seat the delegates - and they will be seated if only to avoid disaster.

And curious that Clintonian parsing seems to annoy you, but the outright lies of Obama? - No big deal. Nothing to see here -

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 5:35 PM

Oh, you wanted an actual discussion over the issues. Fine

"What would be "dubious" about simple, fair, straightforward revotes in those two states?"

Let's see, for one, the fact that non-Hillary supporters were much more likely to have voted in the Republican primary in January since they *knew* their vote wouldn't count in the Democrat one. They're now disenfranchised from voting in any upcoming primary by Michigan law, while Hillary's supporters aren't. Also, Michigan law makes it exceptionally difficult for college students to vote by having very stringent residential requirements for people who move around a lot. That would be among the reasons why it isn't fair. As for simple and straightforward, Marc's post here should be more than enough to show the reasons against that.

"Of course it's disenfranchising someone -- Democrats in Florida and Michigan. Besides, if it's such a modest delegate swing either way, what's the harm to Obama?"

The obvious harm to Obama is that Clinton's extremely evident strategy at this point is to go negative at every opportunity possible. She herself called it the "kitchen sink" and "her favorite part" of politics. The longer it goes on, the more attacks Hillary comes up with that McCain can co-opt and use in devastating commercial form in October. Attacks from someone of similar ideology mean far more than those from the opponent. If Hillary stayed positive like Huckabee did, there would of course be no complaint whatsoever over extending things, but her strategy means she has to go as soon as possible or risk a November defeat by either candidate.

"Looks to me like the Democrats are alive and well, and are hardly suffering from "damage" when you look at statistics like voter registration, voter party identification, and political contributions. This is just more mindless Obamaspin from a campaign eager to further suppress votes in order to secure a shady nomination. Besides, not allowing Michigan and Florida Democrats a say in their party's nominee will cause far more damage to the party -- by making both of those states much more difficult to win in November -- than a full and free revote will ever do."

Ickes was one of the primary forces behind "suppressing votes", need I remind you. This decision of "suppressing votes" was fully supported with no objections whatsoever by Hillary when it was announced. To pretend that a change in heart now is ANYTHING but a pure political maneuver to try to extend a dying campaign is pure ignorance, and the rest of us find it laughable.

As for this not affecting Democrat chances in the fall? I will direct you to the following:

http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com&contractId=376101

Pay particular attention to the last month. What was previously thought of as an almost unlosable general election for either Democrat candidate is slowly fading away, as McCain has gone from 34 to 40% over the past month. McCain is now viewed favorably by an unheard-of 67% of overall voters, entirely because he remains above the fray during this mudslinging affair.

"I don't give a rat's ass about refraining from changing the rules if doing so makes it less likely -- by denying us wins in Michigan and November -- that John McCain will be defeated.
What's more important, punishing Florida and Michigan, or defeating John McCain? Wait, don't answer that, Obamabots."

Oh no, you're most definitely going to get an answer. What's most important is defeating McCain. The relevant question is how best to defeat McCain. It's well known that negative attacks decrease the popularity of both the attacker and the victim, but more for the victim. That's fine in a general election where you just have to beat one person, but Hillary and Obama have to beat two, and beating the first is completely irrelevant if the barrage of negativity means you don't beat the second.

Hillary knows this all too well. This is why her strategy is clearly to make Obama unelectable by any means necessary, at any cost to the party. The problem, of course, is that it makes her unelectable as well.

Poblano (fivethirtyeight.com), by all accounts the polling/electoral expert, has Obama at 51% and Clinton at 39% in the general election. This is down from Obama 60% Hillary 44% a couple weeks ago. As expected, negativity hurts them both (and by the way, Michigan in the general is at Obama 57% Clinton 46%). The negativity and politics as usual will not stop from Hillary's side, ever, so the only purpose it serves is to lose the general election for the (at this point inevitable) nominee Obama. It would seem apparent that this is so she can say "I told you so!" and set herself up for a 2012 run.

That may be ok for you, but it's not for us, or for the country. A pyrrhic victory or defeat hurts Democrats everywhere, and to what benefit besides her own personal power?

The race is over. Michigan and Florida's not having elections have nailed shut the door that had already been closed. For the good of the party, it's time for her to step aside. Anyone who says otherwise is incapable of seeing the big picture, and their opinions should be disregarded.

Posted by Racht | March 19, 2008 6:06 PM

It's all political.

The reason both Clinton and Obama agreeing that Michigan was not going to count was political.

Then Clinton lost 11 in a row and needed Michigan to count - that was political.

Then Obama lost Ohio and Texas (not so much TX) and doesn't want Clinton to catch up in the popular vote and bring his delegate lead below 100, so he's against a re-vote - its political.

However, Obama is at least sticking with his and the DNC's original position on this matter.

Posted by Colin Hicks | March 19, 2008 6:45 PM

Don't be absurd. Plenty of culturally conservative voters reside in Michigan, and many of them prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Any of them that entered the GOP primary are potential "Hillary supporters" who are now lost to her.

The obvious harm to Obama is that Clinton's extremely evident strategy at this point is to go negative at every opportunity possible.

Heaven forbid anybody should dare to question or criticize a man who aspires to the world's most powerful office.

Yet more absurdities. The political tea leaves heavily favor the Democrats this year, and it's an open question as to which candidate is the stronger against John McCain. Clinton has every bit as much right to fight for the nomination as Obama does, and could just as easily whine about his "attacks" against her -- and how damaging they'll be for her general election prospects -- as he does with respect to her "attacks." Only she's more the fighting than the whining type.

Poblano (fivethirtyeight.com), by all accounts the polling/electoral expert, has Obama at 51% and Clinton at 39%...

Yup. I definitely take poll cherrypicking by an Obamabot to the bank. Whatever.

The race is over.

If that were true you Obamabots wouldn't be spending so much time hysterically defending your candidate's (dwindling) chances. I mean, why bother? In fact, we both know the race is far from over, and that Hillary Clinton has a realistic shot at winning the popular vote, and that Obama's increasing weakness among swing voters is making superdelegates uneasy. I mean, if it's over, what's to stop all the superdelegates from shutting this thing down tomorrow morning?

This race isn't over, and every day it fails to end allows Clinton an increasingly strong chance to regain the momentum against the listing ship of Barack Obama's candidacy.

Posted by Why oh why is Barry afraid to face the voters of Fla and Mich? | March 19, 2008 6:58 PM

It may come down to just how many Democratic voters the party is willing to lose over the summer and in the general election. There are passions on both sides but, having spent a bunch of time here in Texas in party meetings over the past several weeks, an astounding (to me) number of Obama voters (largely white, middle class, professionals) will drop out if there's the slightest whiff of manipulation giving Hillary the nomination.

Doesn't look like any of them are about to set aside principles and vote for DNC-machine-tainted Hillary unless she pulls off clean-issimo win. Which is seen as very unlikely.

And just on principle alone, the re-change of rules proposed for Florida and Michigan make pretty much all of us roll our eyes, disassociate ourselves from The Party, and call ourselves "independents." "Can't the Dems do anything right?" is not an outrageous question under the circumstances. Shoot, the national party makes the Texas state party look like a church social. Which it isn't.

Posted by PW | March 19, 2008 7:06 PM

...having spent a bunch of time here in Texas in party meetings over the past several weeks, an astounding (to me) number of Obama voters (largely white, middle class, professionals) will drop out if there's the slightest whiff of manipulation giving Hillary the nomination.

One always hears this tiresome anecdote, but poll data are increasingly showing just the opposite: that it is Obama who loses a quarter or more of Clinton supporters in a general election. The more the Reverend Wright's antics (and Obama's dissembling response) are focused on, the higher that number will go.

Posted by Maximom | March 19, 2008 7:15 PM

I've been a fence-sitter, but all of you Clinton shills on here are utterly ridiculous. The problem with a revote is Clinton's insistence that anyone who voted in the GOP primary before be excluded. Lots of Dems did-- doing so, b/c they figured the Dem primary wouldn't count.

It's Hillary who's pushing the disenfranchisment, not Obama, by selectively excluding a large number of Democrats who would otherwise be Obama voters, in a blatant attempt at vote-rigging. Besides, it's been the state parties themselves who've said that the revotes would be non-viable. Florida tossed up his hands, and recently Michigan did as well.

And Maximon, you're wrong-- there are polls in both directions on this topic, but there was one recent poll showing that an astounding 30% of Obama supporters would not support Hillary as the nominee. This number would shoot up even higher if Hillary were to get the nomination through any BS involving MI/FL or the superdelegates.

What is obvious, is that this long, dragged-out primary is damaging the Democratic Party in general. Hillary is just way too far behind-- 180 pledged delegates, 1,000,000 votes and 24 states. This whole Wright controversy is already subsiding-- Obama's speech did a very good job of doing that, both in asserting his own mixed-race White and Black heritage, and tapping into the resentment felt by many groups in the country, while urging unity among the people. Most people I've since talked to, even former Hillary supporters, are now backing Obama.

The Democratic Party should just put an end to this disastrously dragged-out primary process and get behind Obama. Holding revotes in MI/FL wouldn't make a bit of difference in this-- just split the delegates 50/50 and move on to prepare for the general election, and save the funds for helping to elect Democratic candidates throughout the nation.

Posted by Amy G | March 19, 2008 7:29 PM

Also, I'll point out that Hillary's negatives are now reaching close to 60% by some polls, and they're only going up among Democrats. This is borne out at party meetings I attend-- the vast majority of the Dems would not vote for Hillary if she were nominated under these circumstances. Many would even vote for McCain.

The problem of course, is that Obama is on track for the nomination with an insurmountable vote and delegate lead, yet Hillary's continued attacks on him represent items that the GOP could use in November.

Hillary's own political career is effectively finished by doing this-- she is angering the Democratic core by continuing this fruitless race and even pathetically begging the superdelegates to overturn the popular vote and pledged delegate support that Barack Obama enjoys. This is something that she will never be forgiven for.

Furthermore, idiots like Why oh Why who blame Obama for the revote problems, when both candidates agreed to these rules and the state parties for in both states are now the ones who have made this decision-- only make the problem worse. You assume that we are idiots, and this only increases the bile and anger boiling within the Party. The longer this drags out, the worse it is for Democrats in general.

Just as bad, there has been some talk about Clinton and Rendell staffers being caught trying to rig voting machines in Pennsylvania (with jail time quite possibly on the horizon for them).

Worst of all, a number of fundraising scandals are about to hit the Hillary campaign-- with Norman Hsu's actions still rankling, there's also the issue of Hillary's tax returns, the Clinton Foundation records, the contracts with the Kazakh uranium magnate and worst of all, the Peter F. Paul trial against Hillary Clinton which will be starting in October of 2008.

All of these obviously are destroying Hillary Clinton's campaign, and ending her political career. However, they are also damaging the Democratic Party in general, even more so as Hillary continues with this stupid campaign. It seems, in other words, that Hillary is trying to take the party down with her. She is well on the way to doing just that, and the awful truth is that Hillary is even doing permanent damage to the Democratic Party in the process, which the Party will not be able to repair.

Posted by Amy G | March 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Amy G, I don't presume to doubt you, but this isn't the talk on the Hill (unless you count Dick Morris). The Peter Paul trial is a bit of a canard, too, usually brought up by the more extreme anti-Clinton camp. Can you give us your location so we can track this a little better? There's always a certain amount of apocalyptic talk from Obama's strongest supporters, but what you're saying is just not in line with what I hear in either DC or California, at least not among party regulars. You're certainly not coming across as a fence sitter, that's for sure! A little geography would give us some context.

Posted by ezr | March 19, 2008 7:54 PM

The other option that is available is that the Clinton campaign also knew of the objective difficulties of a MI primary (finding funding and getting 2/3 of the GOP-controlled Senate to go along). If the internal assessment is that the election may not be likely, it makes all the more sense to protest that one is "for" a re-do.

Moreover, since the point about disenfranchisement clearly works against the Obama camp, and has emerged as the real stumbling block in the Legislature, it is difficult to see how this as an Obama issue, per se. If anything, this sounds exactly like the issue that a Clinton campaign might support: an election where the other side is hampered.

In short, there may be "wheels within wheels" of politicking taking place here.

Posted by Harris | March 20, 2008 8:09 AM

The Clinton side takes the view it does mainly for political reasons. The Obama side takes the view it does mainly for political reasons. Pointing out that one side takes the view it does mainly for political reasons, given that both do, and without pointing out that both do, may reasonably lead some to think that you favor one side.

What's up with that passive-aggressive ad hominem at the end? ("Think what you wish. There are sand boxes out back. (OK, that's unfair. Sorry.)

Posted by abc | March 20, 2008 10:45 AM

What's up with that passive-aggressive ad hominem at the end? ("Think what you wish. There are sand boxes out back. (OK, that's unfair. Sorry.")

Posted by abc | March 20, 2008 10:45 AM

If there is a problem with the Florida vote, it's the fault of Florida Democratic voters and their failure to let their congressmen know it was not acceptable to move up the primary.

From the Christian Science Monitor, October 16, 2007:

"The legislature, with the governor's support, did vote this spring to move the primaries – Democratic and Republican – to Jan. 29. But after Democratic amendments to set a Feb. 5 primary failed, nearly every Democratic lawmaker joined the Republican majority in favor of the Jan. 29 date.

Several Democrats invoked the same reason as Republicans: to give the nation's fourth most populous state a bigger role in the nominating process.

'Moving the primary up earlier puts Florida center stage,' Anthony DeLuise, a spokesman for the governor, said in a phone interview."

It's interesting to note that Governor Crist and much of the congress is now crying that the voice of the voters should be heard. And where was the voice of the voters when this was first happening?

Posted by JP | March 20, 2008 10:47 AM

Wait a minute, Marc, are you saying that politicians are being political? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by Alex in Harlem | March 20, 2008 10:49 AM

The Clinton campaign favors a revote for entirely political reasons. I do not expect the Clintons to adopt a consistent attitude toward the Florida and Michigan primaries, that is to maintain the indifference they expressed when the DNC first stripped the states of their delegates. Hillary is trying to win. I do fault the media for regurgitating her voter's rights, pro-democracy talking points without contrastig them with her prior position on the issue. Failing to do that, whether by neglect or design, makes you a campaign shill.

Posted by jay | March 20, 2008 11:15 AM

The whole matter is just so stupid to me. Florida and Michigan *knowingly*, even after a warning, broke rank with the party and decided it was okay for them to set their own schedule. What's the DNC supposed to do? Say, oh, it's okay -- nevermind what we said before? There are consequences for breaking the rules, and they were given fair warning before doing so. This talk of disenfranchisement of voters is irrelevant, for it's the fault of their local leaders -- not Obama, Clinton, Dean, etc -- that they're in a current situation they *knew* they'd be in by forging their own path.

Posted by Todd Dominey | March 20, 2008 11:32 AM

I live in Michigan. I voted in the Michigan primary in January. I am not a registered Democrat, but I have always voted Democratic. On the primary election day, I chose to vote a Republican primary ballot because I was told, and it was clear to me, that there was no point voting in the Democratic primary, because I was told by the DNC and the Democratic candidates, including Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, that the vote wouldn't count and that no delegates to the Democratic Convention would be selected. The only folks encouraging people to vote in the Democratic primary were Carl Levin, Jennifer Granholm and the Michigan Democratic Party -- the very people who caused the problem in the first place by moving the Democratic primary election before February.

So please forgive me, Mr. or Ms. "Why oh why is Barry afraid to face the voters of Fla and Mich?" or whatever your name is, if I disregard your misinformed and somewhat presumptious comments on the whether a "re-do" in June will be fair to me.

I agree with what appears to be the most common comments above: Of course Obama's reluctance to agree to a do-over is political; just as Clinton's advocacy for it is political. However, just because Obama's supporter's opposition -- if you want to call it that -- is political, it does not necessarily mean that the main concern -- who gets to vote in a "do-over" primary -- is unfounded or without merit. In the wake of the 2000 Presidential election and the drama in Florida, the participants (candidate, voters, parties) are more likely (perhaps, guaranteed) to go to court over irregularities and procedural deficiencies, let alone substantive issues of "fairness." The reason why "there's no 'do-overs' in politics" is because even if you get the candidates, the political party, and the state and federal government to agree to it, you are still going to have plenty of people who -- rightly or wrongly -- will feel they were denied fairness or their rights were violated, and they will drag the whole thing into court or sit out the next election, and whatever the outcome, there will be a pall of doubt and a stink of illegitimacy clinging to the outcome. Although I'm very disappointed that I wasn't given the opportunity to vote in the contest that I cared about most, at this point, I don't think it can be fixed -- all politics aside.

I will however remember who caused this problem -- Carl Levin and Jennifer Granholm -- the next time their names appear on a ballot.

Posted by Andy L | March 20, 2008 11:51 AM

Look, my family still resides in Michigan and are life-long Dems. They did not vote in January. As I understand this memo, they would be ineligible to vote now. I gather they are leaning towards Hillary, but whatever, they shouldn't be barred from participating because they were told that the January vote -- during a snowstorm -- would not count. My parents are elderly, my sister has special needs, my brother works way too many hours -- they were not going to expend effort if it was not going to be tallied up.

I don't think it is political for the Obama folks, whom I support, to object because of the new class of citizens who would be disqualified. How is that political?

Posted by BEmama | March 20, 2008 12:07 PM

You might have a pro-Clinton bias or you might have taken the easy conclusion. Obama conveys ideas, principles and issues that do not always fit into the time-frame of a sound bite and are not always understood by those who glance over instead of making an effort to understand. That might be you or it might not. One can rarely completely understand the motivation of another.

Posted by Michael Fisher | March 20, 2008 12:55 PM

Never lose sight of the fact that Obama taught voter-rights (among other topics) at University of Chicago Law School.

If you are ever going to hit a situation where principle and pragmatism run afoul of each other in the Obama campaign, this is probably one of them. It would be easy to conclude that Obama is playing politics here, but it's equally easy to conclude that he is playing law professor here. Given the consistency with which he steps into the 'this is right' box even when it is politically risky, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the legal concerns.

Clinton camp previously accused them of stalling over the need for a DOJ sign-off for areas that were still covered under civil rights protection in both MI and FL and he was dead-on correct there.

Posted by Martin | March 20, 2008 7:32 PM

Obama's Memo On Michigan

Comments (59)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives