« Clinton Campaign Gets A New C.O.O. | Main | The Obama Passport Scandal » One Last Michigan Push: Mail-In?20 Mar 2008 04:15 pm The state Senate bill is dead, and the Governor has all but conceded that there's no hope for a new primary.... but I'm hearing that Michigan Democrats are going to try to make one final push for a vote by mail primary.... it's a long shot. As I continue my light-blogging, think about this: if HRC had started to press for new primaries in Florida and Michigan, say, right after Feb. 5 or immediately after Ohio and Texas.... would she have had a better chance? Comments (27)
I wonder where coverage will go now that these primaries are not getting re-run. Will it just focus on who will be seated and what the rules committee will do? Who will that help (if anyone)? 
Yes she would have had a better chance to get re-votes in Michigan and Florida if her campaign had started after Super Tuesday. But she had no plan after Super Tuesday and lost the nomination between Feb. 6 and Feb. 26 when Obama racked up an insurmountable lead.
would she have had a better chance? No. People don't like other people who try to change the rules for their own benefit.
"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee."
Perceived Honesty Gap for Clinton vs. Obama, McCain: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus-Obama-McCain.aspx
think about how much closer to a revote MI and FL would be if their Dem leaders had been serious in brainstorming and planning for such a contingency. They were content to let it play out, way past the time it was clear neither candidate would secure a knockout punch. The blame lies squarely with them.
I agree with Craig. In fact, back in February Hillary's campaign was already floating the idea and got their hands slapped for it.
Michigan's Democratic-controlled legislature voted to move the Primary up in defiance of the DNC in September 2007. Democratic Governor, and Clinton-endorsing superdelegate, Jennifer Granholm, signed the bill. Hillary Clinton had four months to challenge the DNC's decision not to seat Michigan's delegates before the voters went to the polls. The fact that Clinton did not avail herself of this opportunity, while at the same time defying the DNC's request to remove her name from the ballot -- unlike Obama, Edwards, Biden and Kucinich -- is an indication that she planned to do exactly what she is doing now. The fact that nearly half of Michigan voters declined to vote Clinton even when deprived of other options on the ballot proves that Michigan Democrats are a lot smarter than she takes them for.
She didn't even want a revote last week until the Wright stuff came out. Then all of a sudden she wanted a revote. Probably she figured that she would lose (which was probable) then with the Wright mess she figured she would win.
Do they think the potential for disaster that Florida saw isn't possible for them? Give it up, Michigan!
I think the reason it's deadlocked and not happening is because a vote for the re-vote is a vote for hillary and a vote against it is a for for obama. with things being as split as they are, there's no way reach a consensus. and a vote over a re-vote seems a bit too meta to be acceptable.
Basic fairness, it seems to me, is that you follow the rules that were established at the beginning. If, after all is said and done, we realize there are things that were unjust, we have three years to make the kinds of changes to the process to make them more just next time. But you can't try to change the rules in the middle of the game and seem principled. It comes across as just trying whatever argument works for you today, which is of course what the Clinton campaign has been doing from the beginning.
Even though the outcome of all this affects the candidates, they really aren't calling the shots on these issues, so my answer to Marc's question is "probably not". And certainly, if Clinton had wanted to make herself into a credible leader on these issues, the time to do so was before Iowa, not after South Carolina.
Obama will come out of this crisis stronger. He is fully vetted now. Come October we can flood the market with Hagee and McCain together as a counter to their swiftboating.
The Clinton Campaign never wanted a "re-vote". The voters have spoken. The delegates should be seated according to the wishes of the electorate. It is time to stand up to the inept Far Lefties who have suffocated the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton completed his terms. A series of dead end losers from Fat Albert II, on through Fudd, the former Mayor of Vermont, to the current Great Half White Hope.
So, you're saying there's a chance Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination: http://theseedsof9-11.com
This didn't work in FL, so why in Michigan? Neither side will ever be able to compromise enough to get something done. http://www.political-buzz.com/
Someone has to call DRUDGE AND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ON THEIR OBVIOUS COLLUSION. Ben Smith from Politico as well. These BLOGGERS ARE PAID OPERATIVES OF BARACK OBAMA. There has to be some facet of an Internet "journalistic" licence which prohibits direct employment of an outlet by a political campaign. If there isn't then there damn well should be. Every blog post by Drudge or Smith should carry the rejoinder - "Paid for by the Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign". Bust those scummy South Side Chicago thugs once and for all.
This is all so silly. I mean, in the past we've never had a nominee chosen by votes in all 50 states. It's also very simple. Michigan had their chance and blew it. They violated the rules and there is no easy way to make up for that. As for Hillary, the time for her to speak up was last year, before the voting had begun. Of course, she didn't because she was trying to appeal to Iowa and NH voters. Everyone sees this as the transparent political ploy this is. In the fall election, this issue will be long forgotten.
I had a brother that could stay very calm in difficult times. He was a thief and a liar, but he always managed to talk his way out of his run-ins with the law. He was caught with a stack(about 20) stolen credit cards and several bags or marijuana. He was never charged. He got pulled over in a brand new stolen vehicle and got a warning ticket for no tags. He committed numerous other crimes. But his charming demeanor and gift of gab kept him from getting a police record. Obama reminds me very much of him.
Hillary once again shows her truely deceptive and manipulative ways. She knows no boundaries to how low she will go.
Stewart, did your brother die? Why do you talk about him in the past tense? Was he a racist like you?
Legal action from the Clinton camp is coming soon, as are mass demonstrations from excluded voters. If Obama takes the nomination under these circumstances, it will be deeply tainted. The two states in question are home to a tenth of the country's population. This isn't some minor exclusion. The DNC screwed up royally. Not rectifying the mistake while there's still time will come back to haunt the Democrats. They can kiss any chance of Florida good bye, and Michigan -- which by rights ought to be a comfortable blue state in November -- will now be competitive. Hey, but we wouldn't want little things like "fairness" or "democracy" or even "common sense" to come into play if they might possibly have negative implications for the coronation of Prince Obama.
The Clinton Campaign never wanted a "re-vote". The voters have spoken. The delegates should be seated according to the wishes of the electorate. would she have had a better chance?
Marc, You ask the right question. Yes, if Hillary was so deeply concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida, she should have started advocating for full and fair primaries a long time ago. Instead, she took the low road in the hopes that she could get the DNC to seat those disputed delegates in her favor. IMHO, this will go down as another huge miscalculation by the Clinton strategy team. They are dumb as a stump. And there's another question worth asking: Hillary claims that she is sincerely concerned that the voters in FL and MI get an opportunity to express themselves. OK, let's imagine that Obama had come out ahead in those two primaries. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that Hillary would be vigorously advocating for the seating of those delegates in Obama's favor?
"if HRC had started to press for new primaries in Florida and Michigan, say, right after Feb. 5 or immediately after Ohio and Texas.... would she have had a better chance?" No. Mainly because once we got close to Feb 5, the principle of a re-vote for the sake of the voters and the product of the vote being in favor of one candidate or another could no longer be separated. Once we hit 2/5 and the result of the vote seen, neither candidate could claim that they were acting on principle. If Hillary wanted to claim that the voters of those states mattered and that the DNC was wrong, she needed to speak before the polls ensured a victory for her. She never did that and so she has no credibility on the issue. The same would hold for Obama but he stuck with the decision of the DNC. Would he have stated otherwise if the results had been different? We can't ever know, but I'm thinking that someone who has taught voting rights law would lose a mountain of credibility trying to make the case for a revote.
|
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 will they get voter sig certification tools before June 3rd? Isn't this what screwed Florida's mail-in vote?
Hillary, you look desperate. Call it a day, sweetie.
Posted by Sally | March 20, 2008 4:23 PM