Hillary's mistake here is that she should be pushing for none of the 40% to go to Obama, his name wasn't on the ballot. The delegates not assigned to Hillary should be allowed to choose any candidate they want to (like Gravel). Is anyone officially running except Gravel and Obama? I think Edwards is technically hold delegates to have platform at convention? So maybe some of those are Edward delegates.

You're killing me with all this reality! cough cough ughgh...

I seriously doubt the Dems will exclude FL and MI. I think it's a game of chicken that Obama and his allies at the DNC are playing to try to force Hillary out now. Obama had his chance for revotes, but chose to reject it. Since he did that, he essentially ceded the validity of the original vote in the long term.

Obama is not a politician, he's a movement!

So the official position here is that voting "uncommitted" is plenty of democracy for Edwards and Obama voters?

Edwards and Obama withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot. Now, that sucks for their voters, but another part of democracy is that you can't force someone to keep his name on the ballot, especially when there are New Hampshire and Iowa voters to pander to. If Michigan voters are upset that Obama and Edwards decided they cared more about Iowa and New Hampshire voters than Michigan, their complaint lies with their candidates.

And what amazing strategy - to make Hillary look bad, they decided to not appear on the ballot! They must be dreadful people indeed.

Thanks god that there are perspicacious democrats like you guys to see through their evil plans.

No, they knew Hillary would win (big state) and so they withdrew to taint her victory. It's certainly a tenable theory. See Bob Scheider at CNN, for example. Elevate your game!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

and i forgot Dodd stayed on the ballot too...

I still find it interesting that MI was statement-worthy, but none of them took their names off FL--it's too big and important always.

No, they knew Hillary would win (big state) and so they withdrew to taint her victory. It’s certainly a tenable theory. See Bob Scheider at CNN, for example. Elevate your game!

So in October, Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Richardson all knew Hillary was unbeatable in Michigan and, nefariously, took their names off the ballot just to taint her victory! Wow watta theory.

They made up some silly excuses though:

Edwards campaign manager David Bonior stressed, in an emailed statement, that the early states provide an alternative to "money, celebrity, and advertisements."

"It's important we respect the role that the four early states play in the nominating process. In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada voters can look their candidate in the eye and determine who is best to bring about real change in America," Bonior said.

No immediate comment from Clinton or Obama.

A spokesman for Richardson, Tom Reynolds, writes, "Governor Richardson has pledged not to compete in any states holding contests before February 5 except those first four sanctioned by the DNC, and he keeps his word."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1...

Cynically manipulating the process in order to give Hillary more delegates- how dreadful of them.

"Today's decision reaffirms our pledge to respect the primary calendar as established by the DNC and makes it clear that we will not play into the politics of money and Republican machinations that only serve to interfere with the primary calendar," said Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/m...

Of course, none of those excuses could be true. In reality Biden, Edwards, and the rest were collaborating with the evil Obama Sharia Law plot to make Hillary Look Bad.

I guess.

On the bright side Lambert, at least Obama is showing a smarter negotiating strategy about delegates than he did about health care mandates...

See Bob Scheider at CNN, for example.

You did not understand Scheider's theory. His theory was that the other campaigners thought they could not beat the front runner without campaigning. Since Hillary was the consensus bet to win easily in October, the inevitable candidate, it makes sense that the other candidates who were required by DNC rules not to campaign in Michigan were unsure of their ability to win.

I'll go with your theory, then, rootless, for the sake of the argument (this is a good for one time only pass).

Explain to me again how, when you don't campaign in a state, you still get 50% of the delegates? I must not have gotten the memo.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The DNC said that the state primary did not count and required candidates not to campaign. That was the rule. I do not recall Senator Clinton objecting to the rule at the time. All the candidates agreed that MI would not count.

The five candidates, as well as Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, had already agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, both of which bucked party rules by scheduling their nominating contests before February 5.

If Senator Clinton wanted MI's primary to count, she had every opportunity to argue her case at theDNC or even to announce that she would defy DNC rules. She did not. Now, behind in the delegates selected under the rules, she wants to change the rules retroactively to count delegates she "won" in an election that did not have her main opponents as a choice, that she agreed not to participate in, and where the DNC told voters not to come to the polls.

But of course, all this means that Obama is perfidious. No?

when exit polls showed 46% clinton and 35% obama in michigan - without any campaigning by obama and no real reason for obama voters to come to the polls at all. Clearly Senator Clinton should get the vast majority of the delegates because, well, just because.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to repeat your linkless, already refuted talking points.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

MI and FL wouldn't count for real--this was bluffs, and bluster and a power play--both states were and are still too vital not to count--

the vast majority of Dems still think that they'll be counted come the convention in some form or another.

I live in Michigan and I can say that I don't know anybody who thought the primary would count "for real". And I know lots of people who stayed home for this very reason.

I can link to one interested party (not a Michigander, mind you) who said "its clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything":

The AP; October 11, 2007

Reality check: Seating the Michigan delegates will disenfranchise voters no matter how its done, absent a revote. Influencing voters to stay home, because they believe their votes won't count - yes this was undeniably the conventional wisdom in Michigan - and then (surprise) counting the votes, is disenfranchisement. Worse, actually, its selective disenfranchisement. Not as bad as a poll tax or literacy test, but undemocratic for sure.

The situation was fucked the moment Granholm, Dingell and Brewer engineered this fiasco and defiantly moved the primary debate. Sure the existing system favoring IA and NH is screwed up and needs fixing, but it needs to be done procedurally. If MI and FL were left alone by the DNC, other states would have been falling over themselves to move ahead in the calendar, creating a bigger clusterfuck than it primary season already was.

And why wouldn't Obama have removed his name after getting bad press for breaking the pledge by talking to reporters in Florida? Link

Yeah, the 50/50 proposal is BS. Its one bit of Obama politicking that I can't get behind. But all the spin about Michigan that has come from the Clinton campaign since they realized Obama could win has really pissed me off a resident of this state.

Gad. In FL, IIRC, people did expect it to count. The party told them the situation was under appeal, and they voted in record numbers.

What was voter turnout like? If it was up, that suggests to me that plenty of people thought it was real.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

love your name, btw : >

I think the rest of us believed that it would have to count no matter what--and that after 2000, there's no way our party would actually not count every vote--we're supposed to be the party that protects voting, not disregards it or throws any away.

I can see a reasonable expectation that FL would count. But MI clearly had some joke on the ballot "Uncommitted" and people were confused what that even meant. I don't think the average voter in MI expected the election to count, and there are media reports of Dem officials telling people that race wasn't really meaningful. I think people that voted were there for other races anyways.

You could probably confirm this by checking the undervote on downticket races in MI, compared to other states.

Here are the exit polls - easily found by anyone who wants to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225987/

So:
1) The Democratic party said the primary would not count.
2) All candidates agreed not to campaign in order to show commitment to DNC rules.
3) The party told voters the primary would not count.
4) Exit polls showed a narrow split, and it's hard to believe that all voters showed up for what they were told was a non-meaningful election.
5) Senator Clinton, in a hard ball move, decided to stay on the ballot - so voters for Edwards and Obama could mark "uncommitted".
6) The Michican party made no serious effort to find an alternate date

And from that, we conclude that Obama is a perfidious evil political opportunist for not wanting to count the results of the people's choice in Michigan. Let's jump up and down! The downpressor is crushing the will of the masses and imposing sharia law. Rise up! Solidarity forever!

I am a Michigan Democrat who would have voted for Edwards.

Rootless's description of what occurred in the Michigan primary is entirely correct. I experienced it.

Manahmanah is also correct. You can’t tell a state that the votes won’t count and then count them.

I realize the "official" take of this site is that Clinton presents the lesser of two evils. I realize the sense of desperation is more focussed on the dread of 4 more years of Republican control and what that will do to the nation and the world. I realize that my take, that the two evils are so closely matched as to be indistinguishable, but either being acceptable over McCain, was shared by 80% of the Democrats voting on Super Tuesday, but is not particularly welcome here.

You should understand there are many long time Corrente readers, commentors, and even a Senior Fellow or two that find a lot of the posts here vehemently supporting Clinton against Obama very unreasonable, just as we have found the pro-Obama anti-Clinton zealotry unreasonable elsewhere.

Corrente has turned itself into the anti-Kos.

The only people who find this amusing are the Clintonista zealots and every Republican operative in cyberspace.

Please, a little more reality, a lot less zealotry.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Kelley:

A few things.

1. You write:

I realize that my take, that the two evils are so closely matched as to be indistinguishable, but either being acceptable over McCain, was shared by 80% of the Democrats voting on Super Tuesday, but is not particularly welcome here.

See my sig. I believe that the differences between Hillary and Obama are real, but I will absolutely vote for either Dem nominee in the general. Neither of them would help kill and barbecue a dog, for example, like McCain' finande director Fred Malek. Vote for the Dems! They're not sociopaths!

2. You write:

You should understand there are many long time Corrente readers, commentors, and even a Senior Fellow or two that find a lot of the posts here vehemently supporting Clinton against Obama very unreasonable, just as we have found the pro-Obama anti-Clinton zealotry unreasonable elsewhere.

I'm not really sure how to take concrete action to avoid being tagged with a generic adjective like "vehement." If you want to put this post and the post screen dumped here in the same category, I'm really not sure how to respond.

If you view the A-List*, for example, as not being zealous or vehement in support of Obama, go read them.

Or if you feel that this blog should provide the balance that I, for one, feel that the A-List does not provide, then you are entirely free to be the change you seek by posting your views. That goes for anyone. And if you feel that this wouldn't be "welcome," then those are your feelings, and it's up to you to give them whatever weight you wish.

Or if you feel that somehow a C-list blog is going to swing the election in a way that the entire VRWC is not... Well, I'm not getting paid enough, that's all I can say. (And you might also speak to the Obama campaign on this matter as well.)

Finally, surely you cannot be saying that I shouldn't be advocating forcefully for the candidate I support? Because that would mean that you're really telling me to Shut The Fuck Up, and I find that hard to believe.

As to numbers: Yes, we've benefited from the general purge of Hillary supporters (and moderates like Tom, perhaps) from the A list. Is the suggestion that we should not support the needs of these new readers?

NOTE On Michigan: I'm checking; I don't mind putting out information that has a clear point, but I don't knowingly propagate that which is false; I don't make claims, for example, to be involved in a "high stakes" Senate race in 2002 when I only declared for the Senate in 2003.

To me, the central question is: Did the voters of Michigan expect that their votes would not count? I find it hard to believe that they felt that way in the mass, despite the individual comments here, with all respect to you, KB, and all due respect to rootles. IIRC, Conyers was urging people to vote undecided. This probably deserves a post. I know CD has posted on MI but what would be nice is a timeline.

NOTE * With the notable exception of Lord Eschaton.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

So has there been any polling to find out what corrective action they want, if any?

If there hasn't been, that's a lot cheaper than an election that may not even have a positive effect...

I think one of the reasons a number of Clinton supporters are claiming they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee is strategic. Obama and his campaign have repeatedly stated, implied, and inferred that Hillary won't get his votes, but he'll get hers (see http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...). The implication is that in an essentially tied race, the SDs must choose him or split the party. The natural strategic reaction to this is to remind the SDs that Hillary has a lot of supporters, too, and not to take them for granted as Obama is suggesting - that the SDs can't just say that Obama folks will leave and Hillary folks will stay, so let's go with Obama (now, in a perfect world, the candidate threatening to split the party would face a backlash, but the democratic party is not a perfect world). The easiest way for Hillary supporters to combat this Obama tactic is to threaten to stay home or vote for McCain.

Of course, as polls have repeatedly shown (see, e.g., http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...), more Democrats stay with the party if Hillary is the nominee than if Obama is, so it's not entirely untrue that some of her supporters will defect, and there are other considerations for Hillary supporters, such as the sexism embraced by Obama and his campaign and where that leaves feminists, but I think when we're talking about internet posters, most of it is to counter the incredibly arrogant suggestion that Hillary's voters don't matter and can be taken for granted.

I should say that part of what I find most noxious in the Obama assertion about Hillary not getting his voters is how it connects with his use of race and his slurring of the Clintons as racists. The predictable result is that SDs are worried about AA voters sticking with the party. Now, I think it's great to want AA voters to stick with the party, but it seems a little weird to reward the guy whose actions have made that less likely.

If you don't believe me, go read the MLive archives. The Michigan primary was reported to Michigan voters as "meaningless" before and afterwards by local and national media.

I don't know of any Democrat personally who thought their vote would count for anything on January 15th. I don't know of a single one many who actually bothered voting that day. Did cd?

We all thought it wouldn't count

The Hillary hardcore, pro- and anti-, both made points of voting that day. That was about it. Those of us who had any other candidate, but maybe didn't see any point of laying hate on Hillary, didn't.

Lambert, I know perfectly well you intend to vote for whichever is the eventual nominee, as will I.

I apologize for any offense given you. By all means, keep talking. But realize there is a point where talking tends to have the opposite effect on people of what you intend. I know I certainly make that error routinely.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

MI and FL.

for the 2.3 million who stayed home because they were told it was as influential as voting. That's not a fair election. Sorry, in many ways giving a voice to not quite all the voters is worse than none at all.

Also, the primaries were uncontested. That matters in a democracy as well.

many people came out in both states--and Clinton, Dodd, (and maybe Gravel) were on the ballot in MI for sure

Look at the pretty circular firing squad, as the two flawed Democratic candidates and their apparaticik get into a steelcage deathmatch.

Meanwhile, McCain and whoever the Fourth Branch appoints as his real boss get to proceed with the $electoral theft and the associated propaganda catapult.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky