After years of watching the three stooges in action some people have forgotten how democracy works.

Gene sometimes puts it perfectly. This is one of those times.

And hadn't agreed not to count Florida and Michigan's votes the first time.

If she can't protect you from Obama, how is she going to protect you from McCain?

Oh, that's right - I forgot. She thinks McCain will be a dandy Commander-in-Chief.

"Bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran..."

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

"That this strikes them as reasonable reflects the deep unreality into which roughly half the Democratic party has fallen."

Bingo.

First and foremost, I cringe at the implication that Hillary has the high moral ground on Michigan and Florida.

1) In Michigan, it was her Democratic supporters (Granholm, Dingell and Brewer) who engineered the primary move to begin with. They even had the chance move the primary back to February after the DNC laid down the law. But the Dems in the state legislature dropped a poison pill in the bill and it failed.

2) Hillary said herself, " It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything". audio

3) Once it was clear that HRC needed some momentum behind her campaign, she called for the MI and FL primaries to count. Not for revotes, mind you, but to count uncontested primaries in which voters were continuously told the votes did not count. The result: Nearly 2 million voters “did not participate in their primaries but likely would have had they expected their vote to count.” article Study (pdf)

4) I repeat, HRC called for counting sham elections. This in and of itself, would disenfranchise nearly 2 million people. This is not democracy.

5) Much later, HRC finally conceded to revotes. A little late and a little inconsistent to claim the moral high ground.

Look, I support a revote in Michigan. I wish Obama would have worked harder at it - he could beat HRC in Michigan. Its one bit of politicking from Obama that I don't like. But spare me the undemocratic hyperboles. The Obama camp certainly could have been more accomodating, but the legal concerns they ultimately brought up are legit. And don't forget, HRC fought against a firehouse caucus in Michigan, a vote that has precedence in the state and would hold up to legal scrutiny.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama, for expecting me to honor the agreement I made before the primary season started!"

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

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

It amazes me how Obama's supporters so quickly move past his blocking revotes. How can you defend that? I understand the arguments about the original primaries in MI and FL, I still think counting them makes more sense for the Democratic Party (screw the candidates on this one and I'd say that even had Hillary lost them, this issue is bigger than the stupid nominating contest), but the only reason those flawed primaries are even an issue is because Obama blocked re-votes even though 1) such re-votes would've been done in accordance with DNC rules and the resulting delegates properly seated under those rules, 2) the re-vote fixed the only problem with the earlier primaries, which was the date they were held. There's nothing inherently evil about Florida and Michigan voters that requires their votes not to count, the only issue was when they voted, 3) such re-votes would not have been done at the financial expense of Florida or Michigan, but would have been paid by contributions raised by both candidates, and 4) Florida and Michigan early votes would not have counted, which preserves the DNC's concerns, but the voters still would have votes count, which preserves the DNC''s interest, and the candidates' interests, in having the nominee represent the will of all 50 states, including these two critical swing states, and take the contentious issue of Florida and Michigan off the table for the convention (in my mind, it's the one issue that could truly split the party) and repair some of the damage done to the democratic party for the general election, not only in terms of presidential candidates but other down-ticket candidates.

The only reason for blocking the re-vote is that Obama would've lost. He'd rather not count these two states because he can't win these two states. It's absurd. He wants a 48-state convention and not a 50-state convention (and allocating 50-50 delegate splits is not only vote stealing, it's the same as not counting the votes at all since it does not reflect any will of the voters). He figured he'd rather have a nomination battle that could really damage the party and hurt his chances in November, than allow citizens' votes to be counted that could hurt his chances for the nomination.

Talk all you want about what was wrong with the MI primary or why Florida sucks, but neither of those things are going to solve the very big problem we face in the general, which is that there are a lot of democrats in both states pissed off at the Democratic party and that could hurt us, big time in November. The thing that would've resolved it, Obama wouldn't agree to. As far as I'm concerned, this entire thing is on him at this point. If he's the nominee and loses the GE because he didn't carry Florida and Michigan, which is possible given recent polling, he - and those who have supported his 48-state strategy - will be to blame for President McCain.

Finally, let's hope we don't end up in another 2000 re-count situation if Florida and Michigan aren't seated, because I'd love to hear the Obama people argue that the technical rules aren't as important as the concept that every vote should count. They'll be laughed at.

I like an intellectually honest discussion.

You say, "the only reason those flawed primaries are even an issue is because Obama blocked re-votes..."

Uh, no. Before trying to get revotes, the HRC camp and the state Dems tried to have the (you say flawed, I say sham) primaries counted. This ate up a good chunk of time that could have been used to find revote solutions.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Florida revote was not submarined by Obama. Surely Obama deserves some blame for no Michigan revote, but I'm not going to put the whole burden on him. He had some legit concerns and time ran out to address them.

Also, at least in Michigan, the "outrage" of the voters is overblown. The party establishment (AKA the perpetrators of this clusterfuck), maybe, but not the voters. I'm very confident Michigan will go blue. Mr. "your jobs are lost forever" and "I don't know much about the economy" Republican won't win in the midst of a state-wide depression. Obama will run up the score in Detroit and Flint, carry the college towns and hold his own in the UP region.

I don't see people here asking to leave voters out of the Primary process. I know tons of OFB calling for it.

FL will be key in the 2008 election and you really don't want to piss off their voters. The fair thing to do it allow FL delegates with a 50% penalty like the GOP is doing.

I think most people agree MI is a crazy sham of an election regardless of who you support. It would seem the only acceptable course in MI is a revote (hopefully paid for by the DNC and MI Dems and not taxpayers). To count MI as it stands is just lame regardless of who you support. How does Hillary vs. Uncontested translate to delegates? What if Edwards rightfully won a lot of those delegates? How can Hillary pretend it is was fair when everyone was told it didn't count and she basically ran unopposed.

The tragedy is that the MI dems screwed the whole state knowingly and premeditated and just didn't care. Now they are trying to act like victims. And the sad part is that if there was a clear leader it would be a non-issue and MI voters would be gladly disenfranchised. That's the hypocrisy.

Count every vote. That means SHUT YOUR TRAP about Hillary should quit. She has just a good chance to win still. It is like telling Kerry to concede before the recount and before all the votes are counted. If you consider super delegate votes are like provisional voters there are some serious problems with trying to either change how we count the "provisionals" or telling supers how to vote is akin to throwing out provisional ballots.

Screw anyone who doesn't want to count all the votes. Screw the DNC and their self-serving motivations.

All the candidates went along with the DNC's attempt to protect the "integrity" of the traditional first caucus and primary. She was being supportive of the Democratic Party and the DNC and Howard Dean, as were all the other candidates.

She did not take her name off of the Michigan ballot because nothing in the agreement said she had to, and she was already leading in the polls, and perhaps it also occurred to her campaign that there were going to be problems in the future in not seating any delegates from a state like Michigan.

Neither did Dodd take his name off. Both Edwards and Obama did, in Michigan, although Obama left his name on in Florida.

Edwards was very clear on the reason he took his name off; to reassure the voters of Iowa, in particular, that he was solidly behind their desire to be the first caucus. Obama supporters have come to argue that Obama took his name off in order to satisfy the DNC, which did make that suggestion but didn't require it. The much more likely reason is that his campaign decided they didn't want to give Hillary a free win, and since neither campaign would be able to campaign, there would be no way for Obama to challenge Hillary's polling lead, based probably on better name recognition and all that that entails, or said another way, Obama wanted to devalue her likely win by being able to point out that no one was running against her.

Nothing wrong with that at all, and nothing I've said in the above should be construed as a knock against Senator Obama.

What no one had anticipated is that Democrats in both states would come out in such huge numbers to vote in a "meaningless" primary. That changed how what the DNC had done earlier looked, to almost everyone within the party. In the case of Florida, in particular, where the primary was moved up by a Republican legislature, which made it impossible for Democrats to vote against the legislation because it contained a measure mandating a paper trail for all future elections, no Florida Democrats, especially not Democratic voters had any say in moving up the primary.

The concern about Michigan and Florida has not come only from the Clinton campaign; the closer we get to Denver, the more all sorts of Democrats have begun to worry about dissing Florida and Michigan voters, two huge swing states that any Democrat will need in November.

The Clinton camp had already agreed that Michigan had to be a do-over because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, and they got behind a do-over for Florida, even though his name was on the ballot there. Govs Rendell and Corzine were lined up to raise private money to make that happen. Obama's campaign did what most campaigns in his position would have done; they chose their own self-interest over the interest of the Democratic Party. I'm not arguing that Senator Clinton would have acted any differently had she been the candidate in that position. In both cases, each candidate feels that he or she is the one who can bring victory to Democrats in November, so from their own point of view, the Party's interest and their's are the same.

As for Bill Clinton's run in 1992, he had quite enough to do to get the nomination without campaigning for a change in the structure of the nominating process. He has spoken about his reservations about the caucus system even before Hillary lost in Iowa.

It happens to be a complicated issue, because caucuses are an attractive form of democracy, at the same time that they discriminate against a fully democratic process because of the narrow restrictions of time and space on vote-casting within which they operate.

What I don't get, ribo, is why the only way you seem to have of supporting Obama is to rail against the Clintons, as if they are some kind of anti-liberal progressive evil incarnate? And before you reply that there is a lot of tearing down of Obama being done on this site, yes, I would agree, mainly because some of our pro-Hillary commentators have become too invested in a view of Obama I don't share. But among our Senior Fellows, the questions they have about the Obama candidacy are genuine, and their defense of Clinton, while not absolute, is reasoned. I would still prefer to see Obama as the candidate, but not by much, and not for any of the reasons you've put forward, which seems to amount to the notion that any Democrat should be ashamed of supporting Hillary Clinton.

We should be able to talk to one another, but that isn't what is happening, is it? Instead, all we get is this dumb gotcha stuff, and I'm not talking about snark, posters here revere snark and wit, and tough arguments, but the gotcha stuff is what the SCLM is all about, which, as Lambert has said umpteen times, we in the blogisphere have been all about deconstructing, or so we had hoped.

Also, the quote you keep thrusting in our faces about Fazio's failure to produce his tax returns was said by Hillary at a time when they were the two nominees, not in a primary. She has said she will release her taxes on April 15th. Is it really since 2000 that she hasn't published her taxes; I thought it was only her 2007 returns, but perhaps I'm wrong. If it's for a lot of years, then probably it's a question of vetting everything carefully, because one thing the Clintons can always be sure of is that both Republicans and the press, and now Democrats, too, it seems, will pore over them to look for anything negative that can be implied about her and her husband. Not shown to be true, mind you, but only suggestive of something unflattering. That's the pattern.

For a another point of view about this issue, see Joe Conason here.

He lawyered up and claimed any revote plan would have to be approved by the Bush DOJ, see http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/art...

And, even though he has a bill that would require states to permit voting by mail, he objected to a vote by mail proposal - see http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/...

If Obama wanted re-votes in Michigan and Florida, there would be re-votes. Clinton agreed to it. The DNC approved it. The only person who kept raising objections was Obama. Now that the window has passed, of course, I'm sure his position is that he would've agreed with a "fair" plan. But since, sadly, there wasn't enough time, he'll take half the delegates, thank you very much, even though he didn't earn them. Yeah, I'm sure that's not what he wanted at all. He'd much prefer to lose two more big states near the end of the primary season, exposing once again his weakness for one and all to see. Much easier and, from his perspective better, to simply pick apart the original primaries or pick apart any revote plan. Because unless a voting scheme is perfect, it shouldn't be used in Florida or Michigan, even though disenfranchising, undemocratic caucuses are perfectly fine and do not need Bush DOJ approval.

Look, I don't think Clinton is acting out of some deep concern for democracy. She's acting out of her own political interests, which when it comes to Florida and Michigan (especially revotes) just happen to coincide with concerns about democracy. But it insults my intelligence to suggest that Obama wasn't putting his own self-interest above what is good for democracy and the party by blocking revotes. His motivation is the same as Clinton's, only it happens to align with a position that is bad for the party and bad for anyone who cares about counting votes.

"I’m the only Obama supporter I can speak for."

which of course explains why you repeat the exact same talking points that the rest of the MUPpets use....

Memo from Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman: Chair, Florida Democratic Party

Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input. Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't. A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline. This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

Florida is more complex than "Obama sabbotaged a revote". I could go along with a 1/2 delegate allocation (including Supers) for Florida - because the Repubs were responsible for moving the date. However, this doesn't change the fact that many voters will be disenfranchised because they stayed home, thinking their votes didn't count.

I think most people agree MI is a crazy sham of an election regardless of who you support.

I wish that were true; especially wish HRC felt that way all along.

When you consider that Obama got his start by getting people thrown off the ballot.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...

I don't think Obama's much of a believer in the idea of 1 person, 1 vote. On the other hand, what do I know? I was never a progressive organizer* who refused lobbyist money* and passed major* ethics reform*.

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

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

Not the election.

What's so hard about that?

If Obama was who he pretends to be he would be way out front on this trying to find a solution that wasn't self-serving.

Demanding that he be given some of the delegates? And they say Hillary feels "entitled?"

Seat 'em or revote.

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

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

Counting FL and MI voters means more to me than winning the general election. Obama and Clinton will come and go, but the principle of disenfranchising voters for the sins of their legislators is fundamentally wrong. All this bellyaching about rules and who did what when is a smokescreen: voters, who had not real choice in determining when their primary would be, are being disenfranchised.

Package this however the heck you want, voters are getting disenfranchised. Yes, there are rules, but these rules are disenfranchising voters. So-and-so probably said X at one point and now says Y, but voters are still being disenfranchised. Cut the euphemisms. If you don't want FL and MI to count you don't want the voters to be franchised, or at least are comfortable with them being disenfranchised.

And if Obama didn't think the original votes were valid he would have allowed revotes. He didn't allow the revotes. Do the logic on that one.

I can't see why the trolls have so much fun pissing in this pool. It's not like they are persuasive. It's not like they are not immediately humiliated by their lack of critical thinking skills. Does the whole internet have to read like one giant orange cheeto? Some of these trolls are less effective than playground taunts.

Why does anyone keep bringing up a FL revote?? I have repeated this over and over.
(a) the only thing missing from that election was "allowed" campaigning
(b) the polls today aren't that much different
(c) they aren't going to try a caucus or stupid mail-in voting which is foreign and dangerous and will lead to even more chaos

Look, there was not even enough TIME to conduct a revote other than mail-in voting. If you think FL legislature should change to law just to allow for DNC political reindeer games, then you are an idiot.

Please, forget about who suggested or blocked or whatever about a FL revote. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It was never going to happen. The only question left is what to do with the elected delegates in FL, and what to do with FL's super delegates.

I don't think it's that unfair to follow the GOP's approach an implement a 50% penalty. I cannot understand how the DNC decided on 100% penalty in the first place, when the RNC had it figured out how to handle the renegade FL legislature.

is that the FL/MI would have been win win for everybody. My scenario was everybody looks great because all the votes are counted, Obama picks up some popular vote, and Hillary looks good to the CDs, and it wouldn't have decided the nomination in either case because margins aren't there to break a tie.

FISA, FL/MI -- two chances for Obama to change the game and he doesn't. Disappointing. Signing on to the Responsible Plan would be a game changer too, but na ga happen, IMNSHO. Leaders lead.

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

What's wrong with 50/50 is exactly what Lyons said about in the column quoted at the start of this post:

The votes belong to the voter, not the candidates.

I can accept superdelegates as a check and balance system, like plenty under the Constitution, and the process was well understood from the get go, including the fact that judgement enters in.

I can accept caucuses in this election are legitimate, even though they disenfranchise groups of people (not like checks) and should be abolished in future.

But X% of voters want A, and Y% of voters want B, and A != B, not even close, and then we're to accept "Oh, let's just say A == B," there's no rationale for it being fair or reasoned or just, I can't accept it at all. It's like the old joke whose punchline is "because they can."

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

I don't think Michigan was a sham of an election. I think Michigan was far from perfect an election, partly because of a strategic decision by Obama, partly because of the lack of campaigning and the belief among some voters that their votes wouldn't count. But I think better an imperfect election than the true sham of pretending the election didn't happen at all and simply splitting the delegates 50-50, especially when the main person blocking the revote is the person hurt by the original election. If it was so bad, agree to the damned revote.

Again, there were a lot of problems with Michigan and I would prefer to see a re-vote just to end issues over it, but Michigan wasn't a complete sham. Despite its problems, Michigan still had a very good turnout in the democratic primary. Obama's and Edwards' folks publicized the need to vote uncommitted (which undermines the idea that the vote didn't matter), so while they weren't on the ballot - by their choice - there was another option besides Hillary. And while I'm sure there were people who thought their vote wouldn't count, there were voices, including local party leaders, saying that the delegates would eventually be seated (implying their votes would count). Again, I'd rather a re-vote, but it isn't Hillary's fault or mine that there isn't going to be one. It's Obama's and so forgive me if I can't get all worked up about how unfair it is to him to count the votes of people who went to the polls and, you know, voted.

As for Florida, Obama may not have been the only person working against a revote (although I'd love to know how many of the local party opposing the revote were Obama people), but if he had agreed, instead of throwing up every obstacle imaginable, then there's a good chance a consensus would've been reached. But, of course, without Obama, that wasn't going to happen (it should've, because the DNC should've taken the lead here, but that requires Democrats to lead and we know that isn't going to happen).

Had Obama advocated, supported and fought for revotes, I'd give him credit even if they didn't happen and be more open to listening to long lectures from him and his supporters about "the rules" (which, btw, didn't prohibit revotes). But he didn't. Instead he threw up roadblocks. Which tells me all I need to know about how Obama and his supporters feel about the need to enfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. They aren't his voters, so they shouldn't count. That's the bottom line in all of this.

"What’s wrong with 50/50"

It's a moot point. It's never gonna happen. There will be no DNC where the seat half and half of the delegates.

I question anyone bringing it up, because it makes no sense and is never going to happen.

It is identical to seating NO delegates. So, why go to the trouble of setting up this sham of 50/50? It's un-American to take election results and then go 50/50. Why bother doing this and facing backlash, when one alternative is to go ahead with the existing rules and seat NO delegates which is the same effect.

People aren't dumb enough to thing, oh look they did seat MI delegates, only they did it 50/50. There is no point to this unless there is some plan to allow supers to vote differently, but seat elected delegates as 50/50.

It could also be a sleeper plan to effect a second round vote. Where all of the sudden, these 50/50 MI & FL delegates turn out to be something else.

@BD
"but Michigan wasn’t a complete sham"
Huh? Go look up the definition of sham. Seriously.

"but if he had agreed, instead of throwing up every obstacle imaginable, then there’s a good chance a consensus would’ve been reached."
One, who cares about what he did or didn't do, he had no ability to change what FL does. Two, who cares about consensus... There was never a chance for a FL revote with existing election laws. As I've already said, changing FL election law to deal with the primary schedule problems is dumb.

I have already conceded that I think Obama should have supported a revote in Michigan. Its just not as unscrupulous as is being made out here. His concerns with the legalities hold merit, and as I've mentioned, Clinton stonewalled the possibility of a firehouse caucus (which has been done in MI in the past). Also, as internets cooberates, a FL revote was not gonna happen.

I have conceded that a reduced penalty in FL is justified, though it is intrinsically unfair to Obama.

Just don't tell me that the primaries were fair. They disenfranchised an estimated 2 million voters.

And don't tell me Clinton has the high ground here. She went from saying the primaries wouldn't count, to calling for the delegates to be seated as is, to an eleventh hour call for revotes. That ain't leadership either.