Obstructionist Obama in Michigan

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

- - -

So... RM, do you really think Clinton is in this for the people?  Would she willingly throw out her agreement if it benefited Obama?  I can't truely fault her for trying, but her motives are not any more pure than his in this.

I don't think anyone thinks that she's in this for the people CF.  Even her apologists and most naive supporters accept the fact that she is fiercely ambitious, at the cost of anyone that gets in her way.  Somehow they have internalized HER ambition and made it their own.  Juggling, shifting, and smoothing the edges of their own moral packaging to create some kind of sloppy fit with Hillary.  

I think, If elected, Hillary's supporters will be in for a long ride of internally justifying her actions for themselves and externally apologizing to others.  That's too much intellectual/logical/emotional bending and twisting.  It would give me a headache!

[RecycleMichael]

I guess I didn't communicate clearly before. I just seem to be diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

I don't care how they re-vote or count the first vote. I don't care if they go back to an open primary season, a caucus, or a phone-in/text message poll like they do for American Idol.

I know how all this happened. I know how they all pledged to not campaign there. I know how the party stripped them of their delegate status. Yes, there should be some consequences for their actions. But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election. If party leaders don't understand this, they deserve to be forced out.

Somebody needed to find a solution where the votes of the residents of Michigan are counted. The state party, the Governor, the democratic national committee and Hillary, after weeks of fighting about it, have come up with a plan. It is probably a flawed plan, but at this point, it is a viable plan.

Only Obama stands in the way.  

He should agree to what every other party and campaign official has agreed to. Let the Michigan votes count or re-vote.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I guess I didn't communicate clearly before. I just seem to be diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

I don't care how they re-vote or count the first vote. I don't care if they go back to an open primary season, a caucus, or a phone-in/text message poll like they do for American Idol.

I know how all this happened. I know how they all pledged to not campaign there. I know how the party stripped them of their delegate status. Yes, there should be some consequences for their actions. But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election. If party leaders don't understand this, they deserve to be forced out.

Somebody needed to find a solution where the votes of the residents of Michigan are counted. The state party, the Governor, the democratic national committee and Hillary, after weeks of fighting about it, have come up with a plan. It is probably a flawed plan, but at this point, it is a viable plan.

Only Obama stands in the way.  

He should agree to what every other party and campaign official has agreed to. Let the Michigan votes count or re-vote.

Here's the thing--you headed the thread with Obama being an obstructionest, as though a viable solution had been put forward and he is stopping it.  Clinton's plan is flawed, and would result in litigation at best, and would undermine the democratic party most likely.  He shouldn't support it.  You can read Obama's attorney's letter here:

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-lawyer-questions-michigan-re-vote-plan

If she had suggested that everyone vote, that would be different.  If she had suggested that it be publicly financed, that would be different.  She didn't--she offered a plan that favored her, and now is acting as though Obama is obsttructionist by not supporting it.

He's offered an alternative--split the delegates in half.  Why not mention that Hillary is being an obstructionist to that plan?

Here's what I would suggest.  Strip both Florida and Michigan of superdelegates.  After all, if the "party insiders" can't get it right, they shouldn't get a vote.  No one is disfranchised there.  Split the delegates in Michigan in half--that's most likely how it would have turned out if the vote had been legit back in January.  As for Florida, make the case to seat the delegates at the party convention.  That's probably the only one that has a shot.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election.

But no one stepped up and said this was the wrong penalty UNTIL it became clear that it would bennefit Clinton.

You are a man of convictions, but if you REALLY wanted Obama to win would you still be making this argument.  If the answer is yes, then why did you not make that argument when they were initially stripped?  Your candidate has obviously had a change of heart in the matter, the reason is clear.

It's politics, not altruism.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:But this is the wrong penalty for this infraction in this election.

But no one stepped up and said this was the wrong penalty UNTIL it became clear that it would bennefit Clinton.

You are a man of convictions, but if you REALLY wanted Obama to win would you still be making this argument.  If the answer is yes, then why did you not make that argument when they were initially stripped?  Your candidate has obviously had a change of heart in the matter, the reason is clear.

It's politics, not altruism.

Ouch!  That light is bright when you shine it in our eyes!

[RecycleMichael]

Well, first of all, I just like to argue...

The national party rules say that those who voted in the first primary for republicans can't vote in a re-vote. Obama wants to change that rule. You can't say Hillary is trying to change the rules without admitting that Obama is also trying to change the rules.

Obama's people now say they will sue if anything that has now been agreed to by everybody else happens. This is a bad situation and everybody else is agreeing on a solution and Obama is threatening to sue. Some high ground there...(sarcasm off).

50/50? For what reason? What would that resolve besides reminding Michigan democrats that their votes didn't count? Who cares how you voted...we just divided down the middle.  

Obama is in trouble. He is losing ground everyday and Hillary is doing everything she can to get back ahead. Yes, politics is a dirty business, but they have both worked too hard and begged too many of their friends for money to just quit now. The media have just started to ask questions of Obama and the scrutiny is showing in the polls. But all that is beside the point.

Just put yourself in the shoes of a Michigan voter. Try to not be an Obama or Hillary supporter and be undecided again. What would you want to happen? You would want your earlier vote to count or the opportunity to do it again.

[Gaspar]

Hillary & Obama

They are destroying each other.  I take no joy in watching this.  It's making quite a statement about the party!

[pmcalk]

Wow.  Obama is in trouble?  He's ahead by almost 150 pledged delegates, ahead in the popular vote.  Superdelegates are flocking to Obama, and trickling to Clinton (or abandoning her).  Today, we find out that Clinton wasn't so truthful about her role in the White House with NAFTA.  And we are still waiting on those tax returns.

As far as party rules, you seem to be saying that it is ok to change the rules, but only so far as it benefits Clinton's campaign.

As for dividing the pledged delegates in half, you know as well as I that each states system of dividing delegates is as confusing as a calculus problem.  You can lose the popular vote and win the most delegates.  You don't have a right to one person one vote at the primary level.  Dividing them in half is as fair as a privately financed vote that disenfranches a large portion of democrats.

No one said Obama would sue.  But, putting myself in a Michigan's voters shoes, you can be darn sure I would sue if I was told I couldn't participate.  For those who accepted the consequences, played by the rules, and recognized that their vote wouldn't count--those are the voters you seem to be ignoring.

I noticed you said nothing about the superdelegates.  No wonder.  What Clinton is really worried about is not the pledged delegates--she may pick up 30 or so pledged delegates with Florida and Michigan combined, and still be more than 100 behind Obama.  Why she really wants those states to count is because of the superdelegates--she wants those superdelegates to overturn the vote of the people.

[RecycleMichael]

Superdelegates...there...now I have said it.

You think Hillary is the only one trying to win over the superdelegates? Obama can't win without them, either. Why do you Obama people act like Hillary is trying to do something that Obama is not?

If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by the end of May, will you say that Obama is trying to overturn the vote of the people?

[cannon_fodder]

RM, you still haven't admitted that the only reason Hillary is interested NOW and didn't care before is because it helps her.  It has nothing to do with fairness, or being int he shoes of any voter, or anything else.  It is a way for her to get closer to winning.  All the other talking points by her and on here are ancillary to that goal, are you still pretending they are not?

quote:Obama is in trouble. He is losing ground everyday and Hillary is doing everything she can to get back ahead.

Losing ground?  She won Ohio, otherwise hasn't he won more delegates in each of the last 15 or so states?  Didn't he outright when the last 2 votes?  Doesn't he still hold more delegates, more states, and more popular vote?  Didn't his delegate win in Texas and the follow small states negate her Ohio win?

I understand you are advocating for Clinton.  But mathematically she needs to get nearly 65% of the remaining votes to edge him out in delegates (&/or popular vote).  Among her widest victory in her home state of NY was with 57%.  Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and Clinton only got 55% of the vote (read: 45% showed up to vote for "uncommitted" over Clinton).  The only state she clear 60% was Arkansas, where she still fell short of 65%.  But the bad news is conventional wisdom (as well as polls and demographics) suggest they split the remaining states.

Statistically, it is impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote.  Even though Clinton counts Michigan votes in her popular vote tally (reminder:  55% of the vote, Obama NOT on the ballot with supporters having no incentive to show up), she still falls short.  Even counting Florida Obama has a 500,000+ edge.  
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


So lets break it down:
Obama has more States
Obama has more popular votes
Obama has more delegates
Obama has more money
They will split the remaining delegates

So Obama goes into the convention +100 delegates absolute minimum.  He will still have the lead if you pretend toss in Florida (49% Clinton) or Michigan (55% Clinton).

Where Clinton will argue that the will of the people doesn't really matter and she should be elected anyway.  Which oddly enough, is the opposite of what she is arguing at the moment.  

Before January:  You broke the rules, you don't get to have your vote count.
Now:  The people's voice must be heard!
Soon: The people are idiots, over turn their will and elect me!

Here, Slate.com puts it best:

quote:All this being a long way of saying, Hillary's path to the nomination is not "narrow." It's barricaded. Yet still there seems to be a hesitation among the media to declare Clinton dead. Maybe it's her zombielike ability to rise again—first in New Hampshire, then in Nevada, then most recently in Texas and Ohio. But people have to understand there will be no knockout blow, no head shot. Rather it will be a long, slow exit that causes pain to everyone involved.

The question is, who is going to tell Hillary it's over? Certainly not Bill. Certainly not her aides. Only the superdelegates matter. Given that, Gov. Philip Bredesen's proposal for a superdelegate primary in June—a manufactured knockout blow—seems like a remarkably good idea.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/20/clinton-facing-obstructed-path-to-the-nomination.aspx

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Superdelegates...there...now I have said it.

You think Hillary is the only one trying to win over the superdelegates? Obama can't win without them, either. Why do you Obama people act like Hillary is trying to do something that Obama is not?

If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by the end of May, will you say that Obama is trying to overturn the vote of the people?

So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?

If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.

[RecycleMichael]

RM, you still haven't admitted that the only reason Hillary is interested NOW and didn't care before is because it helps her. It has nothing to do with fairness, or being int he shoes of any voter, or anything else. It is a way for her to get closer to winning. All the other talking points by her and on here are ancillary to that goal, are you still pretending they are not?

I admit it. I care more now because it helps my candidate. It doesn't mean I didn't care at all before.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?

If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.

No. Hillary is ahead in superdelegates and always has been. Of course you don't want them to count.

No, the rules allow for superdelegates in every state. I am not in favor of changing the rules to help Obama.

[FOTD]

That is the kind of straight talk we need in the White House. You think like a woman...[:O]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

So you agree the superdelegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count?

If Hillary is ahead in the delegate vote when its over, then I would say yes--she gets the nomination.

No. Hillary is ahead in superdelegates and always has been. Of course you don't want them to count.

No, the rules allow for superdelegates in every state. I am not in favor of changing the rules to help Obama.

So, let's summarize your points.  

It's ok to change the rules, but only the rules that benefit Clinton.

We cannot disenfranchise the voters--I mean, we cannot disenfranchise the voters that voted for Hillary.  The others, doesn't matter.

This is about having the people's voices heard, but actually its more about letting the political insiders be heard.

The politicians made the decision to violate the rules, so the voters shouldn't be punished.  And the politicians, who make up the majority of superdelegates, shouldn't be punished either, because that will help Hillary.

Are you surprised that so many dislike Hillary because they see that she will do anything to get elected, even destroy the party?