Obstructionist Obama in Michigan

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
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?

The Michigan democratic party and the national democratic committee made the rules and now have proposed changing their own rules. Hillary agrees and Obama doesn't.

I don't care if everybody votes or just the people who followed the rules of the primary vote. Just either count the previous vote or allow a re-vote. If superdelegates count, that would be following the rules. You want these rules to be changed to benefit Obama, not me.

Obama is stopping Michigan voters from being part of this election, yet your myopic view is that it is all Hillary's fault. What did Hillary do wrong here? She didn't campaign in Michigan, yet refused to take her name off the ballot. I think that was the right thing to do. Her name was on the ballot before the national committee decided to punish Michigan.

Obama is stopping the vote for pure political reasons, yet all I hear is that it is all Hillary's fault.

[Chicken Little]

The Michigan State Legislature just adjourned without acting on this matter...they considered it and decided not to act.  These are the same people that started this mess in the first place.  So, you can stop blaming Obama.  

Do you think the legislature doesn't care about Michigan voters?  Or is this a recognition of the fact that they made a bad bet and lost?  They knew they couldn't "fix" this mess without disenfranchising some other group.  Sometimes you don't get a "do-over".  Sometimes it's "for real"...any kid knows that.  Michigan was warned by the national Democratic party.  Yet, both state houses and Governor Granholm moved to advance the primary anyway.  It's their screw-up, they know it and they are resigned to it.  

pmcalk offers the only fair way to get the Michigan delegates seated at the convention, and that is to split them so that they do not tip the outcome in either candidates favor.

FYI, I'd be happy with either candidate.  I would've been happy with Edwards, too.

[RecycleMichael]

Read the full article you posted, Mr. Chicken...

Clinton donors offered to pay the estimated $12 million cost of the revote, but Mr. Obama's allies in the Legislature blocked it for a variety of legal, technical and political reasons.

Sorry. Obama doesn't want democracy here.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Sorry. Obama doesn't want democracy here.

I read it...and bull.  It would not have been a fair do-over.

[RecycleMichael]

Please explain how a re-vote in early June would not be fair to both candidates.

Obama has more money to spend. There is a large contingent of black voters in Detroit (50% of the population lives in the Detroit area) and a big college town in Ann Arbor. All these would seem to favor Obama.

Why would he oppose another election? It is because he knows he has lost momentum and will lose. Period.

[Chicken Little]

Don't try to pivot.  Before, you were concerned about democracy, and what would be fair to the voters.  Now, you are asking what might be fair to the candidates.  

I'm sticking with your previous observation.  Would this do-over exclude people who voted in the previous primary?  That's rhetorical.  Yes, it would.  And that's your explanation.

[RecycleMichael]

That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets.

I have said I don't care how or who they allow to vote. If the democrats who voted the first time for a republican vote again, I don't care. The fact that they are prohibited by party rules doesn't matter to me.

Just allow any kind of re-vote or count the earlier vote.

Obama is standing in the way. The Michigan voters should count and Obama doesn't want them to. His motives are all political and he cares more about his campaign chances than he does the Michigan voters. They won't forget.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets.  I have said I don't care how or who they allow to vote.

Oh, please:

quote:by RecycleMichael


"The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted."

"To not count every vote is un-American."

"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?"

"Obama doesn't want democracy here."

RM, you clearly tried to argue that this was an anti-democratic infringement on the rights of voters.  Only when it was pointed out that a do-over was an equally anti-democratic solution that hurt other voters, did you change your position.

[pmcalk]

No, Obama is standing in the way of THAT proposal, the one that doesn't allow everyone to vote.  You are playing slide of hand here--only one proposal was on the table.  No one offered to allow everyone to vote, probably because it would be too expensive.  You might not care how many vote, but unfortunately, you are not a Michigan legislator.  No one offered to publicly finance it.  Clinton supporters offered up their suggestion, and it was rejected.  Obama has offered up his, and I suspect that Clinton will reject his.  We'll just have to wait to see what happens.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree that it is not over in Michigan.

The proposal that Obama's people blocked was not a perfect proposal, but it was agreed to by the democratic national committee, the state democratic party, the Governor of Michigan and the Hillary campaign.

Yes, Obama stopped only that particular proposal. He certainly has the right to offer another proposal to allow a re-vote.

But, remember, all these parties have been working on this for weeks and they all finally agreed, except for Obama's people.  

There is no perfect way to allow a re-vote. But when any solution agreed to by all parties but one is stopped, there is no other way to describe it. Obama is an obstructionist to allowing the Michigan voters to have their ballots counted.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael



But, remember, all these parties have been working on this for weeks and they all finally agreed, except for Obama's people.  

There is no perfect way to allow a re-vote. But when any solution agreed to by all parties but one is stopped, there is no other way to describe it. Obama is an obstructionist to allowing the Michigan voters to have their ballots counted.

No, the Michigan legislature are not Obama's people.  They are Michigan's people and, if they couldn't reach agreement, well...then so be it.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

That is not what I have been saying, oh Mayor of McNuggets.

[^][][8D][}:)][]

Has Borack commented on why he will not advocate a re-do in Michigan?

[FOTD]

Does it appear the big democrats give a rats a#s about Floreeduh or Mishiegun? Hell no.

Bill Richardson just became Obama's ex offcio running mate. Minorities rule. Try beating these two. Mcaint gonna happen.....

[RecycleMichael]

Fascinating that the Boston Globe agrees with me that Obama is wrong...they actually say that Obama is working to stifle votes.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/fired_up_and_ready_for_a_nomination_battle/

Fired up and ready for a nomination battle
By Joan Vennochi
Globe Columnist / April 6, 2008

IN MASSACHUSETTS, prominent Hillary Clinton supporters are fired up and ready to go after prominent Barack Obama supporters.

Last week, a group of Democratic women who support Clinton rallied in front of the State House. They want the state's superdelegates - including Governor Deval Patrick and Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry - to support primary revotes in Michigan and Florida.

The men - all Obama supporters - are less than eager to take up their request. The women, lead by Senate President Therese Murray, have Clinton's self-interest on their side. But they also have principle. By disenfranchising voters in two states, the Democratic Party looks less than inclusive; and, Obama, the candidate who promises a different kind of politics, looks like he's practicing the same old, same old. That's wrong, and it's also shortsighted. If the Obama campaign works to stifle votes now, how can any Democratic nominee complain if Republicans do the same in November?

The national party is still trying to figure out how to handle more than 2 million votes cast by Florida and Michigan Democrats. After both states ignored party rules by scheduling their primaries when they did, the Democratic National Committee stripped their delegates. With Obama opting to stay off the ballot, Clinton won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan. She won 50 percent of the vote in Florida.

"The road to winning the White House goes through Michigan and that is why our voices need to be heard in selecting a Democratic nominee," Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said. "Nearly 600,000 people voted in the Jan. 15 Democratic primary and our votes must count and our delegates must be seated."

The party is wrangling over how delegates will be apportioned, with Obama forces working to keep Clinton's share as low as possible. The obvious remedy - a revote - was derailed. "The Obama people didn't want it to happen," said a Granholm aide. However, Clinton supporters in Massachusetts - especially female elected officials - aren't giving up. Clinton won the Massachusetts primary over Obama, despite his high-profile male supporters. Now, Clinton backers are pressuring the male political establishment to support revotes elsewhere.

The State House rally also included Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney; Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral; former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien; and former lieutenant governor Evelyn Murphy. They are threatening to withhold support for the party nominee, if they don't like the way the nominating process plays out.

"Without us, there is no party. And if we leave, that wouldn't be good," said Murray, according to a State House News Service report.

Earlier this year, Murray, the first woman to hold the Senate president's post, chastised Kennedy and other prominent men for abandoning Clinton to support Obama. "I don't want to be pushed aside anymore," said Murray. "I don't want to be patted on the head, saying, 'You did a good job on that, but now we got this young person, we got this attractive man, because you can't get elected because the media said you couldn't, because the polls said you couldn't. We're going to put this guy out front.' "

Kennedy backs a delegate-driven nomination, rather than one determined by superdelegates. It's a position of some irony, given his stance during the 1980 presidential campaign, when he and incumbent President Jimmy Carter battled through a nine-month primary season. Kennedy came into the Democratic Convention with fewer delegates than Carter, and pushed unsuccessfully for a rule to release delegates from their voting commitment. A few years later, the party embraced the rule that prevails today; so-called superdelegates can pledge their vote to whomever they prefer.

Kerry - the Democratic presidential nominee still haunted by how the votes were counted in Ohio in 2004 - told Clinton's female supporters he cares about fairness, but has yet to finalize a meeting with them. Patrick finally agreed to a one-hour meeting set for Thursday, after repeated requests from women who were among his staunchest supporters during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

Watch out, guys. Another revolution could be brewing in Massachusetts.

[FOTD]

Meet the Depressed yesterday was amazing. Gov. Rendell was stupendously idiotic claiming Hillary was running against herself in Michigan. These people would be a dissaster running our country.