Well, if people were only speculating about Bill and Hillary being willing to destroy the party for their own glory, this would seem to confirm it.

She truly is a Republican in Democratic clothing. Power by any means, that's the mantra.

Fortunately she's playing this game of brinksmanship in some truly died-in-the-wool blue or red states like Michigan and Florida where close general election contests that could be swayed by odd details like this never happen.

What?

(sigh)

the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn't be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries.

Nor was it agreed to by the people in the effected states.

And the media has been all over it -- they went through a phase where they kept repeating over and over again that the Dem. party was preventing FL from having a say in the Dem. primary. Talk about bad PR: "the Dems. say they are the party of the people, but they disenfranchise people in FL, of all places, what hypocrites ... I'm voting GOP, because at least they are against icky people doing icky things".

I understand the issues with a front loaded primary season, but coming from a state that for a long time had a late primary (and then living in another state with a late primary), I can tell you it is teh suck that you have absolutely no say in who becomes your party's nominee 'cause by the time it's your state's turn to vote, most candidates have dropped out, de facto if not officially.

As a friend of mine says, we might as well just go back to having conventions brokered in smoke filled rooms.

she's adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.

To repeat myself, don't blame HRC here (FWIW, I'm not an HRC supporter) -- the media's been painting the Dems. as a whole as anti-FL for some time now ... HRC ain't really making matters any worse for the Dems.

FWIW, though, IIRC, I did see other Dem. candidates on my sample ballot here in FL. But then again, as we learned in 2000, in FL a lot of things are left up to the counties ... and Leon County is not the rest of FL politically.

Here's what I wrote on TAPPeD:

The only way this matters is if Clinton needs her superdelegates and Florida and Michigan to reach a majority. Which would mean she probably didn't get a majority of pledged delegates, which would mean it would be so abundantly clear that she strongarmed her way to the nomination that it wouldn't work.

So it's a purely symbolic gesture, and from a raw electoral vote perspective, earning some good will with the Florida and Michigan press is worth more than losing some with the Iowa and New Hampshire press.

===

I thought about this some more, and I suppose that if Obama is ahead ex-MI and FL, but behind with MI and FL, we might then be in a pickle. But I submit that both of these scenarios are highly unlikely. More likely is that the Clintons are planning ahead to winning the nomination.

If you're really worried about disenfranchising the people of Michigan, the solution isn't to validate an election in which only one of the major candidates was on the ballot.

Fortunately she's playing this game of brinksmanship in some truly died-in-the-wool blue or red states like Michigan and Florida where close general election contests that could be swayed by odd details like this never happen.

Yeah, MI isn't feeling particularly blue these days already and a big chunk of the African Americans vote went to 'uncommitted'. Maybe Clinton could attack the UAW just to seal the deal.

I'm amazed how she thinks this won't be seen as a, well, frankly, Clintonesque DLC power play.

Clinton's camp has been developing an amazing series of coincidences regarding the timing of statements and actions that just happen to benefit her campaign. It's kind of overwhelming how this is one of those moments where you can see the exact same "WTF" comments on DailyKos and FreeRepublic.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a point in her argument, but to say nothing and then wait until AFTER she was uncontested in Michigan to protest the exclusion is a slap in the face both to Howard Dean and the entire DNC primary process.

And whose fault is it that Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot in Michigan? Oh yeah, it was their own fault, when they filled to have their names taken off.

There's no way the delegates in MI and FL won't be seated this summer, and regardless of what the DNC has said in the past, this seems fairly obvious to me.

This seems completely predictable and, for that reason, not a big deal.

Of course whatever candidate won MI and FL would push to have the delegates seated (possibly hoping for a compromise in which they get half the delegates).

Nobody can be surprised by this.

As far as the Clinton / Obama brinksmanship I see less a threat to split the party and more of an attempt by Clinton to keep Obama off balance, and open up the potential of multiple avenues of attack.

But, again, this just seems like the obvious move for whoever won MI and FL.`

all three agreed not to campaign or doing ain the states. it was understood, unless the last post is a clintonesqu definition of "is" moment. i guess you are right the sense it was their fault for trusting her to keep her word.

Take it away, William Greider:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=274075

The voters of FL and MI had no say in when they're primary date was set. It's not like it was a pubic intiative that the people voted on.

I'm amazed that people, particularly Obama supporters who complained so much about "disenfranchising voterz" in Nevada would insist on 1 million voters in FL and Michigan being disenfranchised just so they could have their way.

Try and spin this however you want but it was Obama and Edwards that gambled on trying to exclude FL and MI from the process. Don't blame Clinton for trying to represent all 50 states instead of just the states Obama and Edwards deem worthy

The voters of FL and MI had no say in when they're primary date was set.

Except when they voted for their legislators who in turn voted on that. I don't agree with the GOP Florida majority messing with the Democrats that way, but seriously- you understand how representative democracy works, right?

The whole "I personally did not get to flip a yes/no switch" argument on every unliked legislative action taken in this country is getting really tiresome.

The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now fully embedded in our collective bloodstream.

Obama: Welcome to the two Clintons' attack machine.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton.html

oh please stop with the pretense that this is about the voters. do you people remember what you write from thread to thread?

Isn't Obama the one with TV spots up in FL. No one else is. Looks to me like Obama is the one who broke the no campaigning in FL pledge.

katie wrote: "Isn't Obama the one with TV spots up in FL. No one else is. Looks to me like Obama is the one who broke the no campaigning in FL pledge."

Obama bought national spots. The networks won't exclude just Florida. He's running national spots.

I've heard that Hillary's website has been able to be viewed in Florida! She's been campaiging there for MONTHS before Obama bought national TV ads. Why wasn't Hillary blocking Florida ISPs from viewing her website?

I can't believe the hypocrisy of these clintonistas.

Pushing me ever closer to Bloomberg.

As far as I can discover, the fundamental decision to set the primaries for these dates in these states was made by the state Democratic party members, and I know that Florida, at least, was given the option of making alternative arrangements or losing all of their delegates. The state party committee chose to keep the same date and lose their delegates. End of story. I see HRC's press release as a cynical move to try to pre-emptively seize some momentum and potential delegates. She COULD have complained a long time ago... it isn't like any of this is news.

Voters in MI and FL did have the option of voting for their representatives within the party, and in the state congress... or complain. That's how politics works!

This is a transparent attempt by the Clintons to appear like people who care about voting, rather than suppressing it, as in Nevada. Please, let's not waste time even imagining that the First Pervert and the First Madam have any other agenda.

if hillary and bill win this nomination, the democratic party will be more divided than it ever has been, with a large, worrisomely disenfranchised segment.
and that will be before confronting the republicans bloodbath that will be worse than anything we have already seen.
i remember when at the end of their administration, the clintons were concerned about not having enough money to pay their legal fees, and this week, being economic advisor to dubai and sovereign wealth funds, didnt bill clinton just receive a payout of ten or twenty million dollars?
what turning of a new page, what enthusiasm for the future is this?
we will be facing the future with more bitterness, more dividedness, more people unwilling to work together than in our recent history.
it stymies my imagination to think that anyone could think this is the best we can do for our country.
it doesnt seem plausible, or even tenable.
how can you support two of the most divisive figures in recent times to bring the country together?
most of the country will not be moving forward together.
no bright skies.
storms ahead.

You could see this coming a mile off - and it's why "party discipline" about the primary calendar is a fiction: Obama (never mind Edwards) should have seen this too. Clinton's just taking something that works to her advantage and, well, working it to her advantage. We'll see if the punishment sticks... but I think the reason this will likely come to pass is because the punishment never really fit the crime. If the Parties want a particular primary calendar, then they have to come up with a mechanism that takes it out of the hands of the states. Otherwise, this jousting and "we can do it before you" stuff will never, ever end.

Look, this was discussed at the time and if i recall at the same time that the DNC was trying to keep everyone in line with the threat not to seat the delegates it was publicly acknowledged that there was almost zero chance that the party as a whole (regardless of who was the eventual nominee) would want to refuse to seat the delegates come the convention. It was a stupid form of brinksmanship on the DNC's part--ideally they should have figured out what they wanted and tried hard to get it in a way that wouldn't blow up in their faces later. i can imagine a few other things they could have done including saying "hold the primary when you want but we take a certain number of delegates off your slate for each day early you try to put it." Or they could have proposed to fine the state officials. This all or nothing approach was really stupid and its backfiring. I don't see it as a make or break moment for the HRC campaign. there's no way that edwards or obama wouldn't be arguing for it if they thought that they could guarantee that the delegates went for them. Can we please stop pretending that *trying to win* is wrong in an election? If you aren't in it to win it you are wasting all our time. The charge that many of us leveled at Kerry.

aimai

again got to love the posts justifying what is essentially clinton stepping the party in the back. "it your fault for being idiot enough to trust me." only in the perverse reality that is democratic politics these days does that make sense. the clintons only show coming to a theatre near you in 2009. and no matter how many times you people post this crap, its still going to be considered nasty by any fairminded process person.

by the way, it's shit like this that makes me change my mind yet again about who is going to be my second choice if my first edwards drops out. i had thought the clintons, but now quite frankly i am back to obama because say what you will about him, i can't imagine despite what people are saying here either him or edwards pulling shit against the party like this.

aimai,
The Clinton's are certainly "trying to win"...they're just willing to destroy any and everything in their way to do it, including disregarding rules the party set and that everyone knew about and agreed to.

But all is fair in love and politics, right?

This kind of thing is exactly why Hillary Clinton already has about half the county who won't vote for her and she's going to piss off a sizable amount of people is this does come to pass...she's got to run a perfect general campaign to win anyway, and this move will surely antagonize some Dems who might consider not voting at all if she is the nominee. Is that petty of those voters? Probably...but so is this action by the Clintons.

Come on, ever since the news came down the wire that Michigan and Florida were going to be stripped of delegates, every single press account I read said the same thing: nobody truly believed these states voters would be disenfranchised in the end. Every news story consistently said that whoever the Democratic nominee would be, surely that person would seat the delegates at the convention because these are two must-win states and nobody really believed that the Dems want to alienate the voters that bad.

What's changed since these first stories is that people have started to wonder if there might possibly be such a close race that the delegates from these states might make a difference. So now, for the very first time, there's real talk among the Obama supporters that these states delegates should definitely NOT be seated no matter what, even if it means alienating Dems in these two key states and making it more difficult for Dems to win Florida in Novemeber. That sort of win-at-all-costs attitude is worth talking about at least as much Clinton, so please don't think you're really convincing anyone that only bad Hillary Clinton is concerned about a power-play here. We're not buying it.

one other point- the fact is the clintons ARE doing this. you are talking abstracts when you claim that the others may have in your cynacism. your cynacism doesn't trump actual observed behavior.

"one other point- the fact is the clintons ARE doing this. you are talking abstracts when you claim that the others may have in your cynacism. your cynacism doesn't trump actual observed behavior."

Great point. This isn't a hypothetical. The Clinton's ARE doing this. Now. We don't know if Edwards or Obama might have done the same thing. We DO know Hillary is doing it.

"Come on, ever since the news came down the wire that Michigan and Florida were going to be stripped of delegates, every single press account I read said the same thing: nobody truly believed these states voters would be disenfranchised in the end."

I think the fact that only Clinton (was Kucinich also on the ballot?) was on the ballot in Michigan belies that point. If any of the other candidates really felt this was going to be a fait accompli do you really think they would have left themselves off the ballot in two of the most important, and now early, states?

The fact that they might actually seat these delegates when there was only one candidate on the ballot is what is really sickening. If everyone was on the ballot and Clinton won I would be much more understanding of her desire to see those delegates seated.

I am not really sure who this ploy helps them with other than perhaps the voters of Michigan and Florida. Otherwise, I see this move as a turn off to non-Clinton Democrats and to Independents, who can't see this move as anything but the cynical ploy that it is.

Aimai, the point is that the Clintons agreed to the rules, as did all the candidates. You can't try and game the system, damage your own party, and cheat your way to something you don't deserve - and then call it winning. The DNC should stand firmly by the rules that were laid down in advance. The only thing this Clintonian attempted fraud will do is remind people of how they tried to change the rules in Nevada once Obama got the Culinary endorsement. This is just another attempt at voter suppression by proxy, because Michigan voters did not vote on all the candidates - and so we don't actually know what they would have wanted.
This filthy little electoral fraud exemplifies how the Clintons do business, and the fact that it damages everyone else is not of interest to them. It also says that they know they can't win fairly, and that a brokered convention is not likely to come down in their favor. I think this is another clear case of why ultimately the race has become the Clintons against the Democratic party. Democrats should not reward this sort of corruption, cynicism and dishonesty.

Mike P,
"this kind of thing" is what turned "half the country" off HRC? I thought it was that she slept with vince foster and killed someone's cat and hung crack pipes on the white house tree? In *real life* HRC is not the second coming of the ruthless bitch queen from hell. Read some political history some time--she isn't doing anything that is at all out of the way, underhanded, or even novel. She's a serious political actor who is seriously trying to get to be president in a multi stage process that has to be fought out strategically. She's fighting on the terrain offered. As demunity08 points out this is all a completely absurd level of hysteria for a fact that was foretold long before we knew who the front runner would be. I would absolutey applaud obama and edwards if they had tried to do the same thing because it shows *initivative* something we badly need from our next president.

As I said over at LGM Obama and Edwards should agitate for the delegates to be seated as *uncommitted* or be divvied up according to an entirely new scheme such as proportional to their wins in the other primary states. That would show some intelligence on both their parts.

aimai

aimai, you seem to be suggesting that anything is fair in politics. Do you agree then that Rove was right to use racism against McCain? That the Clintons were right to use race-baiting against Obama? Why not? And since we are talking about Hillary, do you endorse the attempts to depict her as having a lesbian relationship with her aide? Surely that's fair by your argument?

It's as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious.

Then we can only hope that it happens.

no process is about not changing the rules aimai to suit a particular candidate. they all agreed and should stick by those rules. i realize maybe as a clinton supporter this concept of fairness confuses you , but to some of us crazy whacky libruls it's actually important. i see this is going to be like the reagan comment with obama or my fight with edwards supporters over his needing to use the media more-- this isn't about whom you support and whom I support. it's about principles.

Shorter aimai: it's fine that my candidate lies and cheats and manipulates, even if she damages her party to do so. Add in a measure of hypocrisy and high-sounding talk about serious candidates and strategy, and the frothy cocktail of Clintonian triangulation is ready for your consumption.

Was that the speech for the defense, Aimai? God, you sound like Karl Rove on an off day. If anything would convince me to vote Republican rather than Democrat, it would be seeing what an unctuous, hypocritical, self-serving fraud HRC really is. Anyone but Hillary in 2008, even if it has to be a Republican.

kassilder,
You couldn't be more wrong. I am a Gore supporter who wanted Edwards who is currently leaning Obama. But like a lot of people I admire someone who is good at doing their job--and I think HRC is showing me that she is damned good at figuring out how to get where she wants to go. I've just sat through seven years of Bush and one thing i learned from watching him is that rules are for suckers and the democrats have always been suckers. Whoever gets in to the white house on our behalf had better be a ruthless chess player and a ruthless poker player if we are to get anything accomplished. I would absolutely salute Edwards or obama if they had figured out a way to try to get those delegates seated and onto their slates in some shrewd fashion. Again, I'm not a HRC supporter although I sometimes argue on her behalf as a contrarian.

aimai

How viciously sad.....

Every day its a new reason that this Democrat will vote Republican to stop Hillary.

aimai,
I'm not talking about Vince Foster or anything of the like. I'm not talking about anything along the lines of CDS. The Clintons, for better or for worse, are manipulative and cynical opportunists (not that this is entirely bad in politics). The issue here is that things like this are why people who don't like Hillary don't like her. This looks like gaming the system...it looks like "the rules don't apply to me". Is that fair? I don't know. But it's just true that she has negatives into the mid 40's and I bet a lot of it is people who see her as calculating (again, that doesn't HAVE to be a negative, but to a lot of Americans who seem to value "authenticity" - whatever that is- she comes off as the antithesis of that).

Aimai, you are a natural Hillary supporter. Face it, like her, you argue cases you know to be unjust in the name of some repellent advantage. That's exactly why so many people won't turn out to vote for her if she wins the primaries.

Can anyone say Chicago 1968? NO it won't be like that, this will be a crazy next few weeks and a crazy election.

I'm sure HRC would be saying this EXACT same thing had Obama been the only one on the ballot in MI and was about to win FL.

Ridiculous. And sad.

Aimai, the point here is that Hillary is an inept player, who loses the long-term, strategic advantage for a very questionable tactical move. That's bad politics and will only serve to damage her party. If you find that admirable, you have a strange sense of strategy. What other candidate has attracted such evident and vehement hatred from longterm Democrats? That's something which is evident across the board - and it's why she is the likeliest to lose in the big match.

This is such a funny thread--I read backwards up from the last posts so forgive me for double dipping. I have to answer basilbrush this way:

"do I think it was fair of rove to use racism to attack John McCain?" what on earth do I care how that snake pit the republicans call their nominating process went. Rove appealed to his base in the way that was most appealing to them--you can't use racist appeals except to racists. As for the accusations that HRC is a lesbian, again I don't know what "fair" means in this context. To people for whom *having a black baby* is wrong or *being a lesbian is wrong* the truth of the accusation is almost besides the point.

What does this have to do with someone petitioning an organization to do something they want done? Exceptions are made to rules *all the time*. That's what we have laws and appeals processes *for*. She explicitly states in the press release that she knows that her own delegates may not agree with michigan and florida and may not support her in *petitioning to have the rules changed*. That's not a crime. Its not even really hardball politics though people are acting as though its the second coming of the plague.

If my children and I agree on no dessert after dinner and then a neighbor arrives with a great dessert and my daughter says "I know that you might not agree with me but I'd really like to have some dessert,the situation has changed, can we have some of that dessert" I really don't throw up my hands and accuse her of being evil, without principles, and wholly immoral. I might choose to say "look, we agreed on no dessert and we have to abide by that" or I might say "look, you had dessert at lunch so no dessert at dinner" but I don't waste any time accusing her of evil. she's not evil.

aimai

Humbly asking for a repeated definition on the word "triangulation" in contexts here...seeing it bandied about a bit in different ways...a little help? beuler? beuler? thanks.

I don't remember people making such a fuss about the unfairness of the DNC trying to hold people to the rules they agreed to when the DNC similarly refused to count our DC January primary in 2004.

(ahem)

A pox on the DNC and the RNC. Michigan is in dire need of attention from candidates and Washington in general, and we've been relegated to obscurity for daring to think we might approach the citizens of Iowa in importance. I'm pulling for Obama over Hillary, but more than that I'm pulling for Michigan and Florida to be treated as equals of Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and so on. The democrats especially (who took away all of our delegates, versus the half taken by the republicans) would do well not to snub Michigan.

We really ought to just have one, national primary day in the future and be through with this nonsense.

She is out of control. Someone please chain her to her bed and shut the door behind you.

Aimai, would you care to make an argument, rather than spouting random analogies? As for claiming her delegates "may not agree", well that's so intellectually dishonest, it's almost like asking Bill Clinton to explain feminism. Furthermore, trying to demand an exception after the contest has finished is not remotely like changing dessert. It's like trying to claim that home runs should not count, after you lost a game because of one.

y'all aimai is teenager, the more you argue with her the less the argument will make sense and the m ore it will move so that she is ultimately right in her situational logic. in other words, don't waste your breathe. she's simply throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. i've seen multiple peo explain along this thread whats patently obvious. the only one's not getting it are those invested in pretending the emperor has clothes on right now.

Maybe Hillary should just insist that black votes should count as 3/5th's of a white vote.

all of which might be nice kraz, but again not what the clintons agreed to. see this isn't about anything other than what the candidates agreed to, one candidate trying to get out of that, and you, her supporters, pretending you give a shit about the voters. if her real concern were the voters of MI and FL she had months to address it, but choose not to- why?

Hillary can't impose her will on the convention by diktat. She needs votes to change the Michigan and Florida decision, right? I don't see what the problem is. Either she has the votes or doesn't. There's nothing undemocratic (or unDemocratic) about it. And once again it shows, pardon my vulgarity, who has the biggest pair in this race.

Hillary's willing to do what it takes to win. She's resourceful, creative, and, yes, a little bit ruthless. But so far I don't see there's anything unseemly about her campaign or about the various strategies she's employed. She just wants it more.

Does anyone see a parallel to a campaign that had months to object to the special caucuses in Nevada, and then conveniently took a dislike to them once Obama looked like winning? What are Clinton's own polls telling her about SuperTuesday and the Edwards delegates, I wonder?

that's a good question nick- I am guessing they are worried that they can't win without the delegates, and hence the faux arguments by her surrogates about how it depends on the definition of is.

Give me a break on the Hillary criticism. How long have I complained that Democratic candidates have wimped out in electoral fights? I give Hillary credit for being a fighter.

If I don't vote for her, it won't be because of tactics, it will be because of her policy positions. If I do vote for her, it WILL be because I want the next Democratic president to play hardball with the Republicans.

This is the problem with politics... it's all about games and "winning." So the politicians are good at winning, but we voters keep getting screwed! I'm so tired of hearing Clinton supporters saying "she knows how to win" or suggesting that she's "tested and experienced." The presidency shouldn't be a prize for the most cunning gamer, or an award to whomever has worked hardest for it; we should be picking an honorable, inspirational, honest and upstanding leader who can do the right thing for our country! These political games are just more evidence that our democracy is on the brink of collapse; and our corrupt politicians keep pushing us closer to the edge, in their endless pursuit to protect their asses and advance their own ambitions. We need a STATESMAN (or woman) for President, not a cunning politician!

Give me a break on the Hillary criticism. How long have I complained that Democratic candidates have wimped out in electoral fights? I give Hillary credit for being a fighter.

If I don't vote for her, it won't be because of tactics, it will be because of her policy positions. If I do vote for her, it WILL be because I want the next Democratic president to play hardball with the Republicans.

Now the older women of NH know what they have unleashed. Billary the ultimate pandering, industrial military complex candidate. -Special powers: Able to convince people for a short time that they will actually do something for the people: Other minor power, working against people, while still telling them it is w/in their best interest. Funded by: -You don't even want to know.

akaison:

1. Oh, there's no question that the Clinton camp is looking out for itself more than it is for MI and FL. I honestly don't care what her motives are; I care that my state is taken seriously (along with Florida), and if it takes some conniving by Clinton to pull that off, I'm willing to accept that.

2. I do object to being labelled a Clinton supporter. I'm hoping for Obama to win the whole thing. As I said earlier, though, I care about Michigan being treated fairly more than I care about which particular candidate gets the delegates from Michigan.

I've never voted Republican and won't this election, but I will under no circumstances support these two egomaniacs. They disgust me and make me ashamed of my party. Pathetic

Time for Obama to put out the video with Hillary flip-flopping on drivers' licenses, saying she voted for bills that she was glad didn't pass - and then nail it down with a great line about how she'll say anything to get elected - and HOPE that nothing changes.

Harold Ickes played a leading role in the DNC committee meeting at which the policy with respect to Michigan & Florida was decided. He argued for the policy that was adopted. Does he now think he was wrong?

exactly tamale...I don't remember whining winning elections

it's up to Edwards and Obama to work the system too...you know, like Obama going on Letterman after Edwards did...good strategy

Kraz, no-one wants to deny Michigan and Florida their due delegates - but the problem is not that they are from MI or FL, the problem is that they will be unfairly divided, because of the previous agreement. I think Obama and Edwards should jointly agree to seat the delegates, provided that their votes are split three ways, and that they MAY NOT re-allocate their support subsequently. In other words, FL and MI are there, but Clinton can't exploit them to gain an unfair advantage.

kraz

I apologize for my assumption. I just find what the Clintons are doing here exceeding crass and self destructive to the party.

OT: If anyone is curious why they want to now count FL and MI- it's because they are running out their money advantage. Obama faces similar problems supposedly. But take both with a grain salt:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3414

If true, that's what this is really about- wracking up delegates before they have to approach this through free media.

Hillary's fundamentals as they relate to the general election are really ugly. Here's her 3 BIG problems if she gets the nomination:

1. her campaign has ripped apart a previously united democratic party, many of whom will now NEVER vote for her under any circumstances.

2. she'll magically unite a currently NOT united GOP base, to a degree that is hard to imagine for most dems.

3. indies don't much care for her anyway for many reasons, but especially after the smear of obama. indies will gravitate toward mccain in the general election in droves.

Gore and Kerry didn't even have such bad fundamentals, and they both still lost the electoral college.

For the love of god...just have one national primary, say in July, have the convention in August and the flipping election in November. Every vote counts, you can have all the byzantine super-delegate rules you want and we don't have to endure 6 months of drivel about how everyone in Iowa and New Hampshire are so THOUGHTFUL about their votes. I've lived in both states and a more specious bit of drool I've never heard.

2 years of Presidential election is approximately 1.75 years too damn much.

Ahh the old Clinton slimey bait and switch...had enough yet???

The DNC and they other candidiates ought to get together and agree with Clinton. THAT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DELEGATES WILL BE REPRESENTED BUT THE CANDIDATE THAT GETS THEIR VOTES LOSES TWO SUPER DELEGATES FOR EVERY STATE DELEGATE VOTE.

There, Hillary, we represented the States in the process, have a nice day.

I think the idea of enforcing an equal split of delegates would be brilliant - and that Clinton would refuse instantly, thus showing exactly how much she cares about Florida and Michigan. It is however, a fair solution that respects those states scrupulously! Wonderful!

"her campaign has ripped apart a previously united democratic party"

in what parallel universe has the democratic party ever been united?

agreed even split would be brilliant, but as the clintonistas here are showing they really would never go for this.

MissTiff, it gets better, Bill Clinton never even got 50% of the vote, even with everything going for him in the re-election he managed 49%. Does anyone think she will out perform Bill?

If Hillary is nominated, her ONLY strategy will be to run the lowest, dirtiest campaign of all time, because he negatives are so high, she will need to drive up the Republicans negatives and make this a base vote/turnout election.

Getting anything done in office after that will be virtually impossible.

But could Clinton publicly refuse an equitable solution that respects Florida and Michigan? I don't see how she could - and if she does, that would be the mother of all flipflops in the primaries. If Edwards and Obama both endorse the idea (which they would, if they were smart enough to see their own interest clearly) with all due solemnity and much fine rhetoric about respect and fairness - what would Clinton do then?

akaison- It's all good.

nickzi-

That's true, things are going to be different in the delegate count than they would be if everyone had been actively campaigning and on the ballot. It is unfortunate.

However, let's none of us pretend that this is a surprise. The party leaders in the disenfranchised states have been predicting that they will get their seats back, and agitating to make it happen. Now it looks like they might actually pull it off, albeit through some rather underhanded tactics by Clinton.

It's a messy situation. It would have been better, of course, if MI and FL had never been punished for their supposed audacity in the first place. Still, I'll take an MI delegation warped against my candidate over no MI delegation at all.

Kraz, what do you object to in an even split of the delegates?

Kraz:
"""I honestly don't care what her motives are; I care that my state is taken seriously (along with Florida), and if it takes some conniving by Clinton to pull that off, I'm willing to accept that."""

Then you would accept any delegates from those states are in trade for two super delegates? That is only fair because it both represents those states and punishes the candidate at the same time.
You wouldn't want them to benefit unfairly would you???

Look I'm convinced now that the Clintons are using some of the Repub/Rove calling centers (such as Infocision) and bots (remember blue new Hampshire). There is something that stinks on the web. However, they want us to get depressed, they want us to stop caring. Write, call, email everyone you know, let us (all Americans) show the Clinton's (and their nefarious big supporters) that they cannot take the country. It just ain't happening.

Kraz,

Whatever everyone else was doing, the discussion here is about the Clintons. I find people have a hard time separating out conversations so let me once again repeat- thats the issue here- whether you agree with what the Clintons did. And if you want to discuss the separate issue fine, but don't mix them. On the separate issues quite frankly I dont think the state partis have a leg tos tand on. I have a problem with people trying to change process when they had earlier opportunities to do the same, especially where I sense the change is for grandstanding not the voters.

nickzi-

I don't, necessarily. I haven't thought about it thoroughly, and as far as I know, no campaign is seriously proposing that (I could be wrong on that last point). An even split (would it be a two-way split, or more? could matter in a brokered convention), of course, disregards the will of the state voters, though the existing ballot in Michigan was already a travesty. It would at least be a moral victory, though it wouldn't give the disenfranchised states any net influence on the convention. It might help break up the ridiculous system we have, so that we can get a fair national primary the next time around.

"""But could Clinton publicly refuse an equitable solution that respects Florida and Michigan? """

They could do one better; Edwards, to show his left wing credentials, could challenge Hillary to give 20% more of the delegates in those states to Obama as a form of affirmative action, as reparations for the Democrats prior discrimination.

How could Hillary possibly refuse??

All the Rovian tactics lately from the Clintons are really discouraging.

At the beginning of this campaign I sincerely believed that I would vote for any of the three main Democratic candidates (or the others for that matter). I like them all.

But the more I read and hear about the tactics of both Clintons, the more I'm convinced there will be little change in this country (in politics or otherwise) if she wins the presidency. Another 8 acrimonious years to add to the 16 we've had.

If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her, but I'll be holding my nose and breath. Sad too, a few months ago I was planning on supporting her financially and by volunteering if she won the nomination.

Kraz, I assume that Edwards, Obama and Hillary would be the three candidates at the convention. I would exclude Gravel, who has never gained as much as 5% anywhere. I think that the even split has the merit of being fair (and must be combined with a condition making reallocation impossible, without the written consent of the candidate to whom the third is allocated). That way, the states are seated, but not rewarded for playing games with the timing of their primaries, while no candidate benefits unduly. It may not reflect the hypothetical will of the voters on the ground - but nor did the contest that we saw in Michigan between HRC and undecided.

And this is the point

"It may not reflect the hypothetical will of the voters on the ground - but nor did the contest that we saw in Michigan between HRC and undecided."

People can differ about the primary system, but not about changing rules after the fact. You are rewarding disenfranchisement even while imaginging you are supporting it if rules can be so willfully ignored.

No, no I'm sorry. State parties need to obey the DNC on this.

What about all the other states? Somehow despite their own inter-state problems they managed to followed the rules.

It was only Michigan and Florida who felt that they were so god damn fucking unique and awesome that they deserved to break the rules, and betrayed the DNC who had helped them strengthen their state parties.

For the Clintons if this works, it has added benefit of undermining Howard Dean at DNC and putting a McAuliffe (or hell McAuliffe himself) back in to fuck up everything we did to promote state parties. It's about killing any power base in the Democrat party other than themselves.

She'll probably get my vote if she wins the nom, but she's getting shit for money or work from me. I'll work on the Congressional, Senate and various state campaigns.

You never mention that this was a stupid idea to begin with. How can you deny people's votes, especially in the case of Florida. Those poor people, the party is so destroyed that they cannot choose their own primary date, how can you deny them? Those people are basically squeezed by both the national Democratic party and the local republican party. And mind you, they have already turned in more absentee votes than all votes casted by people in NH, IA, and NV. Are you going to tell them their votes don't count and they should not bother to vote at all.

The Republicans are much smarter! They halved the delegates from all states holding primaries ahead of Feb.5. Why the Dem. don't have this common sense?

"Obey the DNC"? Forget that. The supposedly unique states are the ones with their carefully protected early places in the process. Scrap the whole thing and let all the primaries occur at once. Failing that, assign the order randomly. Failing that, let the states have their primaries when they want to have their primaries. I'm tired of a system that favors Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and so on while the post-industrial north rusts.

Pat:

"Then you would accept any delegates from those states are in trade for two super delegates? That is only fair because it both represents those states and punishes the candidate at the same time.
You wouldn't want them to benefit unfairly would ypeou???"

I honestly don't know what this means. Who's trading what now for two superdelegates?

Kraz

I don't understand how you get to ignore that Clinton actively sought to deny people the vote here-- remember the circumstances- she is coming in after the fact, knowing that others didn't put their names on the ballot because they agreed to follow the DNC rules. If she hadn't agreed- that's one thing. But to reward disenfranchisement by allowing the undecided vote to be used against the other two candidates isn't democracy. There are ways to get at your goal that doesn't require this perversion of voting rights.

PS:
there is an old concept that i remember from Con Law on this issue. Voting is about having a real choice. Your analysis provides the voting public of the states you want to help with none, and allows one of the parties who agreed to the arrangement to benefit from her efforts to keep real choice off the ballot. This is the core problem with your argument.

akaison-

At this point, we're looking at a perversion of voting rights, or no voting rights at all. I'll take the former. (Also, as has been pointed out here, there are potentially workable solutions that don't play as fully into Clinton's hand as her proposal: different possible perversions, if you will.)
There's no good way out of this, but the absolute worst is to continue to tell the citizens of Michigan and Florida that they have no say in picking their candidate. It's easy to look from the outside and and tsk-tsk the audacity of Michigan, but castigation and abuse of a potential swing state that would dare question the pre-eminence of the early states was always a terrible idea.

And yes, I am glossing over Clinton's motives. I'm not happy about her taking so long to stick up for the disenfranchised states, and I'm sure she's not doing so out of the goodness of her heart, but if it puts some pressure on the DNC to try to improve this dreadful situation, then good.

Six months ago the Democrats, any Democrat, was a mortal lock to win the presidency. Anybody who knew anything about politics and understood the feeling in this country knew that. There was just no way the Democrats could blow it this time, because the presidency had been handed to us all wrapped up with a pretty bow by the Bush administration. And who is it that absolutely insists on being the recipient of this gift?

That's right folks, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two Democrats who were most responsible for putting George W. Bush in the White House in 2000, and handing the Congress over to the Republicans before that, and leaving the American people to sway in the breeze at the mercy of the insurance companies for the last 15 years. And now they're using tactics right out of the Karl Rove handbook to attack a candidate who is well behind them in the national polls. Ugly self-destructive politics that isn't even necessary for them to win, yet they choose this path anyway.

It's almost as if the Clintons have come full circle and are about to receive the reward for their efforts. As if it was a plan, put a loser moron in the White House, and the suckers (the American people) they'll beg to have us back. They ain't going to let some uppity brotha' have any chance of stealing what they've worked so hard for. After all it is their rightful due, right?

One is forced to wonder who they really want to work for, the American people, or establishment that seeks to put an end to that part of the Constitution which designates the people as sovereign of this nation, or perhaps just themselves. I don't believe that the Clintons respect or even understand democracy, I believe they view the American people as little more than a means to an ends. They like how it feels to rule, and they're going to do anything that it takes to to ensure that they'll have the opportunity to recapture that feeling of power they so obviously crave.

Down with the Clintons!!!

Down with monarchy!!!

Kraz-

I disagree; the absolute worst way is to award delegates to someone who ran essentially unopposed on the ballot and only spoke out about how the state should count AFTER she had won it by default. Whether or not MI and FL should have been stripped of their delegates is a whole other debate (and I agree that it was a draconian punishment; some kind of deal should have been worked out).

Kraz:

As i keep saying y ou are comparing apples and oranges, but since you want to talk about it- let's.

What exactly is denying the voters of FL and MI their ability to think independently just because they aren't first, second third or fourth?

Because they don't come first? Let's say next time they are first- what happens with th eother states that follow them.

Let's say we have a super primary all in one day - how does voter choice not decrease considering it becomes even more about money than now?

And, since I am a process person- let's talk that too because that's how democracies work or fail. What exactly prevented these represented states from bringing this up prior to springing this on us a few months ago?

Do you know the history of why these states wanted to go first going back into the fall? Two words: Hillary Clinton. These were her firewall states.

There is a difference between what you are saying- and what are the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to ignore the complexity of what you are discussing. Often people when discussing this seem slogan first in terms of changing the system, but very little substance as to how it will make the system better. Please do so here.

I absolutely agree. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party by winning at all costs.

Unfortunately, I think This is a very real possibility. November could be our party's darkest day...

That should read-- "but very little explaination as to how it will make the system better. Please answer my questions because I m hearing mostly slogans in response to people's valid concerns, for example, over denying voters in MI their choice in the name of protecting their right to have delegates- what does that even mean if they have no choice- unless you are one to think Fidel Castro receiving 100 percent of teh vote was also a democratic process to use one extreme example of the failing of your argument to me.

I have some more questions--

what happens the next time when another state doesn't like the rules it agreed to, and decides to move its primary or caucus? What happens in terms of how money that candidates will need to raise (and therefore affect choice of candidates) to address this uncertainty? Often when i asked these questions of those who advocate such chaos as you are suggesting-- I am surprised by how I don't get any answers. I am hoping y ou are different since I am open to being proven wrong here.

1. "What exactly is denying the voters of FL and MI their ability to think independently just because they aren't first, second third or fourth?"

Who said anyone was being denied the ability to think independently? The issue is that every primary season, Iowa comes up and we get to hear candidates coo about preposterous agricultural subsidies. Then sweet nothings get whispered at New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and so on. This is unfair. MI and FL tried to grab a piece of this action, and were thrashed for it.

2. "Let's say we have a super primary all in one day - how does voter choice not decrease considering it becomes even more about money than now?"

Money probably does become more important in this case, and local pandering less so. On balance, I'd take it all in one day. I wouldn't hold the presidential campaign in one state at a time, and I wouldn't do the same in the primaries. There is another option, though: assign the order of states randomly. That would certainly be better than what we have. Certain states would get preferential treatment, but it wouldn't be the same ones each time.

3. "And, since I am a process person- let's talk that too because that's how democracies work or fail. What exactly prevented these represented states from bringing this up prior to springing this on us a few months ago?"

They probably could have brought it up earlier, as it's been in evidence for a long time that the primary system is broken. They certainly didn't bring it up too late to compromise with the DNC, though, which gave them just about the harshest possible treatment for the audacity of (gasp) moving their primary after Iowa and New Hampshire.

4. "Do you know the history of why these states wanted to go first going back into the fall? Two words: Hillary Clinton. These were her firewall states."

You don't assign very much subtlety to the people and party leaders of those states, do you?

5. "There is a difference between what you are saying- and what are the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to ignore the complexity of what you are discussing. Often people when discussing this seem slogan first in terms of changing the system, but very little substance as to how it will make the system better. Please do so here."

Meaning what, exactly? I have said nothing false, and I have acknowledged difficulties with making the representation fair at this point. Moreover, I can't make a prescriptive statement without bringing in my own opinion. You, as well, are bringing in your own opinions. We all are.

Kraz, perverted voting rights are effectively no voting rights. Either way, the voice of the people is not heard as it should be.

ak-

Earlier I posted: "Scrap the whole thing and let all the primaries occur at once. Failing that, assign the order randomly. Failing that, let the states have their primaries when they want to have their primaries."

It's not my preference to have each state schedule their own primary, but it was all MI and FL could do within the existing framework without blindly following the dictates of the national committees. The important thing is for the DNC to come up with a fair set of rules that does not consistently favor a certain set of states over others.

I hope dearly that the rebellion of MI and FL will help that happen in the future.

I'll just say for the record there's no way in hell I'm voting for Clinton in November.

1. "What exactly is denying the voters of FL and MI their ability to think independently just because they aren't first, second third or fourth?"

Who said anyone was being denied the ability to think independently? The issue is that every primary season, Finally, someone willing to engage on this issue. Okay, let me take what you say in turn.

1. "Who said anyone was being denied the ability to think independently? The issue is that every primary season, Iowa comes up and we get to hear candidates coo about preposterous agricultural subsidies. Then sweet nothings get whispered at New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and so on. This is unfair. MI and FL tried to grab a piece of this action, and were thrashed for it."

Except that's not why MI and FL tried to move up. They moved up to help the wealthier candidate win in more expensive states. It's also unclear to me why FL and MI's issues, which would be front and center if they were first, matters more than IA and NH. You seem to be trading one set of state's issues for another. Again- sounds like change because it's change rather than change that results in a meaningful difference. You also misrpresent what happened here. They had the opportunity to fight for change 2 years ago if I remember and choose not to- why? Thats the question I ask myself.

2. "Money probably does become more important in this case, and local pandering less so. On balance, I'd take it all in one day. I wouldn't hold the presidential campaign in one state at a time, and I wouldn't do the same in the primaries. There is another option, though: assign the order of states randomly. That would certainly be better than what we have. Certain states would get preferential treatment, but it wouldn't be the same ones each time."

First, there is no probably about it. Money would influence elections deeply. The only way your idea works is to first reform campaign finance. Without that what you say means money wins. Thats how it works now. That's why campaigns have become an arms race of money. It costs a lot to advertise- thats not a maybe, that's fact. Free media helps off set that. No theory. Fact.

You keep acting also as if this weren't something that could have been brought up in a more deliberative way than two states trying to shift the process without regard to 46 other states who remain screwed. I don't understand how your answer solves this. I also don't understand how random selection solves this. Again- my point is really money and just changing one state issues for another.

3. "They probably could have brought it up earlier, as it's been in evidence for a long time that the primary system is broken. They certainly didn't bring it up too late to compromise with the DNC, though, which gave them just about the harshest possible treatment for the audacity of (gasp) moving their primary after Iowa and New Hampshire."

Actually, yeah, they did bring it up too late. They had the choice two years ago, again as I remember, and choose not to. Again, you need to ask yourself why? It certainly isnt becaue of your now irrational focus on whether its NH or IA that goes first versus FL and MI or VA and CA or whatever. This is just picking without regard to reason.

The last bit with the "gasp" strike me as your real issue with regard to the rest of what you say. This is about the 'establishment' as you see it and defeating that. That's nice, but I am concerned with process, voter choice, fairness and actually improve the system. I am not for or against the establishment. I am neither for or against change. I am for finding out what will make things work better, destroyin gthe present version of the GOP and moving the country left of center because we are the party of ideas (we being democrats).

4. "You don't assign very much subtlety to the people and party leaders of those states, do you?"

What do I need to assign when these things were report at the time? Shouldn't you know this entering the argument? but as I said sloganeering first, good results second.

5. "Meaning what, exactly? I have said nothing false, and I have acknowledged difficulties with making the representation fair at this point. Moreover, I can't make a prescriptive statement without bringing in my own opinion. You, as well, are bringing in your own opinions. We all are."

Where you go wrong is where you ignore whether the result will achieve a better outcome or just change for the sake of change. You have yet to present why change would produce a better outcome for voters- which is what I am concerned with.

Everyone seems to agree that the delegates will be seated. Candidates who don't want to fight for every vote can't be trusted to compete against the Republicans. Real voters--not internet political junkies--don't want to hear people cry about how they're being outmaneuvered by their opponents. It doesn't inspire confidence, which may be one reason why Obama is no longer the front runner.

tamale: ""Give me a break on the Hillary criticism. How long have I complained that Democratic candidates have wimped out in electoral fights? I give Hillary credit for being a fighter. ""

That's rich, she didn't fight when it was time to fight for Michigans' rights because it was in HER interest, not the voters of Michagan, that only her name be on the ballot.

She wholly endorsed screwing over Michagan and giving them a Hillary only primary...give us all a break.

If one more fucking bullshit artists post a) about people online as an aspiration or b) about real voters, I am going to scream. a) if you were concerned with this just being online you wouldn't be here and b) you don't care about the voters. You simply don't have the clean hands to make that argument here. But you know what- try this shit with the voters- see how they respond when the facts come out that you agreed to this and now that its over you changed your mind.

Kraz: ""I honestly don't know what this means. Who's trading what now for two superdelegates?"""

If the candidiates believe Michagan and Florida should have a voice, which Hillary NOW claims they do, she can give them a voice by giving up two of her superdelegates for every one Michagan or Florida delegate she wants to have a voice.

Its very simple.

ak-

I have to go to dinner, so this is the last from me on this issue. Maybe we'll finish this another time.

1. We seem to have moved beyond the issue of what to do now with the MI and FL delegates, and are instead talking about scheduling. Fine. My subsequent points will deal with that.

2. I have heard a lot about why MI and FL moved their primaries, but never before have I heard it claimed that it was done solely to help wealthy candidates win. How selfless! Maybe they wanted to help a candidate favorable to the state win, and to get some more attention? That's what the early states get out of it now.

3. You seem to think the timing is really important. For a flexible institution, it wouldn't be. The best option is to work out a fair system in advance, which has not happened.

4. More importantly, our fundamental disagreement is this: You don't care whose vote is most important, as long as each candidate has a shot, whereas I do. You're fine with letting a certain set of states have disproportionate influence. I am not. Whichever states go first in a randomized primary do get more attention, of course, but only for that election cycle. Whereas in our current system, the same set of states get that influence and attention every time. We are just not going to find common ground on this: you are fine with that system, whereas I would like all states to have a shot.

There are no words sufficient to describe the depths of the Clintons' wretchedness as human beings.

No, really. I don't think there's a scummier, more selfish pair of humans on this Earth.

Ron Paul - or Barack Obama. Either one's fine with me (though I prefer Paul's policies, by and large). Just please GOD give me a person of integrity in the Oval Office for a change!

short response-- just because you haven't heard of something and just because you don't aknowledge something doesn't mean you get to ignore it. it's pretty much that simple. we moved beyond the topic because you kept changing the subject to your pet issue, and i decided to contextualize what you are saying rather than leave it at the slogans. and by the way, if you don't think scheduling and timing matters then you completely make no sense in your arguments other than change for change sake since the conversation is indeed about timing and scheduling and the impact of money, organization of campaiging and issues of how voters can retain choice. that you don't know these things again isn't a reason to ignore them. its a reason to go out and learn about them.

Kraz, SC and NV were not where they are in the order until this cycle, specifically because of the rules the Democrats agreed to to give other states an opportunity to be early. Months after that was settled, MI and FL decided that they were more important than all the other states that followed the rules they'd agreed to and waited their turn.

If the DNC hadn't acted, what would have prevented a frenzy with every state trying to leapfrog everyone else? Yes, there's a problem. Breaking the rules is not the way to solve it.

I've always believed that Hillary Hatred was too strong and too irrational for its own good and would ultimately invalidate itself among--here it comes--real voters! It certainly happened in New York.

Very quick clarification: the "timing" I refer to is of the decision to schedule the primary, not of the primary itself.

let me reduce your position to it absurd level kraz. someone posted this over at mydd:

"I am going to push to have Colorado have a voice and hold our Primary for 2012 on July 4, 2010.
I am tired of my State being cast off.
Just think of the attention Colorado will receive.
Sure some candidates will chose to not campaign here, but at their own peril. Our delegates will have to be seated for the vote because to do less is disenfranchisement. (there is a killer scrabble word)
Because, no National Party has a right to dictate (and I do use the word dictate)when Colorado's Primary...
Am I right? "

More then that akaison, Colorado should also choose how many delegates they should get, soething like 4,989,435,876 would be a nice round figure. And while were at it, Colorado could decide that candidates that wish to recive delegates, must give their speeches nude with a live monkey. We wouldn't want to disrespect Colorado and not agree to their demands....

ak-

Ah, I have been grievously misrepresented in my absence. I have said repeatedly that I would prefer to schedule primaries simultaneously or randomly. Hopefully we will have such a fair system in 2012. What we do in 2012 is, of course, a separate issue from what we do with Michigan and Florida now.

KC-

You are right about SC and NV. The DNC said: let's preserve the status of two traditionally privileged lilly-white states (IA and NH), then assign semi-privileged status to one with a large hispanic population and one with a large black population: fairness acheieved!

Hang on... Ezra, are you honestly surprised? I'm sure I can find pundits speculating on the record about exactly this possibility well before the MI primary.

kraz. you've been brought to task for the underpinning faultiness of your arguments. You keep saying people don't get your arguments, but my response again is that it seems to be you who don't get why your arguments are faulty. I thought humor might help. apparently not.

oh, and to put it another way, as the humor illustrates (and i can't believe I have to explain this) you seem unable to admit that these issues are more complicated than x or y wants to go first or that there maybe something wrong with analysis that ignores whether a party gets to choose its own nomination process. apparently in your reality- they don't. in minds, they do. in yours, the voters get to have the illusion of choice (ie the lack of concern over the fact the choice was between clinton and undecided, the fact that you really would be increasing the i mpact of money, and therefore decreasing dark horse candidates from winning etc). if none of those things bother you much, i am again hard press to even understand your point about voter franchisement.

I am a lifelong Dem and I will not vote for Hillary. Period. I will vote for the Republican. Period.

If this is the only way to get this kind of filth out of our party, so be it. I will gladly wait another 4 years.

Principle over party. Bye Bye.

I've called all the campaigns to tell them that I won't vote for Hillary in November under any circumstances. I just can't take the idea of watching the Clintons sleaze our democracy to tatters.

If you're as pissed as I am -- and I couldn't get to sleep for two hours last night, I was so pissed -- I hope you'll call the campaigns, your representatives, and the DNC too.

As an elaboration/explanation, I'm not sure that moaning on the internet is going to stop the Clintons and their sleaze brigade. Political types won't listen to moaning on the internet until they're sure it actually corresponds to "real voters". So please make them see that you're real by calling in and telling them just how pissed you are.

Grassroots!

One point on the reductio ad absurdum: to use it, you have to apply it to your opponent's argument. So if I had said, "Any state should schedule its primary for any time in any election," your joke would have made sense. I didn't, so it doesn't.

Time for me to wrap up my role in this discussion, which has taken longer than I intended. There are two very important issues that came up here:

1. What should we do with the Michigan and Florida delegates?

I'm certainly in the minority here. Most of the commenters (and Ezra himself) seem to oppose giving MI and FL a substantive voice. A number of you have very good reasons for thinking this: Hillary's proposal is certainly underhanded, and the MI and FL primaries were messed up pretty badly already. All true. There is a school of thought that it is too late to right this wrong. I don't agree, but that at least makes some sense. OK.

2. What should we do with primaries in the future?

On this issue I don't seem all alone. Indeed, a number of commenters seem to agree that the system is pretty unfair, though not everyone thinks it's worth trying to fix it. My foremost hope is that the drama with MI and FL will lead to a more fair primary system in the future.

Many thanks to Ezra for maintaining one of my favorite blogs. I think I ruffled some feathers, which wasn't really my intention.

"I thought about this some more, and I suppose that if Obama is ahead ex-MI and FL, but behind with MI and FL, we might then be in a pickle. But I submit that both of these scenarios are highly unlikely."

Still doesn't matter. If Obama leads ex-M&F, the convention will simply vote not to seat those states (those states, not seated, have no vote on the question).

it was their fault for trusting her to keep her word.

Clintonesque, or in other words, sleazy.

Retire the liar!

Hold on a moment. I have been late to this party and I really wonder where the visceral hatred is coming from.

According to this line in the statement- "so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan"- she is going to ask her delegates from other states to let some of the Michigan and Florida delegates to take their places for the vote. This isn't adding new delegates to her side, this isn't even changing the rules of the game- this is just changing some people for other people in the chairs already designated for Clinton supporters. Oh, and on an entirely voluntary basis. The EVIL, the EVIL... good Lord folks, the woman can't even do something relatively nice without people going apeshit.

As a US diplomat serving overseas this kind of duplicitous, win-at-all-costs, activity on behalf of the Clintons makes it very, very difficult for me to convince people around the world that the US democracy is something to aspire to. It is very discouraging.

According to this line in the statement- "so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan"- she is going to ask her delegates from other states to let some of the Michigan and Florida delegates to take their places for the vote.

The part in quotes doesn't mean that MI and FL delegates will be replacing delegates from other states, and nothing in the full statement does either. She's going to ask her delegates from other states to vote to seat the MI and FL delegates as additional delegates.

Nicholas Beaudrot, you wrote:

The only way this matters is if Clinton needs her superdelegates and Florida and Michigan to reach a majority. Which would mean she probably didn't get a majority of pledged delegates, which would mean it would be so abundantly clear that she strongarmed her way to the nomination that it wouldn't work.

So it's a purely symbolic gesture.

Actually, I think Hillary understands your point exactly. She understands that it will be impossible to seat MI and FL delegates if she is trailing and need them to win. So she MUST make the argument for seating them now. So when she shows up at the convention are repeats it, she can claim that it has nothing to do with trailing Obama.

This is, like, fabulous.

I'm a Republican. We've been telling you people that the Clintons would do this kind of thing to get back into the White House since the time they left. But noooo, you libs got gulled into thinking that they were selfless public figures.

Jesus Christ, somebody pour me a margarita.

She had always planned this end run after Obama and Edwards pulled out of Michigan. Christ, this is the kind of thing that Karl Rove thought of back in the Second Grade when he was cheating at marbles. However, you people are outraged now the the Clintons are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game?

This is one of those great Lucy/Charlie Brown/football moments.

When will you people learn that the Clinton's currency is power, not public service?

seriously, Obama is running ads in florida right now and his names on the ballot, so let's not talk hypocrasy. He and Edwards both had vigorous get out the vote campaigns in Michigan for the "uncommitted" vote hoping to embarrass HRC, but alas she got more than 50% of the vote so neither of them could have come close there! Good luck and STOP WHINNING

Al Gore should say to Hillary she shouldn't try to make another Democrat lose by stealing Florida. Al, endorse! C'mon!!!

Also, Obama needs to call Hillary out for simply having no shame trying to change neutrally set procedural rules to her advantage, both in NV and now in MI and FL.

The facts are pretty damning, and I think he should go hard on her and Bill for being both liars (about his record among so many other things) AND cheaters. All they have to do now is get caught in someone's headquarters and they will have the whole campaign malfeasance trifecta of lying, cheating and stealing

Obama should ask women if they think thieves are good role models for their daughters.

"If I don't vote for her, it won't be because of tactics, it will be because of her policy positions."

Pardon me, but supporting fair elections done properly is a policy position.

Like some other posters, I didn't care much for the decision the Democratic party made to take Michigan and Florida's delegates away, but changing the rules in midstream is far worse.

The closest analogy to what Clinton is attempting is the Republican effort to redistribute California's electoral votes. There is some merit in the idea, but they are only doing it because they think they might need a few more votes this time around.

Democrats in general have dispaired at losing two elections in a row because of some questionable vote counting. If a large chunk of them see their candidate lose at the convention in much the same way, there's going to be a lot of fallout between then and the general.

What a bunch of hypocritical nonsense!!!! The people of Iowa and New Hampshire and the candidates who cared more about pandering to them then ensuring that every American get a say in the process are to blame for tearing the Democratic party apart; not Hillary Clinton for defending the right of all people to have a say in the process. I AM ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED THAT ANYONE WOULD CLAIM THAT SAYING THAT PEOPLE IN FLORIDA SHOULD ACTUALLY GET A VOTE AND NOT BE DISENFRANCHISED IS THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DID IN 2000!!!!! This decision BY the DNC was a disgrace. It stole from the people of Florida and Michigan their most basic right in this democracy, and it did so as nothing but the ultimate pander to a small group of people who possess a disproportinate amount of influence. (The voters and leaders of Iowa and New Hampshire.) This is the ultimate hypocrisy from candidates who claim to be fighting agianst the role of special interests. It is sad to see that Mr. Obama and his campaign do not give one lick about whether people in Florida or Michigan get any say in this process. They supported the DNC because they were behind and knew how inportant a victory in Iowa would be to them having a chance and didn't want to do anything to risk that. They continue to support this abhorrent decision because they know if the delegates are restored it helps Mrs. Clinton and not them. Obviously punishing the people of Florida and Michigan and denying them a voice in this process is a small price to pay to get Mr. Obama the nomination. I want to know what Ezra and the others making a fuss on here are going to say if Obama is the nominee and we lose the election in November because we fail to carry either Florida or Michigan?

Ezra,

It's not clear to me why Obama is on the ballot in Florida. If he was indeed obeying the will of the party and refraining from participating in the states of MI and FL, how did it happen that he stayed out of Michigan, but is on the ballot in Florida?

Puzzled...

global yokel, I'm posting an answer to that question from the discussion resulting from Ezra's updated article on this topic. This isn't my quote, but another person over there, but it should answer your question (and, if it doesn't, hop over to that discussion for more drama):

"So then we move on to Florida.. Where the article clearly states the candidates were unable to remove themselves from the ballot by Florida law without dropping completely from the race. So remaining on the ballot was in florida was not a choice as it was in Mi, but unavoidable circumstance by virtue of just being in the race."

Seriously Pissed at this Thread: all of the Democratic candidates were apprised of the situation with MI and FL long ago - they were sent this letter (which they signed off on)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/31/letter_to_candidates.html

on August 31. The fact that Hillary is "defending the rights of these states to be represented" nearly 5 months after the fact doesn't exactly scream "goodwill" so much as, "hey, I 'won' Michigan and the polls say I'll do the same in Florida - those delegates should count!" But, of course, I'm sure our interpretations really depend on where our biases lay.

Jesus H. Christ, what the HELL is wrong with you Democrats? You get a candidate in Barack Obama that has the capability to utterly smash the Republican party into little pieces that it won't be able to put back together for a generation; a person who will create a generational shift to the left that will last for DECADES. Instead, however, more and more of you flock to the Republican-in-Democratic clothing that is Hillary Clinton, a person who won't push the Republicans apart, but will instead bring them back together more united than they have been, ready and more than capable of beating her in a general election. You're virtually guaranteeing 4 years of a John McCain presidency by doing this (unlike you Democrats, no matter how fucked up the Republican party is, they always come to their senses and manage to nominate the person they know has the best chance of winning). Man, you guys sure know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's mindboggling to watch.

Seriously Pissed at this Thread;

If you and Hillary are SO PISSED you should have argued the point 6 months ago when it mattered.

Hillary could have made this stand back before Iowa and told the people of Iowa and New Hampshire that she wanted Michigan and Florida to go before them in voting.

OF COURSE SHE KNEW THIS WOULD PISS THEIR VOTERS OFF SO SHE LIED AND SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE DNC DECISION AND WOULD ABIDE BY IT.

With Iowa and NH over now, she quickly goes back on her solemn would and pledge, and promise ..not the first time I might add.

So do you feel the same way about the general election?? What if Florida didn't want to vote the first Tuesday in Novemeber and decided to wait a week later to see what everyone else had done? Would that be acceptable to you??

The general election voting date is set by the Constitution as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in order to ensure a fair and equal process. The primary schedule is set by the DNC to favor certain people in certain states and give the rest of us little or no say. It is a disgrace and anyone defending the system is only doing so for their own political reasons. I don't gove a rat's ass why the Clinton camp is asking the delegates be seated, at least they are doing the right thing. The only reason any of the candidates went along with this in the first place was because they didn't want to hurt their chances in Iowa and New Hampshire. The only reason Edwards and Obama continue to support this ridiculous and oppressive tyranny on the part of the DNC is because they know that reverseing course and doing the right thing would hurt their chances. It is clearly within the rules for the nominee to allow for these delegates to be seated later. Everyone assumed that would happen. Everyone's position on this is driven by their self interest. And to say the cnadidates agreed to this is misleading. They agreed to the DNC rules, that does not mean they agreed with the decision to strip delegates. And as has been widely reported in the media everyone knew that these delegates could have been seated later by the nominee so no one should be suprised when someone says just that. What is appalling is that candidates are not saying that and all the know the only reason anyone would support not counting votes in Florida ia because they might lose because of it. 2000 taught us that. I am glad to see that Obama and the DNC learned their lesson so well. The people of Florida need to understand that their votes can only count when they are voting for phonies promising to unite the country I guess.

oh,jeebus, you too. So nice of y'all to disenfranchise us stupid Floridians who, you know, had nothing whatever to do with the decision on when our primary is, and who have no choice other than to vote or just throw our hands up and give up on politics altogether.

It would be nice if Clinton would ever push this hard on anything of substance ever, like banning torture, reinstating habeas corpus, preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in an illegal war, etc. But getting delegates when only one person was a candidate and she made a deal with fellow Democrats to not campaign in those states? Apparently now that is a cause worth fighting for.

Full disclosure:

I'm a huge Obama supporter.

That having been said, before reading this I was 100% convinced that if Obama lost I would suck it up and vote for Hillary in the general election.

Now? I'm not so sure.

For the people from Florida and Michigan who complain about their votes in the primary not counting, I can sympathize. I really can. It sucks. Believe me, I am a Democrat in IDAHO. I know full well how knowing that your vote is going to be completely wasted feels like. At least your two states have a chance of being competitive in the general election if you support a Democrat.

But don't you think that it is a LITTLE bit unfair for Hillary to decide after all the candidates JOINTLY agreed that would be the case and only after she got herself in a tight election that she might actually lose and only after she won the states that she wants to protest a decision she agreed to months ago?

Don't you think that the other candidates like Obama and Edwards might have run their campaigns a little differently if the rules had been different?

You know what? Screw it. If Hillary wins I'm not voting for her. I've seen enough dirty tricks from her and her campaign to make Karl Rove proud.

Count me as one person who will return to being a cynical young man who doesn't participate in politics and doesn't vote if Hillary wins the Democratic primary.

"""I don't gove a rat's ass why the Clinton camp is asking the delegates be seated, at least they are doing the right thing""""

That's ludicrous. How can it possibly be doing the right thing to have dlegates from a state where only your name was on the ballot.

That would be no different then if Florida had decided to only put GWB name on the ballot and said well you can vote undecided if you don't want George. The Federal court would rule that the election was invalid, bu then GWB would ask that the votes be counted for him anyway.

NO ONE TOOK AWAY ANYONES RIGHTS EXCEPT THE PARTIES IN THOSE STATES THAT DECIDED THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES EVERYONE ELSE DID.

THAT'S NOT DEANS FAULT AND ITS NOT THE DNCs FAULT, IT IS THE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN PARTIES THAT DECIDED THEY WANTED TO PLAY BY FOOTBALL RULES IN A TENNIS MATCH.

All Florida had to do was set its primary on or after 5 February...a very simple thing that Florida has in fact done for well over 100 years.
It wasn't rocket science, it wasn't difficult, it wasn't confusing, the rules have been clear for decades.
The Florida democrat party decided they didn't want their delegates to have a voice, period, end of story.

majkia says"""So nice of y'all to disenfranchise us stupid Floridians who, you know, had nothing whatever to do with the decision on when our primary is, and who have no choice other than to vote or just throw our hands up and give up on politics altogether.
"""

Good thing you admitted up front that your not too bright. THe fact is Florida Democrats had the decision on when to schedule their primary, so Florida Democrats HAD EVERYTHING to do with scheduling the primary. It was IN FACT YOUR decision. You just don't want to live with it.

Here's a FACT for you:
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Sept. 23 — The Florida Democratic Party announced Sunday that it would move ahead with its plan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29 despite the national party’s decision to block the state delegation from the 2008 Democratic convention.

The Florida Democratic Party decided to stick with plans for a Jan. 29 primary, even if it costs the state a place at next summer’s Democratic convention.

State party leaders said that even if none of the state’s delegates were seated at next summer’s Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee.
-------------------------

END OF STORY, YOU HAD THE CHOICE, YOU KNEW THE CONSEQUENCES.

imagine if al gore had decided to run.

how does the world get so off its axis?

The thing I find most objectionable about the Clintons is their belief that they can say or do anything they want and people will just blindly follow along.

Their feigned concern for voters in Michigan and Florida makes me sick. The disenfranchisement of voters in these states never occurred to them when they agreed to this plan months ago? Please. These are two extremely intelligent people. This stems from their own personal gain. Nothing else.

If you can't see that, well, I feel badly for you.

I'm with commenter Jay. I'll vote for McCain over Hillary. At his age, he's only got one term in him. With a Democratic congress, I can live with that.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter and contributor who knew they could bite down hard when the time came and vote for Hillary. But with this latest move, and the reprehensible conduct recently displayed by the former president?

Not a chance in hell.

I'm a Michigan voter. I blame the Michigan Democratic Party, which refused to play by the rules and insisted on moving the primary up (no one asked rank-and-file Dems to vote on whether this was a good plan).

If Hillary succeeds in making our sham of a primary count, after everyone was told it *wouldn't* count, many, many Michigan voters will refuse to vote for her. No sane person could think that a good way to show respect for Michigan voters would be to tell the vast majority who stayed home from the primary because it wouldn't count, "Ha-ha, the joke's on you -- you should've voted!"

Leave it to the Clintons to think that changing the rules whenever it suits them is the way to move this country forward. Haven't we had more than enough of that mentality already?

Hillary Clinton simply cannot be trusted. She will vote in favor of something. Then if it does not enhance her goals...she wants to change it. It would be sinful to return the Clintons to our White House

Clinton's campaign was always going to tear this party into a million little pieces. This is what the these people do, they sow disharmony and fear so they can keep people weak and divided. No matter what their administrative skill, people like that can never be trusted with a country and it's people. It's a very conservative and elitist governing style.

Most Democrats know that a good and strong leader accentuates the familiarities in people. They let everyone know that we are all in this together, that we are either saved or damned as a people. This is not the Clinton way. They divide us, because they are not strong enough to lead a united people. They keep us afraid so that we will not question their judgments. When people say there is no difference between Clintonites and Republicans, they mean something a lot deeper than simple policy positions.

This worries me also. I won't hide the fact that I am an Obama supporter. But the points made in this article are dead-on correct. In fact, I already feel "shafted" by Hillary.

Simply making the statement, intending to draw support away from Obama through it, throws into question whatever results she ultimately has in Florida.

Hillary and Bill are corrupt. It's that simple. There is no concern whatsoever for their party. They want power, and they're willing to undermine the very party of which they claim to be part to get that power.

This makes me ill ... If Hillary wins the nomination I will leave the party. Period ... You see, the fracture is already taking place.

Ok, this is all nonsense, especially the "everybody knew this was going to happen" contingent that are trying to portray their raw factionalism as impartial analysis.

(A common progressive fault online, but still...)

No, folks, Michigan and Florida should not get their delegates seated, and they shouldn't for a very good reason: because if we let them, the 2012 presidential primary is probably going to happen in 2009!

The whole reason why this was imposed was because the Florida and Michigan Dems were trying to jump the queue, and they needed to be slapped down for it.

The fact that Hillary and her followers either won't or can't acknowledge that, in their lust for victory, is unfortunate at best, damning at worst.

KNOCK IT OFF.

So you've figured out that Hillary is a power-hungry amoral beyotch.

Welcome to the party, pal!

Some us us had this figured out by early 1991. It must really sting to know that all us Republicans got there a decade and a half before you.

Fu*k Hillary with an acid-tipped d1ck!

Keep up the good work.

If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'm writing in Senator Obama for the general election. It's probably a futile gesture, but it's way, way better than voting Republican.

Senator Clinton's campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.

Her campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.

This is not fair!

Sign the petition to stop her initiative, which will only serve to tear the party apart.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness

Power is what the Clinton's live and breathe for. I know there are some good writings about her on http://www.hypocrisy.com.

The only reason Hillary wanted people to think she was a supporter of Michigan and Fla for their votes when she already knew the penalty was she was desparately behind and she thought if Hillary wanted it she would get it.........doesnt work that way........I sincerely hope that Barack Obama doesnt get coerced into choosing her for a VP......she will bring him down for sure.

Clinton is not going to win... this year is for obama...

Candidates who don't want to fight for every vote can't be trusted to compete against the Republicans. Real voters not internet political junkies don't want to hear people cry about how they're being outmaneuvered by their opponents. It doesn't inspire confidence, which may be one reason why Obama is no longer the front runner.

good website
supply vast kinds of handmade jewelry

Senator Clinton's campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.

Her campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic lingerieNational Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.

good website

supply vast kinds of silver jewelry

thaaaaanks
شات بنت السعوديه

Her campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic lingerieNational Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.

Wholesale Silver Jewelry|

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

For this matter, once I discussed with one of my friends, not only about the content you talked about, but also to how to improve and develop, but no results. So I am deeply moved by what you said today.

I'm really very useful to follow a long-time see this as a blog here Thank you for your valuable information.

Thanks for the information and what you said.

Maybe Clinton could attack the UAW just to seal the deal.

Thank you for the information and a calm and rational debate..

Thank you for the information

Thank you for the information

great knowledge!

I like your website.

Thanks for you post,It's useful to me

great info! thank all of you!

Replica Louis vuitton handbags

designer replica bags

wholesale replica handbags

[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]Replica Louis vuitton handbags[/url]

GREAT ,THANKS VERY MUCH

good good!thanks to share it!
TS Converter for Mac

cheap jewelry, handmade jewelry

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

Wholesale Jewelry

Wholesale Jewelry

thanks.

thanks.

wowwwwww

i like your

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

thanks so much

I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.

thanks

Thanks very much.I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.

Many thanks!