I think you betray a misunderstanding or forget or simply ignore the 'rules' in play here.

Any do-over would have to be approved by the Rules and Bylaws committee - NOT by Obama and Hillary. They can't simply make a deal and then shove that deal down the DNC's throat. Hill wouldn't have to say no - she could have the RBC do that for her. She controls the chairs and she controls the members:

"The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), chaired by former Clinton secretary of labor Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt Jr., ... which has jurisdiction over this situation until June 29, would have to approve any plans for a re-vote. The committee has thirty members. One co-chair, as noted, is Alexis Herman, a former official in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Brewer is also a member. Of the other members, twelve have pledged their support to Clinton as superdelegates.[6] Only four are supporting Obama."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21130

Not a chance. If there's no revote, he won't make a decision until after the primaries, and he'll only seat the delegates if he knows he can do it and still get the nomination. This isn't a round of golf, he's not going to spot anyone anything.

On top of what sbj suggests, I think the Obama campaign opens a new can of worms with what you propose, because once he's on record for a Michigan do-over, then how the do-over gets done is details. And you could, at less expense, have a mail-in primary as Riverdaughter suggests at her blog http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/a-modest-proposal/ (making, as she does, the same point you do about Florida being acceptable), and avoid the conflict over caucus voting... which, it seems to me will smack of "you get Florida... and I get Michigan" posturing. Of Obama can't accept the prospect of a primary over a caucus, then he shouldn't make the proposal.

I think muc of this is arguing over details anyway - the dawning reality is that all of this will have to be resolved, probably by superdelegate voting, at the convention. Which is probably fine, although I think that will raise, and perhaps it's time to ask, the question of why we need these "wise elders" anyway.

This is the best compromise solution I've seen yet. The party needs something that fills several needs:
1) Avoid disenfranchising FL and MI.
2) Keep costs to a minimum.
3) Is not blatantly unfair to either candidate.

Holding caucuses in both FL and MI satisfies 1 and 2, but will clearly be to Obama's advantage, and Clinton will reject it. Seating the current FL delegation, where both nominees had their names on the ballot, and redoing the MI vote as a caucus, satisfies all three.

I agree with the commenters. Dean already said that the DNC will enforce the rules, and there will not be any side agreement that violates them because it would be unfair to the other states and to the campaigns. (That's an almost verbatim quote.) Besides, Obama likes his odds of picking up more delegates in Florida than if January's beauty contest applied, especially in a more caucus-like contest, likely with more limited polling locations.

There will be re-votes -- more precisely, DNC-sanctioned votes -- in both states. They'll have to get them done by June 10th -- I think that's the closing date.

A compelling argument but I don't think he should do this now. It could come across as reactive and panicy. "If Obama can't handle Penn and Wolfson, how can he handle...". So, I'd say wait until the afterglow of Tuesday wears off a bit, and after he wins Wyoming and Miss... That would be better timing, in my opinion.

It could come across as reactive and panicy. "If Obama can't handle Penn and Wolfson, how can he handle...".

Good point. The strength of Obama's position is that he's been winning by the rules everyone agreed to. Clinton looks self-serving if she wants to change them whenever it's to her own advantage.

Obama should reinforce Dean's position - Florida and Michigan have the option of a revote and he should openly urge that they accept it. That way everything's done fairly and it gives the candidates an opportunity to really contest the two states.

The issue is both parties have to agree to any change in the rules at this point. If Obama simply says..No..the rules are the rules..nothing happens. I think the above idea is a good one. Let them count provided she is still substantially behind in delegates afterwards

I think this is very interesting, I am not totally sure what to think of it.

I would point out, though, that Obama and Clinton DO have the ability to shove the deal down the DNCs throat.

Together, they will have a big majority on the credentialing committee compared to Dean's picks. If they make this deal, they can make it happen (the only way Dean could stop them would be to refuse to approve the MI primary plan).

Seating any of these delegates should be conditional on Senator Clinton declaring that she will not accept the nomination if she is not the pledged delegate leader.

That would actually give something of an incentive. Personally, I think Obama takes Michigan in a caucus. But I'm not sure they would want to roll that die if it just means helping Clinton close the gap and then steal it with SD's.

I also think it's quite likely that a revote in Florida and Michigan could resolve

Clinton's supporters claim her wins in Florida and Michigan are proof that she's able to carry states Obama can't.

Obama's supporters dismiss Clinton's wins since she was effectively running unopposed and still couldn't get better than 55% of the vote against "uncommitted" in Michigan.

A revote would prove which of these two arguments had merit and might make the difference for wavering supers.

Jinchi:

"Clinton looks self-serving if she wants to change [the rules] whenever it's to her own advantage."

What rules is Clinton looking to change? (Back up that scurrilous charge!)

Obama agreed to this rule: "First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee."

Clinton's plan, all along, has been to appeal to the credentials committee and ask them to seat the FL and MI delegates. That's entirely within the rules. Shame on you for saying that she's trying to change them.

DP:

"I would point out, though, that Obama and Clinton DO have the ability to shove the deal down the DNCs throat. Together, they will have a big majority on the credentialing committee compared to Dean's picks."

I don't believe this is true. The credentials committee will resolve delegate disputes, not determine if a revote is acceptable. The revote issue will be resolved by the Rules and Bylaws cmte.

So, no, they can't force this down Dean's throat if they control the credentials cmte. The truth is, if Hill controls that cmte then she will be able to force the DNC to seat the FL and MI delegates on terms that are favorable to her.

There's two options: 1) Revote approved by RBC. Since Hill 'controls' this group they will only approve on terms favorable to her.

2) Settle the MI and FL delegate question - absent a revote - in the credentials committee. Since Hill will also control this then she has a very real shot of getting the FL and MI delegates seated and eliminating Obama's delegate lead.

What the DNC needs to realize is that first of all this issue of Florida and Michigan being disenfranchised is not just some party rule to be enforced. Those two states are not only vitally important in deciding this all important contest but in the general election as well that will follow. This time it is NOT the Republicans stealing the votes from Democratic voters but the DNC itself. This is not the way to rally the Democrats for the upcoming general election. If they are not counted in this primary Democrats in those states may end up not voting at all in the general election as a result for the eventual Democratic nominee. On top of that in protest some of them may even vote McCain instead. On the other hand if you let FL and MI vote again and count this time, that will give them Democrats voting a deeper sense of commitment and they will want to vote even more in the general election for the Democratic nominee. BIG mistake counting Florida and Michigan out, the DNC must do everything to make this happen if they want strong support in the general election from FL and MI voters.

Clinton's plan, all along...

Funny how she didn't mention that until the day before Florida voted.

I'd have had more respect for Clinton if she'd been making this argument back in August, when the DNC was shooting itself in the foot. But she waited until after Michigan had (barely) given her a win over nobody and just as the polls were showing her with a likely big win in Florida.

But in any case, I think it works to the ultimate nominee's best interest to have a revote - and it would undoubtedly be better for the party.

My guess is that Hillary has a real advantage in Florida and she'd likely come out ahead of where she is now since she scored under 50% in that race.

She also proved she can win strongly in blue collar states, which gives her a potential advantage in Michigan (winning 55% against nobody is almost insulting; winning 55% against Obama would be impressive).

Obama on the other hand, would have to prove he can take her on in a fair fight.

This isn't just about winning the nomination. It's about being seen to win it as openly and democratically as possible. Clinton will be subject to a serious attack from the Republicans if they can convince people she stole her victory.

Jicnhi:

We agree - I just wish you would quit saying and implying that Clinton is breaking or trying to change the rules. She has done no such thing. In fact, she is now using the rules to her advantage.

As far as her argument not being presented to you early enough - the agreement has been in place for ages. The agreement has always stated that either campaign could appeal to the cred cmte for relief. So I do not think there was any subterfuge involved. (Of course she started top talk about this after she started to lose - she ain't stupid!)

I think Obama would be wise to push for revotes. If he takes his chances on the credentials cmte - he might lose big. Who wins the revotes? I think Clinton and I think a potential swing of 100+ delegates. "Clinton would have won 192 delegates from the two states and Obama 72—a combined swing in Clinton's favor of 120 pledged delegates." Of course, that's based on a bunch of crap but I think it gives us some idea of how this might play out. My gut tells me that momentum is with Clinton and, after OH, that her message would resonate even more now in MI.

Serious problems for Obama ahead.

"I suspect Clinton would turn this deal down, and try to insist on seating both Michigan and Florida as they are, which would then be seen as ridiculous. But then the argument would be gone, and Obama would be on the right side of it."

Billary have no shame-- of course they'll object! But, that's a big part of why it may be a good idea.

"Clinton will be subject to a serious attack from the Republicans if they can convince people she stole her victory."

Are you kidding - serious attack?

Republicans love and respect this stuff - they would only have the highest regard for her political skills were she able to accomplish this. This is also a very good reason for Democrats to support her as the nominee - mad political skills, ruthless, able to leap tall buildings ...

Michigan would have to be a revote. I'm in Michigan. Having a primary with three candidates, only one of whom was viable? We were effectively disenfranchised before the first vote.

I feel much worse for the citizens of Florida who, contrary to what was suggested above, fell victim to the choices of that state's Republican legislature and governor, not the state party.

I understand Obama's fears about losing Florida (again) in a revote, but I think it would be largely good for him and the party to have a bona fide contest in that state. Current polls show him losing Florida to McCain (and Clinton winning). A primary may help him establish himself as a more viable Presidential candidate in that state.

Michigan? I think that could go either way in a revote.

"Any do-over would have to be approved by the Rules and Bylaws committee - NOT by Obama and Hillary. They can't simply make a deal and then shove that deal down the DNC's throat."

The key word there seems to be "approved by." I don't why Obama can't propose it to be approved. This what a Senator does, no?

Shoving things down people's throats-- now, that's more Billary's style-- "seat the illegitimate delegates or we'll call you Hussein Osama!"

By the way, we know you're a Billary fan.

"The key word there seems to be "approved by." I don't why Obama can't propose it to be approved. This what a Senator does, no?"

Actually, no. The revote agreement is between the State Parties and the DNC via the RBC. There's no official Senate roll in any of that. Strictly a party thing. Obama can propose to the MI and FL parties, the parties can propose to the RBC, and the RBC can turn down anything that doesn't favor Hillary. Given that the Governor of Michigan is a big Hillary fan, and the State Party Chariman has already said there will not be a revote, and the State Party Chari serves on the RBC, and the co-chair of the RBC is a Clinotnite - how likely do you think it is that the revote solution will not be to Hillary's advanatge?

"Shoving things down people's throats-- now, that's more Billary's style"

Stricly sopeaking more Bill's style.

-- "seat the illegitimate delegates or we'll call you Hussein Osama!"

The delegates, were they to be seated, would be legitimized by the credentials cmte - by definition.

"By the way, we know you're a Billary fan."

And I know where you live - watch out! (I'm a registered Libertarian. I'm only a Hill fan now because of the disgraceful treatment she has been receiving as of late.)

I like this solution, but Obama should go even further and offer to make the MI do-over an open primary. This will give Clinton no rebuttal should she lose, and will fend off any crits from her that the GE won't be a caucus, a card she's sure to play.

If the superdelegates nominate Obama w/o the FL delegates being seated, it's not going to play well.

"despite their deliberate violation of the rules"

Ignorant claim in Florida's case.

"the win-at-all-costs mania"

Pretty rich from a supporter of a guy who's not going to directly reach 2025, may well end up behind in the popular vote, and is pushed by the argument "We won't show up in the general if our candidate isn't nominated". Actually it's just a RW frame, so "pretty sad" is more apropos.

"the dawning reality is that all of this will have to be resolved, probably by superdelegate voting, at the convention. Which is probably fine, although I think that will raise, and perhaps it's time to ask, the question of why we need these "wise elders" anyway."

Here's Geraldine Ferraro's explantation-- evidently her idea. There's 655 comments posted at the NY Times-- most of them completely outraged:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ferraro&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Maybe Obama *should* seek to enfranchise the voters.

"A compelling argument but I don't think he should do this now. It could come across as reactive and panicy. "If Obama can't handle Penn and Wolfson, how can he handle..."."

It's not about Penn and Wolfson. And, frankly, I'm not sure it's about the DNC-- who the fuck is the DNC that the electorate should care?

Like a lot of crap around here, is it even constitutional?

Which is to say, if it's constitutionality is questionable and it disenfranchises 2 states, I think your "Democrat" president has a problem. And I bet I know who has most of the constitutional scholars.

To me, the DNC is merely an illegitimate faction.

After all, don't you think it's funny that it's THE REPUBLICANS who moved the date in (ahem) Florida?

And just who is it these days that thinks they're in a no holds barred revolution?

I just wish you would quit saying and implying that Clinton is breaking or trying to change the rules.

You're arguing from a literal sense. I'm arguing from the perception voters are likely to have.

Take the recent vote in Texas. Hillary's argument is that Obama can't win big states and the press all praised her for her phenomenal victory. Except now it looks like Obama won the majority of delegates from Texas on Tuesday. Nobody's going to change their maps to put the win in his column, because everybody knows that Hillary won the popular vote.

Likewise, if Obama appears to have won the nomination and then Hillary pulls off the victory because she has her partisans on the delegate committee (as you describe in your first post) - it will either look like she cheated or that the system was rigged.

Democratic voters are already livid about Republican attempts to disenfranchise them in 2000 and 2004, particularly African Americans. It would cripple the party if people believed the Democrats did the same thing.

Republicans love and respect this stuff - they would only have the highest regard for her political skills were she able to accomplish this.

They only love and respect it when it benefits them.

But remember who we're arguing about. It isn't Republican voters who will be turned off by branding Clinton a cheater (they're already voting for McCain). It's the voters who might go Democratic.

Let's at least have some facts about Florida. The Democratic party was perfectly winning to pay for a properly timed contest, and the state party decided not to do so.

Resume bitter partisan sniping as required, but let's at least be a part of the reality-based community.

""Shoving things down people's throats-- now, that's more Billary's style"

Stricly sopeaking more Bill's style."

Great, so we already know who's leading the two headed monster. Also unconstitutional.

"We won't show up in the general if our candidate isn't nominated"

Before Super Tuesday, polls showed that most Obama supporters believed Hillary would ultimately be the nominee and they were overwhelmingly inclined to vote for her.

They still are, but not if they think he won it straight up and then the party insiders overruled them. You can't be upset that voters don't show up for you in November if you've told them they don't matter in February.

As Anon. points out above, people were furious at Ferraro's column. The idea that party leaders know the will of the voters better than the voters themselves is ridiculous. Pointing out that the rules were written this way deliberately is an insult to the crowds that have poured out to date. That she was tone-deaf enough to state it publicly is evidence enough that she doesn't understand voters at all.

The Democratic party needs to elect its leaders democratically. If Hillary can't win by rules that are seen to be fair, then she shouldn't be the nominee.

"If Hillary can't win by rules that are seen to be fair, then she shouldn't be the nominee."

Sure, as long as that "seeing" isn't by partisans of her opponent.

"You can't be upset that voters don't show up for you in November if you've told them they don't matter in February."

So Obama should write off Florida and Michigan, instead of asking the delegates be seated as is (e.g. with him getting all the non-Clinton votes in MI)?

And of course Obama won't be nominated without superdelegates, so maybe it'll be relevant that HRC received more D votes, or maybe more votes period.

Sure, as long as that "seeing" isn't by partisans of her opponent.

Hillary either needs to win a majority of the popular vote, or substantially trim Obama's delegate advantage. I don't think those are partisan conditions. And I don't think Obama's voters would be outraged if it came to that. What they will object to is the situation described by sbj at the top - where Hillary wins because her supers dominate the committee. Ferraro's article compounds the sense of disenfranchisement because she's literally arguing that party operatives in smoke filled rooms are better than voters at the ballot box in picking a candidate. (She repeated it on the PBS NewsHour yesterday).

That's the argument that will keep voters away in November and Clinton's people shouldn't be caught making it.

As for Florida and Michigan, I think I explained my reasoning above (at the 6:26 mark). They need a revote for all parties to be comfortable with the result.

"Winning the popular vote"

I think someone at TAPPED needs to write about how the popular vote is calculated. Does it include numbers from the Caucus states? Are those numbers reliably reflective of actual voters? My sense right now is that the answers are "some of them" and "sometimes". If that is true, how much weight should the "popular vote" have here?

First of all, Michigan will not go for McCain because of the DNC - they're more angry at Granholm and Debbie Dingell for creating this catastrophe than anything else.

Second, Obama will handily win any kind of a fair contest in Michigan. Michigan is very different from Ohio, and much more similar to Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota.

African-Americans dominate the Michigan Democratic Party; upscale liberals and students would provide the added punch. Obama would clean up in the 7 Southeast Michigan districts and Kildee’s Flint / Saginaw district.

Many of the few Dems that reside in Ehler’s (Grand Rapids) and Upton’s (SW Michigan) district are African-American. Hoekstra's "West Coast" district would also go for Obama - but based on more of a yuppie-liberal consensus

Walberg, Camp, Stupak, and Rogers - their districts would go for Hil.

Overall, the state would be a solid Obama win in the 10-15 delegate range.

I think someone at TAPPED needs to write about how the popular vote is calculated.

Sure it includes caucuses (look to TalkingPointsMemo for the numbers). But since fewer people turn out for each caucus, the popular vote count is skewed towards states that have primaries and should actually favor Hillary.

What should Obama do? Gee, I didn't realize it was his decision to make.

Good thing for America there was no "the person with the most delegates going into the convention has to be nominated " rule in 1860:

"After the first ballot, Seward, as expected, led with 173 votes. Lincoln was next with 102. Cameron received 50; Chase got 49; Bates 48; and the rest received a handful each."

On wait-there is no such rule today either.

If Obama leads in delegates going into the convention and the superdelegates or shenanigans with the Florida and Michigan delegates give Clinton the nomination, a lot of people will sit on their hands in the general election and McCain will surely win. Moreover, the Democratic party will lose African-American support for years to come. The nomination must reflect the will of the voters.

Obama has drawn voters into this process that normally would not have started voting until 2012, 2016, or 2020.

Make this their formative experience with the Democratic party, and you'll either drive an entire generation of Democrats out of politics entirely, or right into the hands of Republicans like the Humphreyites did with McGovern's followers.

We'll lose 20 seats from the loss of the AA vote along this time. Screwing over everyone under 35 will guarantee Republican dominance for at least another 12 years.

"If Obama leads in delegates going into the convention and the superdelegates or shenanigans with the Florida and Michigan delegates give Clinton the nomination, a lot of people will sit on their hands in the general election and McCain will surely win."

Well, if Billary still have that coercive health insurance pogram, I'd vote McCain anyway. Tax credit and the capacity to at least *choose* if you want to partake in the same ratty system we have now better satisfies me. My goodness, look-- he's positively left wing! And, he beat Romney's millions and Huckabunk fair and square.

Florida and Michigan are a bigger deal than some people are making them out as. While they may only be two out of 50 states, the populations of those two states are TEN PERCENT of our country. One in ten votes are being ignored. We're not talking about hanging chads, or bullies at the caucuses, we're talking about 1/10th of the entire population disenfranchised. That, my friends, is disgusting.

How would the US react if some other country held an election, then announced that 1/10th of the votes didn't count.? We would scream, rant and rave about election fraud, lack of representation, and so forth.

Our SYSTEM is broken! This is more important than which candidate wins! SOMETHING must be done to fix this.

IMO, the fairest way to fix it would be to hold new primaries. Have the cost split between the states, the DNC, and the candidates. DO not disenfrancise 1/10th of our population.

i don't think Obama will do any thing about this problem

Brilliant!!

don't think Obama will do any thing about this problem

ヤフー
[url=http://www.yahoo.co.jp/]夜風[/url]