Daily Kos

Clinton on MI, FLA: "two states we have to carry."

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM PDT

Much has already been made about the significance of Michigan and Florida, the two states with the apostate Democratic committees that, through their own hubris and stupidity, invalidated the wishes of their party members. Now, in an interview with the Politico, we find the true reason why Hillary wants to seat the delegates from those two states:

...I think that both Michigan and Florida should count because these are two states we have to carry.

LEON HARRIS: Let’s talk about a place where campaigning didn’t happen, Michigan, and when we look at what’s going to happen with the delegates from that state there are a lot of questions that are still hanging in the air about that right now. Michigan was being punished for having moved up their date and their delegates are not supposed to be getting seated. Now some of your supporters are saying that they should be seated because you won the Michigan primary. It was a primary though where your name was the only one on the ballot. Barack Obama’s name was not on the ballot. Do you think those Michigan delegates should still be seated and if so, how is that fair if Barack Obama did not get a chance to contest you in Michigan?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Leon, I think that both Michigan and Florida should count because these are two states we have to carry. This is not about, so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot. I chose to do so. My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote uncontested. There was a campaign going on and it was a campaign against me and I still won a majority. In Florida, 2.7 million people showed up and said we will not be disenfranchised again. We went through 2000 and 2004. I think that the Democratic Party has to be looking very realistically at what it is we’re trying to achieve here. We need to win in November and therefore I think that both Michigan and Florida, uh, the Democratic Party should really give these people who came out and voted...they weren’t involved in the rule making. Give them a chance.

Two things I find disturbing about this exchange:

  1. The very reductive and frankly egotistical intial response to the question about seating delegates. It is reminiscent of what Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks: because it's where the money is. Why seat the delegates? Because we need to win them. And,
  1. The implication that what is best for Hillary is what is best for the Democratic Party. That is obviously not true, as evidenced by this CNN poll which has Obama beating by a bigger margin than Hillary beating McCain.

I voted for Obama today in Alexandria, Virginia. I am not saying that I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general. I am saying that as Hillary becomes increasingly desperate, she says more and more unpleasant things. Even her commercials here in Virginia are depressing, in contrast to Obama's more upbeat ads. That skydiver ad does not make me want to vote for her. Her selfish talk in interviews does not make me want to vote for her. Her "le party c'est moi" attitude does not make me want to vote for her. And her threat to cheat in order to secure the nomination definitely turns me off.

If Hillary wins the nomination legitimately, without resorting to cheating (which is what seating the Michigan and Florida delegates would be - nothing but lowdown, Karl Rove-style cheating), I will vote for her without reservation, and maybe even donate money or work for her a little.

If she wins the nomination by cheating, I don't know what I'll do. I understand the stakes. I'll have to vote for her, if only to keep the Supreme Court from turning into the Supreme Soviet, what with their torture loving, women hating justices and all.

But, I'll need to drink heavily before and after and take a long shower to wash the icky feeling off.

This election needs to be about picking the poor bastard that needs to clean the Augean Stable that is the American Government after 8 years of Republican kakistocracy. This election shouldn't be about Hillary and her huge-sized ambition.

But she has made it about just that.

Tags: The Politico, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, Florida, 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 177 comments

    •  I think your taking the statement out of context (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      historyrocks, dpc, cardinal, standingup

      the 'we' is the Democratic party.  I'll add in your quote plus the next line and emphasize:

      Well, Leon, I think that both Michigan and Florida should count because these are two states we have to carry. This is not about, so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall.

      Sí, ella puede. Las abuelitas y las tías will decide this thing in the end - si no, somos chingadas.

      by TX Dem in DC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny about that win in the fall (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        calipygian, davidkc, john al jr

        While, she does speak about the Democrats winning in the fall, its funny how it also serves her chances of winning at the convention.

        If the question is one of turning off the voters in that state, there are more ways to prevent that than simply seating the delegates that were pledged in an un-sanctioned, uncontested election.

        And if all the delegates from Michigan and Florida decide that they would vote for Obama at the convention, would she still be singing this "Party" song?

      •  just split the delegates 50/50 and then go ahead (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        zeke L, Compostings

        and sit them...sounds fair...they get their delegates seated, but the illegitimate election isn't (rightly) recognized...

        a win win...the states get their people there, we are including mich and florida to the convention, but we are in sense throwing out the illegitimate primaries

        g

        There is no trickle down, because greed expands to absorb any excess. DevilsTower

        by thegelding on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. That isn't fair. It was a legitimate (0+ / 0-)

          election under Michigan law.  Obama chose, wrongly it turns out, to remove his name from Michigan.  He lost both Michigan and Florida.

          How did I live without him?

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

            Listen, I can understand your desire to say so as a Hillary supporter.  I really have no idea what I would be saying if the worm were turned, although I'd like to think I'd feel how I do now.

            I will back off my feeling that this is dirty politics if any Hilary supporter, or anyone period, can find me some quotes that show Hillary was against this action, in a vocal and public way, before these races ran, before the primaries began.  It's too convienent to do so after the fact.

            I hate the negative damning of Clinton by many Obama supporters, and how there is the double standard of "Michagan and FL should not count, but superdelegates should not have their own will, but follow the electorate", but I can't see this move by Hillary as anything but low and the prime example of 'old style' politics in the entire election cylce so far.

            Was she speaking out against this before the primaries began?  If not, then I think she has to shut up and play the game by the rules AS SHE KNEW them before the races were run.

            Remember yourself, always and everywhere -G.I. Gurdjieff

            by Particle Noun on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:11:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  First of all, Obama DID campaign in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

              so HE's being disingenuous now.

              Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote. They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver. [Washington Post, 1/9/08]

              A newly formed group, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, which also supports Obama, has campaigned door to door and on the phone asking people not to commit to any of the candidates listed on the ballot. [Detroit News, 1/15/08]

              State Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said Michigan Dems can still have an indirect say in the nominating process if they check the "uncommitted" box on the ballot. Michigan campaign teams for Obama and Edwards are actively urging their supporters to vote "uncommitted," Brewer said. [Detroit News, 1/10/08]

              Clinton is alone among major candidates to leave her name on the ballot. Now, supporters for her foes are seeking revenge. Few analysts doubt that Clinton won't win, but that has not stopped her opponents from trying to cut into Clinton's vote total by mounting a last-ditch push for Democrats to vote 'uncommitted.'" [Detroit News, 1/15/08]

              There is confusion among voters and Mr Obama is urging his supporters to choose “uncommitted.” [Economist, 1/14/08]

              A group of several hundred Michigan voters plans to knock on doors, make calls and hold rallies for an unconventional candidate in Tuesday's primary: uncommitted. The only way backers of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who withdrew their names from Michigan's Democratic primary ballot, can show their support is to vote uncommitted. [AP, 1/10/08]

              Saul Anuzis (Michigan Republican Party Chairman): The Dems have an active effort going on in their own primary. Sen. Clinton is the only one on the ballot, but the Obama, Edwards and other "anti-Hillary" forces are organizing a "uncommitted" vote. [Washington Post, 1/14/08]

              How did I live without him?

              by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:07:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  January 25 (0+ / 0-)

              in between the Michigan and Florida primaries..

              link

              Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

              "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
              "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
              "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.
              "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

              How did I live without him?

              by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  horsepucky. (0+ / 0-)

            The only way to get a legitimate count of those states is to re-vote.

            How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

            by rhetoricus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And I look forward to a (0+ / 0-)

      normal Dkos again when we move beyond the point where the supporters of one candidate will stop taking things out of context to stir up fears against the other candidate.  Here are the follow up questions that you so conveniently left out of your post:

      LEON HARRIS: But again, getting back to the question of fairness. Is this fair if you don’t get a chance to compete head to head. If there are no debates. If you aren’t actively on the ground. Barack Obama’s contention is that when he’s on the ground he’s able to actually gain ground on you while he’s there. If you don’t get a chance to go head-to-head on the same field at the same time, how fair is that if those delegates are seated and he doesn’t get a chance to contest it?

      SENATOR CLINTON: Well, of course people follow the campaign, um, and you know, sometimes he’s contested me and done well and sometimes he’s contested me and not done well. So, I don’t think by any means that’s a given. What I do believe is that both Michigan and Florida are key win states. Democrats cannot win if we don’t win in Michigan and Florida. Therefore I do hope we do work this out. I believe strongly in that.

      LEON HARRIS: Let me ask you about one other if I can...just belabor the point for just a bit. One suggestion for working that out has been to have a second primary there. That’s been suggested by some Democrats. What do you say about that?

      SENATOR CLINTON: Well, you know, a second primary would be obviously very expensive. I don’t know who is going to pay for it. The 1.7 million people who voted thought they were voting in a primary. They wanted their votes and their voices to be heard. Um, so, I hope we’re going to work this out. I really think that we’ve gotta work it out. But, I don’t want to see Michigan and Florida Democrats be disenfranchised.

       

      And here is a link to the wiki page for Swing States which are key to a Democratic victory in the fall.  Want to point fingers here?  Let's point them in the direction of the parties who really screwed up, the DNC by setting the delegate counts at 2025 and not considering the problems that could arise if the primary ran beyond the first few rounds.  

      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob, elmo

        Democrats cannot win if we don’t win in Michigan and Florida. Therefore I do hope we do work this out. I believe strongly in that.

        She is assuming that if the delegates aren't seated in her favor, that the Democratic party isn't going to win either state in November.

        There is no evidence to suggest that Michigan is going to suddenly vote Republican because the delegates aren't seated and Florida is going to be a toss up anyway.

        Again, shorter Hillary: What is good for me is good for the Democratic Party.

        See you at the debate, bitches!

        by calipygian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How in the world (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dougymi

          do you get "assuming that if the delegates aren't seated in her favor, that the Democratic party isn't going to win either state in November" from that?  

          And we are supposed to ignore:

          I think that the Democratic Party has to be looking very realistically at what it is we’re trying to achieve here. We need to win in November and therefore I think that both Michigan and Florida, uh, the Democratic Party should really give these people who came out and voted...they weren’t involved in the rule making. Give them a chance.
          ...
          What I do believe is that both Michigan and Florida are key win states. Democrats cannot win if we don’t win in Michigan and Florida. Therefore I do hope we do work this out. I believe strongly in that.
          ...
          Um, so, I hope we’re going to work this out. I really think that we’ve gotta work it out. But, I don’t want to see Michigan and Florida Democrats be disenfranchised.

          Do you not consider that this is a screwed up, no winner situation all the way around?  And again, these are both considered to be swing states this election cycle.  Do you understand what a swing state is in a national election?  

        •  No. She is assuming that (0+ / 0-)

          if the delegates aren't seating that Floridians and Michiganders will be pissed off and either not come out to vote in November or vote against the Democratic party.

          How did I live without him?

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  good perspective (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          calipygian

          Suppose I lived in Florida or Michigan.  If I am looking at either Democratic candidate vs. John McCain, how much weight will I put into the fact that delegates from my state weren't seated at the convention.  Will I consider that more important than McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years and the Democrats want out now?

          Suggesting that voters in those two states have no larger vision for America than convention games is rather insulting.

          Further, I support Obama.  If Clinton wins the nomination by lying, cheating and stealing...I'm still voting for her.  Republicans must leave the White House.

      •  Is this out of context? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Particle Noun

        The 1.7 million people who voted thought they were voting in a primary.

        Oh, really?!? Senator Clinton, I think you just called 1.7 million Democratic voters ignorant. How come the rest of us knew that their delegates had been removed and their vote was essentially meaningless, but they didn't?

        I think most of them did know the situation, and they were voting as a symbolic gesture, or out of spite and frustration. You are going to have a difficult time proving to everyone that 1.7 million people voted thinking that their choices for delegates - which is what a primary is - was going to count. Please don't insult us with such insinuations.

        "I live by Syllogisms. For instance: God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God!" ~Steven Colbert

        by watch out for snakes on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is amazing is that you (0+ / 0-)

        use this quote to support Senator Clinton when it is clear she can't give a direct and honest answer as to why the vote should be recognized when Obama wasn't there to compete fully.

      •  Cough it up (0+ / 0-)

        This part makes me laugh:

        Well, you know, a second primary would be obviously very expensive. I don’t know who is going to pay for it.

        That's a pretty lame reason to not put on a real contest. Between Clinton and Obama they could raise enough money in a week to fund it their own damn selves.

        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

        by Joe Bob on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:29:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, where the people of the "hope" candidate (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      emmabrody

      don't disingenuously support disenfranchisement if it advances their candidate's interests.
      Spare me your hypocrisy.
      You know that if Obama had won Florida, he would be urging that those votes counted.

      •  Which is exactly why (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MadGeorgiaDem

        sleeping dogs should have been left where they lay.

        See you at the debate, bitches!

        by calipygian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (3+ / 0-)

        You know that if Obama had won Florida, he would be urging that those votes counted.

        I don't think so. Unlike Clinton, that's not what Obama is all about.  And that is why his campaign is taking off and hers is tanking.  Not everyone needs to win so badly that they are willing to destroy the thing they are trying to win in the first place.  

        •  and flowers and candy will fall from the heavens (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          calipygian

          on St. Valentines Day too.  

          Sen. Obama is a politician. If the situation was reversed, he certainly would be advocating for the delegates to be seated. That's called reality.  I am not denigrating the Senator by calling him a politician. He is one.  

          A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

          by dougymi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (4+ / 0-)

            I don't think you realize just how disgusting what Clinton is trying to do is.  I think MOST politicians wouldn't do it because its so obviously cheating.  When I first heard about it, I couldn't believe Clinton could be that stupid, because she has revealed her true nature and it is killing her campaign.  

            Any politician with a shred of decency would not do this.  Unfortunately, it appears that Clinton lacks that shred.

            •  it's politics (0+ / 0-)

              it's not illegal. It's not disgusting. It also isn't going to happen. It'll come down to the convention.  No one is going to seat delegates based on Sen. Clinton's whining.

              What's disgusting is republicans.  Your revulsion is misplaced.  Sen. Obama is probably going to win this nomination but he'll use the means necessary to do so.  Then he'll run into tactics that republicans have traditonally used, such as phone jamming, segretti style dirty tricks that are illegal, incessant rumors and the like. Those are disgusting. This isn't.

              A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

              by dougymi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                cartwrightdale

                Most politiicans have standards, and wouldn't pull this kind of thing.  Hillary has lowered herself to the level of Tom Delay with this.

                •  in your opinon. That isn't universally held (0+ / 0-)

                  no one has indicted Sen. Clinton, despite your apparent desire that she be indicted.

                  A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

                  by dougymi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:23:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                    What Clinton is doing isn't illegal, and for her that's enough.  But in reality it isn't enough.  If you have to win by what will be perceived by most people as cheating, you haven't won at all.

                    •  I'm not the one who compared her to an indicted (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      calipygian

                      republican. you are. I don't see how it can be considered cheating if it isn't going to happen. It's whining.  It's her complaining about what she thinks should happen, not what is going to happen.  The delegation from my state isn't going to be seated, regardless of how much Sen. Clinton whines. It's going to be seated either by having a caucus or by the credentials committee of the Democratic party.

                      now I'm done. your irrational hatred of the Senator from NY is over the top.  I'm going to a diary where my irrational hatred of all things republican can be better expressed.  

                      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

                      by dougymi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:49:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  We're in an extraordinary circumstance. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mdgarcia, Ellinorianne

        due to the closeness of this race.  No one thought we'd be here.  Quite frankly (and I never thought I'd say this)a grave injustice is being served the voters of Michigan and Florida by not allowing them to seat delegates.

        This is just plain wrong.  A general election could be equally close.

        It is as much a convenience to Clinton to have those delegates seated as it is a convenience for Obama to have them gone.  Obama never wanted to run in those two states to begin with, as he never thought they'd be his.

        Obama supporters are being deeply hypocritical, here.  When we're trying to get a full count of what's truly happening in this country, they try to stifle it.  

        This was just bad planning all the way around---except for the foresight the Clinton camp showed.

        •  foresight = cheating. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Joe Bob, calipygian

          I can't believe they're asking Willie Sutton to give back the money when he had the foresight to blow the safe in the middle of the night. But its Ok because all those law abiding citizens would never have thought to do it.

          In other words, suckers follow the rules.
          God, what a ghastly endorsement of your candidate:

          Hillary, a strong leader with the foresight to cheat

          •  Why do you assume she's my candidate? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Ellinorianne

            There you go.  Knee-jerk reaction.

            For your information, I have utterly no preference at this time between Obama or Clinton.  There are legions of us out there who see great holes in both of them.  I don't even know how to begin speaking to your conclusion except to say that the voters of Michigan and Florida lose, with the rest of us, when a fair process is denied.

            My own opinion is that the DNC should pony up the dough and have run off elections in both those states.  That way these poor voters get a chance to participate.  Their state leaders and the DNC disenfranchised them.

            •  Sorry. (0+ / 0-)

              I accept that others can have an opinion other than mine. Nevertheless, this seems to be such a transparent grab for delegates that I assumed you must be a HRC partisan.
              But this is no way to enfranchise voters. For example, doesn't it occur to you that a lot of people did not go to the polls because they were told the result wouldn't count? Thus it is impossible to map votes to delegates fairly. Merely going through the motions is not a legitimate way to enfranchise. Either a new election or caucus of forget it.

        •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

          It is as much a convenience to Clinton to have those delegates seated as it is a convenience for Obama to have them gone.  Obama never wanted to run in those two states to begin with, as he never thought they'd be his.

          That's pretty easy to resolve, since everyone agreed they wouldn't count.

          What the Clinton people don't seem to understand, is that a victory using these delegates is no victory at all.  She would have a hard time getting all the Obama supporters anyway, and if she wins by cheating, they will defect in droves.  We'll lose the white house and it will tear the party apart.  

          Fortunately, what she is doing is so disgusting, that her campaign is tanking.  I used to get on people for Hillary bashing, but now I have no respect for her at all.  This is basically Obama vs. Tom Delay now.  

      •  Precisely. (0+ / 0-)

        How did I live without him?

        by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I read it as her trying to say (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joe Bob

      that the Democrats need Mich. and Fla. to win in November, not that she needs them to win the primary.

      I was born a millworker's daughter.....

      by cackyp on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I kind of agree, but (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob

        then there's this:

        LEON HARRIS: Let me ask you about one other if I can...just belabor the point for just a bit. One suggestion for working that out has been to have a second primary there. That’s been suggested by some Democrats. What do you say about that?

        SENATOR CLINTON: Well, you know, a second primary would be obviously very expensive. I don’t know who is going to pay for it. The 1.7 million people who voted thought they were voting in a primary. They wanted their votes and their voices to be heard. Um, so, I hope we’re going to work this out. I really think that we’ve gotta work it out. But, I don’t want to see Michigan and Florida Democrats be disenfranchised.

        From this she appears to not support another primary for those states. If she supported that, I'd give her more credit. But apparently she just wants them to stand as is. And that is BS.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:19:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Let her keep saying it (8+ / 0-)

    The more she does, the more people see just how terrible she is.  

  •  The hypocracy is stunning. (14+ / 0-)

    The campaign that's been giving the finger to caucus states, flyover states, and, oh, hell, every state she hasn't won is concerned about our winning Florida and Michigan?

    a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil!

    by haruki on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

  •  Pretty obvious, that. (7+ / 0-)

    She needs, therefore the rules must change.

    No mention of Deans' caucus suggestion for the same reasons.

    "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

    by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM PDT

    •  Did you happen (0+ / 0-)

      to take the time to read the full interview before commenting or did you just take the diarist's opinion and choice of material to quote as all there was to the interview?  

      •  How do you feel about Dean's caucus suggestion? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brklyngrl

        The fact that HRC doens't accept that idea shows that she doesn't have a bona fide concern about FL or MI voters that developed after Iowa and NH.

        "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

        by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we are at a point (0+ / 0-)

          where unfortunately any decision is going to leave one side feeling they didn't get a fair shake.  If they do a caucus, the Clinton supporters are going to feel it favors the Obama campaign because they believe he performs better in caucuses.  If they don't have some sort of a redo the Obama supporters feel it's unfair because Obama didn't have the chance to actively campaign which they believe is important to him gaining votes.  And if we don't do something to recognize the voters in those states, we have voters feeling they were wrongly disenfranchised by the party because they didn't have the foresight to see the possible problems they were creating this year.

          I am very unhappy with the DNC.  

          •  I dont belong to any organized political party (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joe Bob

            Im a Democrat.

            See you at the debate, bitches!

            by calipygian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Caucuses leave everyone feeling a fair shake. (0+ / 0-)

            I just think it's a question of whether HRC wants a fair shake or not.  Certainly she wasn't worrying about FL or MI feeling left out when she was assuring NH voters that the MI vote meant nothing.

            The concept that she would rather have a different sort of contest is neither here nor there: it seems that once again, we have HRC being very concerned about seating FL and MI reps to the extent she's the winner, and not so much otherwise.

            "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

            by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Joe Bob, jennybravo

              She doesn't want a do-over, be it a primary or caucus.  She wants results from elections held back in January, when she was still a viable candidate.  

            •  No. THey don't. (0+ / 0-)

              Some people feel pressured to vote one way or another in public.
              Some people can't be there precisely at 8 pm.

              It disenfranchises mothers and people who work at that time.

              How did I live without him?

              by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Disenfrachises"? Then HRC would be against (0+ / 0-)

                all caucuses...which she is, now, just as she's against barring delegates from MI and FL, now, and she's against the arrangement she agreed to and actually campaigned on, now.  It's amazing all the things that HRC is against, now.  It certainly has a rock-beats-scissors flavor to it.

                "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

                by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Obama DID campaign in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

            It was clear... uncommitted = Obama

            How did I live without him?

            by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:29:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. Obama did not campaign in MI. (0+ / 0-)

              Because he promised not to, in exchange for a return promise from HRC.

              "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

              by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama DID campaign in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

                Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote. They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver. [Washington Post, 1/9/08]

                A newly formed group, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, which also supports Obama, has campaigned door to door and on the phone asking people not to commit to any of the candidates listed on the ballot. [Detroit News, 1/15/08]

                State Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said Michigan Dems can still have an indirect say in the nominating process if they check the "uncommitted" box on the ballot. Michigan campaign teams for Obama and Edwards are actively urging their supporters to vote "uncommitted," Brewer said. [Detroit News, 1/10/08]

                Clinton is alone among major candidates to leave her name on the ballot. Now, supporters for her foes are seeking revenge. Few analysts doubt that Clinton won't win, but that has not stopped her opponents from trying to cut into Clinton's vote total by mounting a last-ditch push for Democrats to vote 'uncommitted.'" [Detroit News, 1/15/08]

                There is confusion among voters and Mr Obama is urging his supporters to choose “uncommitted.” [Economist, 1/14/08]

                A group of several hundred Michigan voters plans to knock on doors, make calls and hold rallies for an unconventional candidate in Tuesday's primary: uncommitted. The only way backers of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who withdrew their names from Michigan's Democratic primary ballot, can show their support is to vote uncommitted. [AP, 1/10/08]

                Saul Anuzis (Michigan Republican Party Chairman): The Dems have an active effort going on in their own primary. Sen. Clinton is the only one on the ballot, but the Obama, Edwards and other "anti-Hillary" forces are organizing a "uncommitted" vote. [Washington Post, 1/14/08]

                How did I live without him?

                by Pumpkinlove on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:16:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I read the original and was appalled at her cheek (0+ / 0-)

  •  Florida makes more sense than Michigan (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    calipygian, baudelairien

    In Florida at least everyone's names were on the ballot, in Michigan it was Clinton v. some guy named Mr. or Ms. Uncommitted (not sure of his or her first name though).

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:58:15 PM PDT

  •  States we don't have to carry: (5+ / 0-)

    Delaware
    Connecticut
    Illinois
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Washington
    Utah
    Idaho
    Iowa
    Maine
    Louisiana
    Georgia
    Alabama
    Colorado
    Kansas
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    Nevada (maybe?)

    I mean, how bad could Senator John McPalpatine possibly be?

    by terra on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM PDT

  •  Maybe she meant (9+ / 0-)

    That "we have to carry" meaning Democrats in November, and its bad to disenfranchise those states.

    Not sure I buy it, but its a plausable interpretation of what she said.

    •  Yes, this is clearly what she meant (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      politichic, davidkc, jeff in nyc

      The real issue is what the next comment below points out, the logical fallacy that seating or not seating these delegations will actually have an effect in Nov. This seems ludicrous to me.  

    •  Probably Right (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc, eddie233

      I think the Clintons can be expected to engage in some "dirty tricks" or "tough tactics" depending on whether you think these are unfair or just clever.

      But Calipygian is taking her comments out of context....unless it was a Freudian slip, I suppose.  I think that winning MI and FL certainly is important to the Dems and Clinton deserves at least the benefit of the doubt in this context that that is what she meant.  

      But efforts to seat those delegates will indeed be dirty tricks and will alienate many, many Democrats and even more independents.  We cannot tolerate that!

    •  Maybe that's what she meant (0+ / 0-)

      A more careful reading in context even kind of supports that reading. But, it looks really, really bad.

      See you at the debate, bitches!

      by calipygian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the problem is... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joe Bob

      She says the two states "should count," but doesn't explain what she means by that, and could lead a reasonable person to conclude that she means the two states' votes should count "as is," which is what is getting folks so upset.  

    •  No, I think her concern is clear enough. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joe Bob, davidkc, Particle Noun

      Even if what she meant was, "I've decided that the promises I made were a bad idea considering the general", what she wants is to have the benefit of the rule change for herself.

      Otherwise, she'd be all for Dean's suggestion of caucuses with real competition.

      "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

      by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm an Obama supporter, but that's what she meant (6+ / 0-)

      Now, I think that the unspoken thing here is also very obvious, which is that she's also concerned about FL and MI because she feels that SHE needs them in order to beat Obama. It'd be naive to believe that this isn't a prime concern for her and a large part of her sudden after-the-fact insistence that the DNC change the rules w.r.t FL and MI.

      However, what's literally being said here is that she feels that the Democrats will need FL and MI in the general election. A valid point for consideration, of course, but IMHO not necessarily her main concern at the moment.

    •  I think that is what she meant (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jennybravo

      But, in that case she should have been crying LOUD AND HARD FOUL before the primary vote.  I heard nothing up to that point.  It was all after the fact.  THAT is what I resent.  If she had been championing their causes the whole time, before the primaries began, I would feel differently, but she didn't, she agreed to the rules.  It feels cacluated, and meanly calculated at that.

      I feel bad for MI and FL voters.  The real villan here is the DNC.  But Hillary is, to me completely obviously, using this to her advantage.

      But, after the dust settles on this one (and it will) we can NOT forget it, and must push for reform of the DNC primary system.  We can't get caught with our pants down again.

      Remember yourself, always and everywhere -G.I. Gurdjieff

      by Particle Noun on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:18:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus (0+ / 0-)

        she doesn't even want to give the voters another chance to vote in those two states to make the election fairer in those states. She just wants them as is. That stinks as as far as I am concerned.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I dont even think that the real villain (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Particle Noun

        is the DNC in this case. I think the state parties have to eat the lion's share of the blame for this fucked up situation.

        They defied the party elders, they have to pay the price and the voters are caught in the middle.

        Fucked up, but there needs to be some semblance of party discipline.

        The Republicans are in deep shit because their party discipline has gone down the shitter, ignoring the traditional Conservative values of thriftiness, caution in foreign affairs, etc.

        The Democrats have a huge chance if they don't blow it because they cant maintain party discipline.

        See you at the debate, bitches!

        by calipygian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This drives me up a wall. (31+ / 0-)

    I live in MI, and the idea that the Dem party not seating the delegates would have any significant effect on the state in the general is completely unsupported by evidence.

    It doesn't even make logical sense.  The people most likely to be both know about this and be pissed about it are Dem party loyalists, and are the least likely people to sit it out or vote Republican in the fall.

    It's just fear mongering.

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM PDT

  •  Please quit referring to GE polls (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom

    in February.  Let's show our intelligence to recognize they mean nothing.

  •  why can't hillary talk about the states (4+ / 0-)

    actually voting at the present time.

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:02:14 PM PDT

  •  Come-On, Hillary's Not That Bad (4+ / 0-)

    But, I'll need to drink heavily before and after and take a long shower to wash the icky feeling off.

    I think Hillary's too pro-corporate, and has been a bit hawkish, but I also think she's a tough and intelligent liberal Democrat. I am supporting Obama,  but I won't have a hard time voting for Hillary in the GE if she wins the nomination.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM PDT

    •  If she wins fair and square, fine (5+ / 0-)

      But if she uses the MI delegates from our so-called "primary" to clinch the nomination, I honestly don't believe I can bring myself to vote for her. Cheating on that scale and with that m