"What Barack was afraid of in Michigan"

For the life of me, what Barack was afraid of in Michigan I will never understand.

Hillary Clinton, in the Washington Post, again repeated and detailed this lie that Obama blocked a revote in Michigan.  Nearly all news sources have been repeating this narrative verbatim, despite the fact that it has never been true.  

Please, Obama, give a public speech on this issue.  Explain your position and call her out on this lie, and specifically call out those in the media who are continually complicit in pushing this lie.

Obama did not "block" a revote in Michigan.  Clinton, on the other hand, DID block nearly all the options put forward on the table, including the party's preferred method of a caucus (Clinton said there were no circumstances in which she would honor a caucus vote -- it was either primary or nothing.)  

Obama's campaign did have concerns, rightly so, over Clinton's insistence that those who voted in the Republican primary couldn't vote in the redo.  Of course this was a sticking point, because Obama (like Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc.) honored the pledge they signed to not participate, and Clinton did not.  Therefore, those voters who wanted to vote for Obama (or Edwards, etc.) couldn't (even write-in's weren't allowed), so a large percentage of them voted, strategically, in the Republican primary instead.  Accepting a proposal that disenfranchised these voters a second time was, and is, an anti-Democratic non-starter.  Obama would have to be a blistering idiot to accept a radically unfair revote as the plan (the ONLY plan) Clinton would approve.  Obama is, in fact, not a blistering idiot.  It would be the equivalent of, say, doing a revote in Florida, but telling voters that if they had supported Edwards the first time around, they couldn't select between Clinton and Obama this time.  

Furthermore, as we all know, Obama wasn't the won who stopped it anyway.  Michigan's primary redo, as proposed, was declared illegal and unconstitutional by Michigan.  Period.  Obama wasn't even the one fighting this -- it was an ACLU issue.

Any paper or news story that perpetuates this easily disproved and debunked "Obama blocked Michigan" lie should be called out on it.  Obama needs to give an address on this -- in Michigan, preferably -- and vehemently, publicly reject and denounce Clinton and the media for their continued refusal to tell the truth.

•  Tips/thoughts?

  by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

  •  If they didn't have their lies

    they wouldn't have a thing to say.

    Not even once have I seen documentation that Obama blocked a MI revote, but the Clinton claim goes unchallenged.

    by lgcap on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM PDT

    •  Maybe

      this is what most people are considering as "evidence" that Obama is blocking the re-vote.

      by sander60tx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM PDT

      •  Clinton and Obama are both using MI to

        shore up their own points and best interests. They are all lucky there is no viable option to them.  

        by dkmich on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM PDT

  •  Clinton does not want re-votes

    she wouldn't do near as well now as she did in January and the state legislatures either knew this or did Clinton's bidding.

    Without the re-votes, she DOES get the narrative that Obama is obstructionist and that his candidacy isn't legit....

    by ksh01 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM PDT

    •  With the goal of helping McCain in the fall

      That's what her whole narrative is about now -- helping McCain get elected in November.  Everything she says and does these days only makes sense when you realize that's the goal.  

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM PDT

  •  if you're going to make such charges

    back them up with links

    Here's the truth, from the Detroit Free Press, a local paper with direct reporting from the Michigan legislature:

    the June 3 do-over — proposed last week by a group of state party leaders — died Thursday in the state Senate, where opposition from backers of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama kept the issue from even coming up for a vote.

    New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton forcefully backed the proposal, even taking a break from her national campaign schedule to come to Detroit on Wednesday to challenge Obama to endorse it and the state Legislature to enact it. On Thursday, Clinton’s campaign said "there will be implications for Democrats in the general election" if Michigan’s delegates aren’t seated based on the will of state voters.

    But in the heartless logic of hardball politics, Clinton’s embrace of the Michigan do-over primary made it less attractive to Obama. His campaign never took a formal position on the proposal, but cited a litany of potential problems, including the exclusion of some Democratic voters who participated in the Republican primary Jan. 15, the propriety of using private funds to pay for a government-administered election and the burden the June 3 election would place on the people who run elections for counties and cities.

    The Associated Press reported that Obama was questioned at a campaign stop Thursday in Charleston, W.Va., by Jeff Lynch, 48, of Mount Pleasant.

    "When am I going to get to vote for you in Michigan?" Lynch asked.

    "Probably in the general election," Obama replied. "A redo vote is very complicated."

    link

    by chick ghandil on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM PDT

    •  Kept a particular proposal from coming up

      for a vote.  Not any and all re-vote plans.

      Of course, why go to the legislature when you can just do what the Michigan Democratic Party does every year and hold a caucus?

      by Anarchofascist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM PDT

    •  Proves my point exactly.

      Clinton has blocked tons of proposals, too.  Barack has only blocked the one, which I describe -- the one option that is viciously unfair, undemocratic, and unconstitional.

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM PDT

      •  as usual, facts are not your friend

        Hillary just wants a primary -- a free and fair vote, by secret ballot, and without imposing the poll tax type cost of spending hours at a polling place to make your vote count. And without the post vote craziness we're seeing in TX -- voting shouldn't resemble rebounding a basketball, with sharp elbows required.

        The disqualification of those who voted republican come s from the DNC, not from Hillary's proposal.

        DNC Rule 2E provides: "No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the corresponding elections."

        It's Howard Dean, not Hillary Clinton, who you should complain to.

        The truth is that Obama and Edwards pushed for their supporters to vote "uncommitted" and many of them came to the polling place to do just that -- 40% of those who voted voted uncommitted.

        by chick ghandil on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM PDT

        •  The DNC can overrule 2E

          It's Hillary insisting it be kept in place, but obviously the point of a "revote" is that the first round didn't count.  So, clearly, 2E should not apply.  Obama is absolutely right to stop Hillary's "my way or nothing" sham election.

          40% of those who voted in the Democratic primary voted uncommitted.  That doesn't measure how many people voted in the Republican primary instead (or tried to write in Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc., and therefore had their ballot invalidated.)  It is rather amazing that uncommitted did so well -- clearly, if Edwards, Obama, and others had been on the ballot, their cumulative total would have been a good 15-20% higher (the percentage of people estimated to have crossed over instead.)

          Either way, it doesn't matter -- the Michigan constitution won't allow Hillary's way.  The courts have ruled on this.  What Hillary wanted to do was clearly illegal.  Illegal.  There was no way the Michigan courts would allow the Democratic party to receive the lists of how everyone voted (which would be necessary for the DNC to know who to exclude).  And it had nothing to do with Obama supporters or Obama's lawyers -- there weren't even party to the lawsuit.  It was an ACLU issue.  

          So, by definition, Hillary does not want a fair, nor secret ballot.  She wants the lists of how everyone voted the last time, so they can systematically exclude those of us who voted in the Republican primary instead (since we weren't allowed to vote for our own candidate.)  

          Obama supported (and still does) a revote without restrictions, or a caucus, or a 50/50 split, or any of a number of other, fairer options.  Hillary won't allow it.  She tied her hopes to the only option which stacked the deck in her favor, and the courts rightfully said "uh, no."  Now rather than work to find a fair way of doing the elections, she's publicly lying about Obama's stance.  

          What, exactly, more do you need before you realize that Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be President of the United States?

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM PDT

          •  provide a link

            to support your claim that Hillary opposes waiving that rule

            by chick ghandil on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:59 PM PDT

            •  It's simple

              Obama is on record (over and over and over again) stating "we're going to abide by whatever the Democratic National Committee determines is fair", and the DNC has yet to decide something that's fair.  Clinton's peeps TRIED to do the "only people who voted for me get to vote" thing, but was shut down in the courts.  (Again, not by Obama.)  

              Therefore, Hillary must oppose waiving the rule, since Obama's said he'd be happy with a revote that didn't have that rule.  Q.E.D.

              by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:04:12 PM PDT

              •  Q.E.D.

                "provide a link"

                "It's true because I say it is. Q.E.D."

                Hilarious.

                by dconrad on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:01:50 PM PDT

      •  Clinton has blocked tons of proposals

        Exactly. Her attitude is, "either my way, or the highway".

        by William Domingo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM PDT

    •  Dawson Bell is a dubious news source

      This is the same dude who manufactured the "Dems buying iPods to every Michigan K12 student" story, contrary to what was actually said.  

      The reality is that putting it up for a vote would've just given Republicans more ammo, since it screwed up May school elections.  It didn't help that Hillary coming in like she was buying the election scared uncommitted Dems.  The unofficial headcount was -- 14 of 17 Democratic state senators were against.  

      by other72384 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:32:37 PM PDT

•  The Dem nomination process

  is a royal clusterfuck.  I'm disgusted.  In this area at least, the Rs are way smarter.

  by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:28:48 PM PDT

  •  bugscuffle, if it were arranged the way the GOP

    has it, Hillary would probably be the nominee.

    Don't worry. McCain is Lame.  We'll beat the pants off him and politely avert our gaze.

    by ksh01 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM PDT

    •  I'm not so certain of that. nt

      by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM PDT

      •  I'll put winner take all on all the states

        and get back to you with the math.  I think I'm right, but I'll do the math and get back to you.  Watch this comment....S'alright?

        by ksh01 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM PDT

        •  Supposing you're right,

          If HRC had sewed up the nom in February, we'd all now be saying how she's the cat's ass.

          by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM PDT

          •  well, I did the math

            even awarding all predicted victories to their predicted winners, the best I come up with is Clinton would be ahead, but not at the magic number due to -- wait for it -- FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.

            However, what I didn't figure into it was momentum because it requires more than just awarding winner take all and I don't have the energy to take those snap shots in time.

            But I got from applying winner take all is that Clinton would be over 1700 and Obama over 1400.

            Isn't that funny....I guess the it's easy for the GOP to just cut their delegations in half in a winner take all scenario.  A little harder to do if it's apportioned.

            And maybe she is the cat's ass, but in my house, the three of us agree that's not a particularly good thing.

            by ksh01 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM PDT

            •  LOL nt

              by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM PDT

          •  heh

            from context I'm guessing "the cat's ass" is a good thing, right?

            by bythesea on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:58:37 PM PDT

  •  Only if they win.

    If they don't win, being smart means squat.  (That said, I'm disgusted, too, and want her out of this now.  The body's dead; the head doesn't know it yet.)

    by GOTV on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:31:48 PM PDT

    •  The wheel's still turning,

      but the hamster is dead.

      by bugscuffle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

•  Its crazy

  the lies and distortions seem to come so easily, and they are swallowed so eagerly by our silly press.  I don't think Obama needs to make this a focus of an address, but I'll be he's got it tee'd up somewhere for later use.

  by huckleberry on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM PDT

•  Please...Lanny Davis wouldn't lie, would he?

  His stories seem every bit as real as the tooth fairy to me.

  by ford prefect 2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM PDT

  •  Watch out for that sniper, Lanny!

    Follow Sinbad into cover!

    by Anarchofascist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM PDT

•  Let HIllary yammer on.

  Every time she talks about "counting votes" and "Hearing voices" she cuts the legs out from under her own argument that the superdelegates should feel free to overturn the results of the voting, or that she can fairly "poach" pledged delegates.

  And the argument being made to people from other states that we've just GOT to give FL and MI screwed up contests a weight is a loser.

  by Inland on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM PDT

•  Does Obama think

  he can't win without Republicans voting in a democratic primary?  I think that maybe "blocking" is too strong a word, but I don't see any evidence that he helped remove any obstacles either.  If you are simply looking at the delegate or popular vote count, there's no reason for him to promote the re-vote.  But I think in the perception of many people, it is important that ALL the states have a say in the process.  So, the legitimacy of his nomination is in question as long as those state's delegates are not seated in a way that most people perceive as fair.  I am not sure what he could say in a speech that would convince people that he did not "block" the vote.  In this case, I think his actions would speak much louder than words!

  by sander60tx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM PDT

  •  ehhh, the Republicans were voting

    for Clinton.

    They'd rather face her then Obama in the general.

    by zic on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but it is Obama

      who wants the Republicans (who already voted in Jan.) to be able to vote in the second primary (re-vote).  

      by sander60tx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM PDT

      •  Yes, because that is where many of us

        Edwards/Obama supporters went.  He'd like his voters back.  why not?

        by dkmich on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM PDT

      •  Its about Independents, not Republicans

        Hillary wanted a re-do primary. Anyone who voted in the Republican primary would not be allowed to participate. This mostly affected Independents.  If you were a Michigan Independent and faced with a choice of voting in a contested Republican primary or voting in a Democratic Primary where Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot, which primary would you have voted in?

        by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM PDT

      •  I'M one of those "Republicans"

        Don't you get that?????  People who were Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Dodd, etc. supporters weren't allowed to vote for their candidate in Michigan.  THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED.  Even write-ins were banned.  So most of us voted in the Republican side instead, strategically.  Nearly every Obama and Edwards supporter I know did this.  

        What Clinton is arguing is "only people who voted for me the first time get to vote in the re-do."

        That's fascist, inexcusible crap.

        by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM PDT

  •  It's really simple

    He said he'd go along with what the DNC wanted.

    A caucus was the cheapest and most viable option.

    The Clinton campaign refused that.

    The Obama campaign said they wanted a primary to be able to include all voters that would have been able to vote back when the original vote was held.

    The MDP couldn't figure anything out.

    The end.

    The only person blocking anything for personal reasons in that entire series of events is the Clinton campaign.  Whether or not its reported as such or it's the CW are different topics.

    In any case, this thing will be settled in June, and Obama will seat both Fla and Michigan so everybody can feel good about themselves.

    The only reason Sen. Clinton is pressing this so hard, is to give herself the ILLUSION of viability.  In truth, she has none.  

    by RidleyGriff on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM PDT

    •  Clinton is actively trying to assure

      That Michigan and Florida go to McCain in the fall.  It is the only logical reason for her to push this crap.

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM PDT

      •  I actually disagree here

        Florida and Michigan voters knew that these elections wouldn't count at the time, so I don't know how much traction the "OH NOES!!!! OBAMA IS TEH DISENFRANCHIZOR!!" nonsense actually reflects any real sentiment on the ground in those two states.

        In either case, what happened with a primary vote doesn't change the fact that people in Florida and Michigan will have a choice between McCain and a Democrat (namely, Obama).  I don't think that, after the last 7 years, they are going to not vote out of spite because Hillary Clinton told them they shouldn't.

        It truly do think it's all white noise, because without Florida and Michigan existing as options, she has ZERO path to the nomination at this point, and with the MSM finally picking up on the math of it all, everybody knows it.  Hence her threat in the WaPo today, etc.

        As far as her long-view thinking... I'm starting to agree with the folks that think she's just trying to fill up her coffers as much as possible before pulling out...

        by RidleyGriff on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM PDT

        •  At least enough to pay her bills :)

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

          •  heheh.... ouch eom

            by RidleyGriff on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM PDT

•  The reason Hillary's campaign keeps

  talking about this is because it helps them raise money.  

  by msstaley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM PDT

•  If Hillary's mouth is moving

  she's lying.  Unbelievable.  I've been bitching about this particular lie for a couple weeks.  

  What the hell is the matter with the press anyway?  Do all the anchor people need to spent THAT much time on make-up that they can't fact check a damned thing?  

  by 57andFemale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM PDT

•  MI Dems: the Detroit "Lions" of politics

  If there is a more incompetent state Democratic Party than Michigan's, please tell me.

  After inflicting this train wreck of a "primary" on us, Mark Brewer and everyone on the State Central Committee ought to step down. And every elected official who backed this cockamamie idea (Carl Levin is the worst offender) ought to be censured.

  Seriously, the Michigan Democratic Party is as bad as the Detroit "Lions" football team.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM PDT

•  Just imagine....

  Barack having some issues with Hillary donors paying for a primary.  

  Doesn't that at the very least bother Hillary supporters?  Because I'm confused now.  I really am.  What democrat would propose such a preposterous idea and then huff and puff about Obama blocking the primary?  

  How in the world do you justify that?  

  by 57andFemale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM PDT

•  Some additional reasons

  Clinton insisted on a primary re-do. No other option was acceptable to her.

  The town clerks, who run the elections in Michigan, were very clear that there was no time left for a primary re-do before the June 10 deadline. And, in my opinion, the state legislature saw the clerks' issue as the biggest reason.

  A caucus was and still is entirely possible. It would be run by the MDP and require no involvement by the state.  Michigan has significant experience running caucuses.

  But, Hillary said absolutely NO. Given the choice between enfranchising voters and her own self interests, she chose her own self interests.

  by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:36 PM PDT

•  If Obama gives a speech on every item...

  That people bring up, he'll be giving speeches forever.  Race relations in the country is one thing; speeches on issues is one thing; I don't think this warrants a speech on its own.

  by BasharH on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM PDT

•  silence is golden

  I think that there are very few uncommitted outsiders (casual voters) who care about this, but if there are any, they hear the Clinton campaign whining (and don't know enough about the situation to know if she has a point). As long as the re-vote is off, and as long as it looks like the delegates won't be seated, or won't tip the balance, Obama has nothing to gain by feeding this fire.

  by theloniously on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM PDT

•  Minor quibble:

  Idiots blither.  Burns blister.

  by Anarchofascist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM PDT

  •  :) Good catch.

    by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM PDT

•  Obama needs to do a better job of

  engaging in this debate and framing the issues. It seems as though HRC has been very aggressive in faulting Obama for the demise of the do over in Michigan while Obama has been largely silent. She refused the caucus (even though a caucus can be structured like a primary) option and insisted that certain voters be disenfranchised under the approach her supporters put forward as the only acceptable option.

  And of course, it's kind of a scandal that the  powers-that-be in Michigan have gotten away with setting up a primary that was illegal under the DNC's rules and then refusing to fund a legal primary, proposing instead that it be funded by party fat cats!!

  by alba on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

•  Who moved up the primary

  knowing there would be a penalty

  by JonBarleycorn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM PDT

  •  The Dingles, Levin and Granholm

    were all behind moving the date up - they thought it would make Michigan more relevant to have an early voice in the primaries.  So - how's that working?

    by moose67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

    •  Right

      At least in Florida, we can argue that it was the Republicans' fault.  Not here in Michigan.  This was all us.  Oops.

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM PDT

•  Untrue

  Obama (like Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc.) honored the pledge they signed to not participate, and Clinton did not.

  Clinton didn't violate the pledge. Clinton didn't campaign in Michigan. It wasn't at all clear in January that the pledge required anyone to take their name off the ballot, and it still isn't clear now.

  But that's beside the point. All this arguing over who did what in January is killing us.

  Obama needs to give an address on this -- in Michigan, preferably -- and vehemently, publicly reject and denounce Clinton and the media for their continued refusal to tell the truth.

  Jesus Hussein Christ. No, no, no. Obama needs to pressure the party to work out a way to have a primary in Michigan.

  I got letters today from the DNC and half a dozen Democratic candidates I've given to in the past. I tore them all up and threw them in the trash.

  What a feckless, pathetic excuse for a political party.

  by dconrad on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM PDT