Obama Campaign Apparently Doesn't Want Democracy in Michigan

Negotiating tactic (4.00 / 4)

We're only hearing Brewer's view here. But as presented, the Obama camp is in the wrong (much as it pains this Obama zealot to say).

Hopefully it's just a negotiating tactic. It would be shameful...not to mention bad strategy for the Obama camp to become the roadblock now.

They also need to move Sen. Hunter to a less prominent role. I was not impressed with his performance on CNN last night. Seemed skiddish and unsure of himself. Methinks Buzz Thomas or Dennis Archer would be much better to have out in front.

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 23:58:52 PM UTC

If it is a negotiating tactic (4.00 / 6)

it's a horrible one and he needs to change course on this immediately or it will harm him with voters.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:18:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, game theory works best (0.00 / 0)

when both parties are following the same rules

---

by: kelster @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 20:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama's Position Needs to be Respected (2.50 / 2)

As a Clinton supporter, I feel that if Obama does not want a do-over election in Michigan, we shouldn't have one.  That actually would be moving the goal posts.  Of course, that undermines his argument not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates based on the January elections.  Obama can't just pretend Michigan and Florida don't exist.  The consequences are obvious to everyone.  There's no point in becoming the Democratic nominee in late August only to come in second place in November.  And the electoral math in November requires Obama to win four out of five states among Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  And that's assuming he's going to win New York and California because they normally go to the Democrat even though he was weak in both during the primary.

Obama's in a much tougher spot than many of his supporters realize.  He's got Michigan, Florida, and almost half the automatic delegates unresolved and leaning against him.  His last hope to secure the nomination is to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by at least 10 points.  If that doesn't happen, he's going to have a hard time convincing the skeptical yet uncommitted automatic delegates that he has what it takes to win in November.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:26:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ugh (4.00 / 3)

enough spin already.

This is about Michigan and the Michigan Democratic Party.  I don't give a flying rats ass about Obama and Hillary and their stategery.  

I wanna an election, is that so hard for folks to understand?

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:29:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I want an election too. (2.50 / 2)

Phil, I'd love for you to be able to vote for the runner-up candidate of your choice whoever that may be.  But I don't think it's fair to Obama to force a new election on him this late in the game even if it's simply because he doesn't like that Michigan caucuses are similar to our general elections.  Also, regarding Tupac Hunter, we need to realize he is a first term state senator who has been forced into the national media spotlight.  I doubt even Barack Obama would have done any better during his first term in the Illinois Senate just 10 short years ago.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:40:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

State Senators (0.00 / 0)

Hazen, give me a 1 if you must, but I still think it's unfair of you to say Obama should "move Sen. Hunter to a less prominent role" because you feel he seemed "skiddish and unsure of himself" in a single television interview.  On the contrary, I have found him to be a very eloquent and understand why the media usually always seeks him out first for a reaction from the Obama camp in Michigan on the national campaign.  Take a look at the You Tube clips of Sen. Hunter below compared to a state senator from Texas who's a spokesperson for Obama in that state.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:18:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Creating a delegate selection process in mid-stream (0.00 / 0)

It's hard NOT to make it skew toward one candidate or another, short of taking the voters out of it.

It doesn't help that the Republican side is decided, so there's much potential mischief.  Would anyone like to see Michigan Republicans decide who the Democratic candidate should be, not because they've had a serious conversion to Hillary or Obama and may think of voting for them in the general election, but because they want to prop up who they think is "most beatable"?  

Purely from a "Michigan Democrats" perspective, a non-primary style caucus probably makes the most sense to get the will of the Democrats.  Republicans en masse likely won't expose themselves to oodles of Democratic "propaganda" for hours.  But, quite independent of Obama versus Hillary's performance in such caucuses, state voters will object before it's not the primary-style one-person one-vote they know.  

Quite independently of what you think is appropriate, let's ask a simpler question -- what's not appropriate?  Whatever the process is, should people who already voted in those Republican primaries be eligible to participate?  

Fun fun fun fun fun...

---

by: China Mig @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:17:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The easy answer (4.00 / 1)

The easy answer would be to use the list of people voting on the Democratic ballot in the January 15 primary.  The Obama and Edwards campaigns, along with the MDP, did an excellent job of promoting the Uncommitted vote and consequently, we had record turnout even with only one major candidate on the ballot.  The people who voted on the Republican ticket to cause mischief were doing so against the direction of the MDP and all three major campaigns and helped to boost Republican turnout.  They have no right to complain if they can't re-vote as Democrats this time around.  The MDP could mail out ballots with stamped return envelopes to everyone on the January 15 Democratic list for under $1 million.  It could also have regional caucus sites around the state for people who wish to vote in person rather than by mail or people who can successfully claim they are on the list but didn't receive a ballot in the mail.  These physical locations would allow the caucus to comply with DNC rules.  The MDP could sell access to the list for $600,000.  If the Obama and Clinton campaigns each pay for list access it would pay for the entire caucus.  Most importantly, by using the January 15 list, it helps alleviate the criticism of those elections results being thrown out.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:46:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone who voted in the Republican primary (4.00 / 3)

should not be allowed to vote in the Democratic caucus. That is in the rules, and that is (one reason) why we do not have a secret ballot in our 'caucus' - so the votes of anyone who tries to vote in both can be backed out. We publicized this rule locally, in our newsletter and in the Kalamazoo Gazette. If anyone did not realize it, and voted in the R primary to mess with them, well, that's the breaks.

On the other hand, there were many long-term, loyal Democrats who did not vote on Jan. 15, because they were told, quite clearly (and correctly, as it turns out) that their vote would not count. These, and any others who did not vote in the R primary should be allowed to participate in the caucus, so long as they are willing to sign the statement that they are participating as a Democrat.

We know how to do a primary-style caucus. We have lots of veteran volunteers who could pick this up easily. We don't have any experience with Iowa-style. Now is not the time to get creative.

As a long-time Obama supporter, I'm troubled by what I'm hearing from his camp. I don't understand why he would or should oppose it. I'm hoping it's just some provision of one proposal, and not broad opposition to the idea of allowing MI to come into compliance. That's all I'll say for now.

---

by: memiller @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:41:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have SOME experience in that direction (4.00 / 2)

How did Gore win Michigan's delegates in 2000?  That was a closed caucus with limited places to vote, amidst much mail-in voting.  We got "creative".  

Also, how do the Democrats get the list of Republicans that can't vote?  There's an outstanding ACLU lawsuit pending on that particular matter, so I don't think the answer is quite as simple as "just give the Democrats a list of Republicans" (not that political pollsters don't sell such things as it is).

---

by: China Mig @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell it to Iowa, NH, Texas, Ohio (0.00 / 0)

I've been objecting to open primaries/caucus since the beginning.  I have republicans knocking out democratic candidates while democrats in other states have to wait for a say.  This is how this party has moved so far to the right.  Let me just say this.  IF I am not allowed to participate in a redo because I crossed over, then I'll just have to top off my primary vote for Romney with a vote for McCain.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:20:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 2004 caucus was by secret ballot. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:33:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a re-do (0.00 / 0)

If you only allow the people that voted in the beauty contest to vote in the new contest then all we are doing is creating an easy victory for Clinton and we won't solve the problem of Michigan Dems looking like Florida Republicans.

---

by: flivverking @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:19:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point (4.00 / 1)

and a good solution.

Anyone who voted in the January Republican primary is automatically barred from the Democratic re-do by the rules...

Sucks for all you mischief makers out there...but you need to break some eggs and stuff..

Think of it this way, you'll be sacrificing for the generation of grass roots activism!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:07:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Anyone who voted in the Republican Primary (4.00 / 2)

should not be allowed to vote" would include me. And I have no problem with that being enforced if that is what it take to hold a caucus. I did know that going in to the primary that I was taking a chance on not being able to vote in a later caucus. I think most Democrats who vote in the primary, if they were like me, are not all that hung up on who the Democratic nominee is. We do not see a big difference on where Clinton and Obama stand on the issues. That is why we opted to try and influence the republican outcome(or encourage Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate which was my reason). I think is much more important that Michigan's vote(and Florida's) count than it is for me to vote in another primary or a caucus. If Michigan and Florida do not get to partake in the convention we are in big trouble in November.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

phil, I wanted a real election in February (0.00 / 0)

I agree fully that what Obama and Clinton want is not the most important thing. I don't care less what their campaign strategies are. What I care about is that Michiganizns should have had the chance to vote in an election that mattered.

The MDP chose to not give us that option. They knew the penalties for breaking national party rules, and went ahead with the early primary anyway.

Millions of dollars may be spent on this to save a little face for Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell. Millions of dollars that could be much better spent.

In the meantime, the GOP laughs and laughs. Mitt Romney still has his Romney for President Headquarters sign up in Farmington Hills... obviously trying to make a statement of what a great VP pick he'd be. The GOP is organizing in MI, and the MDP is fumbling badly, chasing our tails.

It's too late for a do-over. It's not fair to allow a state that royally screwed up to get to play kingmaker late in the process. MDP screwed us knowingly, and they shouldn't be rewarded for their behavior. Yes, us voters were screwed by their bad decision in January, but the entire Democratic party presence will be even more screwed if we waste millions on fighting each other instead of getting organized to support whomever wins the nomination.

p.s. have you picked a second choice? I haven't. I really don't know which candidate I'd pick... guess I can be satisfied with either of them.  

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:10:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Key words: "as presented" (0.00 / 0)

We don't know the full story here or what anyone's being asked to agree to.

To be honest I could relate to this being strategic thinking on Obama's campaign and not really take issue with it if it meant he was our candidate in the end.

But hey, that's just me.  :-)

Julie-no longer neutral on the primary contest

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 13:31:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

uh-oh (4.00 / 3)

I am hoping you are not voicing the position of your preferred candidate. It wouldn't be good for the candidate of hope and change to do an ends justifies the means approach to a possible Michigan do-over. Especially if all other parties agree to it and funding is found from donations. If he becomes the candidate by this method are you really ok with it?

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 13:58:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not entirely (4.00 / 2)

As I may have mentioned before, I am pretty politically involved across a broad region.  Additionally I field all the calls that come in when our Dem HQ is closed and boy have I been getting lots of calls!  I even got a call from someone who's currently in California but lives in my Cong. District.  To a person they are all calling about this primary debacle and they are angry.  They don't want to see this nomination won by swaying of super-delegates or do-overs in MI to get (whoever) a better result.  One caller yesterday claimed to be speaking for her friends too when she said they would be so disgusted by such manipulation they'd leave the party and become Indies, possibly even vote McCain!  While I didn't take issue with her on that comment by trying to disabuse her of the notion, because it is likely by the end of the GE tempers would cool and better choices made, I see such remarks are a good reflection of the feelings "out there".  I see this as a cause for great concern, certainly worthy of serious consideration.  

I don't have any problem with no do-over and our delegates getting seated as currently allotted (and I do believe our delegation would be seated).  The strategy here could be to do just that; leaving the campaigns free to focus on the scheduled up-coming states and then, during the GE, really work MI (which would benefit our candidates up and down the ballot all over the state).

That works for me.

Julie  

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:59:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boy howdy, (4.00 / 2)

I'll bet you are getting a ton of calls! I've been talking with our phone volunteers, but AFAIK no one gets the calls forwarded when the office is closed.

You are a saint.

---

by: memiller @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:19:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are very kind (4.00 / 1)

"Saint"?  Well there's a new one for the things-I've-been-called list!  lol

In reality, Traverse City is one of the only year-'round offices within a very large area so it is our goal for someone to "be there" when folks call.  My county chair is out of town, our office manager does enough as it is and so I do my bit.  Don't get me wrong, within a month or so it will be someone else's turn to have their number on that machine.  ;-)

Cheers,
Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 15:21:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Manistee (4.00 / 1)

has a year round office as well. Although the winter is pretty darn quiet downtown.  

"Kill the headlights and put it in neutral..."

---

by: AikoAdam @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 16:04:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Manistee is a shining light in the darkness (4.00 / 2)

Thank the gods.

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 22:03:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democracy - the supreme rule (4.00 / 1)

To me, it doesn't matter how many Obama supporters "feign" outrage over a do-over, our democracy assures the right for citizens to vote. All of this discussion about rules and who prefers what is just a bunch of garbage. None of these so-called rules supercedes our fundamental right as Americans.

Remember, there were once rules denying women the right to vote, rules denying blacks the right to vote, rules forcing literacy tests and rules declaring you couldn't vote unless you were a landowner. All of these rules were eventually struck down because decent, civil minded people protested - and kept on protesting.

The DNC really needs to find some other way to "punish" these states that doesn't violate our basic liberties. The fact that many liberals and blacks are being the most vocal in support of disenfranchising people's vote (because THIS time it is most convenient for our candidate) is hypocrisy in the extreme. We should be ashamed of ourselves!

"The vote" is a human right. It is seen as an American right. In a democracy there is nothing more fundamental than having the right to vote...

It's time to stand up and insure every American's right to vote to have that vote fully protected and to have it fairly counted." - Jesse Jackson (February 6, 2006)

Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the back of the poor. People who don't have lobbyists or clout.

---

by: yvette248 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 23:05:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Help me out here (0.00 / 0)

Hard for me to tell who it is you're upset with, well besides the Obama supporters who you claim are all "veigning" outrage.  Those who are against a do-over?

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:01:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep (4.00 / 2)

From what I can see, they are one and the same.

Obama doesn't want a do-over, so I can see him telling his people to start complaining loudly against a do-over the same way he had his people start the "grassroots movement" to vote uncommitted.

Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the back of the poor. People who don't have lobbyists or clout.

---

by: yvette248 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:26:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You need to stop seeing the world (4.00 / 2)

in black and white.

I voted uncommitted and I did so because I was protesting the Potemkin election because it was 1) disenfranchising the voters of Michigan, 2) hurting the grass roots and 3) a really stupid idea, that in retrospect looks to be confirmed...

Kinda like those who said maybe we shouldn't go into Iraq...look how that turned out.

Now I support a do-over because of the same reasons.

Nowhere in my calculations did a single candidate come up.

Chill out and take it down a notch or you'll burn yourself out before we even get to the convention.

There isn't any real difference between these two candidates and their supporters need to stop giving the rest of us pains in the asses.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:14:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

False assumptions (4.00 / 2)

I only became pissed when I read Obama saying he would not support a do-over campaign in Michigan. If he thinks he can win his way into the White House by circumventing my right to vote, he hasn't even begun to fill the wrath of my anger.

Further, this is SO not about being a Hillary supporter. This is about another Bush trying to get elected without counting everyone's vote. You can't be angry when one candidate does it and not angry when another candidate does it. If its wrong, its wrong for everybody.

Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the back of the poor. People who don't have lobbyists or clout.

---

by: yvette248 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 19:19:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take them at face value (4.00 / 1)

These aren't hard-core operatives who are calling me.  These are people who are interested in what's going on, don't fully understand it and, most importantly, are looking for answers and reassurance where they can find it.  

I don't think of them as "operatives" or anyone's "people", I think of them as "voters".  

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 14:40:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The United States is a republic (4.00 / 1)

Find the word "democracy" in the U.S. Constitution.   We achieve "republic" by being a nation of laws, not a nation where a simple majority enables all.  We have processes by which laws can be changed, precisely so we don't have 51% screwing 49%, or 99% screwing the 1%.  Sometimes, they don't work as well as they should, but it's a constant process.

There are only a few laws that apply to political party selection, mostly pertaining to anti-discrimination.  Apart from that, the parties can do whatever they damn well want (and we can vote however we damn well want as a consequence).  You get a vote because the party rules say you get a vote, not because it's your "fundamental right as an American".

We have both a tradition of laws and a tradition of some democratic practices, and we try to make both work side by side.  On a much smaller scale, that's exactly what's going on with Michigan's 2008 Democratic delegate selection.  

---

by: China Mig @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 15:51:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Obama blocks our votes from counting (4.00 / 4)

be it January votes or votes in a do over, then good luck to him winning Michigan in November. Can't see it happening.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:34:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The voters of Michigan (4.00 / 1)

aren't even going to remember any of this come November.

Many of them now are seeing the news and saying "we had a primary in January."

Voters are going to care about 1) the economy, 2) health care and 3) Iraq come November...

They aren't going to give a damn about anything else...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:16:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some voters might feel that way (4.00 / 2)

but certainly not all of them. And I think it will be close enough in Michigan and certainly Florida that it will not take many Democrats not voting Democratic to throw the election to McCain. Some independents will also be influenced. But the real problem will be from the hard core activists who will not be knocking on doors, contributing $, making phone call, and doing GOTV. If Obama blocks the do over by not agreeing to a format then goes on to win the nomination he will lose an even bigger number of votes. The average voter may not have a long memory but strongly committed activist do and if they are shut out they will lose a lot of that commitment.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WASHINGTON -- The office of Senator Carl Levin released the following statement today: (4.00 / 1)

 

Michigan Democrats have for years argued against the unfair and irrational system in which New Hampshire and Iowa almost always have a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process.  A DNC commission reviewed the system and recommended a new sequence for 2008 in which New Hampshire would hold the third nomination contest.  It was only after New Hampshire indicated its intention to violate the new sequence -- and the DNC's failure to enforce its own rules in light of New Hampshire's violation of those rules -- that Michigan decided it would move up its primary to January 15.  The DNC subsequently voted to strip Michigan of its convention delegates.

Senator Levin was asked to join with Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and DNC Member Debbie Dingell to work with the DNC, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in an attempt to resolve the Michigan delegate dispute.  

Senator Levin doesn't see at this time a practical and fair way to hold a "do-over" election in Michigan given the immense financial and logistical hurdles, and in any event believes that a change in course would require acceptance by both candidates.

Unless an agreement is reached before the Democratic National Convention in August, the issue would be addressed by the Democratic Convention Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee's recommendation would be subject to an appeal to the full Convention.

The current course is for delegates allocated to Michigan's congressional districts to be selected at district conventions on March 29 based on the proportion of the January 15 primary vote in each district tallied for Senator Clinton or "uncommitted."  The remaining pledged delegates will be selected at a Michigan Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting on May 17 based on the statewide election results

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:06:52 AM UTC

what a b00b (0.00 / 0)

Carl should get up from his nap more often and realize that this isn't the year to rail against some "hugely disproportionate impact" that Iowa and New Hampshire have on "our presidential nominating process."

Geez, does this guy even realize he's a patsie for Jen and Hill?

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:37:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is rich (2.00 / 2)

First, Gov. Granholm, a Clinton endorser, wanted to seat the delegates as is, based on an election that would have embarrassed Vladimir Putin. This after she pushed for breaking the DNC rules that Michigan representatives to the DNC agreed to along time ago.

The fact is Michiganders are going to have to pay for her mistake.

---

by: ypsi-blue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:32:42 PM UTC

Brady's Wrong on 2 obvious points (0.00 / 0)

Wow. I personally have nothing against "Brady" but he/she is DEAD WRONG on 2 points.

1) "Brady" wrote:

And the electoral math in November requires Obama to win four out of five states among Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

Obama ONLY NEEDS MI, PA and OH. (3 out of 5--NOT 4 out of 5) Obama, or Hillary, could lose both MO and FL and get to 270+ (That is simply the John Kerry map + Ohio).

Any contention that a Democrartic nominee MUST WIN 4 of the 5 named states is absurd and mis-informed.

(Besides, the Dem. nominee will carry MIchigan in November whether the delegates are seated or not, anybody who disputes this is, simply, misguided and mis-informed.)

2) "Brady" wrote

The easy answer would be to use the list of people voting on the Democratic ballot in the January 15 primary.

Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. Not only is that NOT "the easy answer", it would serve as a pathetic attempt to validate the percentages in the disputed Jan. 15th vote.

Obviously, the only REAL "easy answer" is to disqualify all those who voted in the GOP primary from the Dem. do-over.

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 16:58:50 PM UTC

From someone who is misguided and mis-informed (0.00 / 0)

Apparently you think that Michigan is in the bag for the Democrats. I could not disagree more. If George W Bush could take 49% of the vote here in 2004 against a very unified Michigan Democratic Party then I give John McCain a much better chance to take Michigan against a very divided, very angry group of voters and party activists who will be too alienated to work for a Obama or Clinton victory.

Does anyone else really think that it's in the bag for Democrats in Michigan  no matter what happens with our delegates?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:17:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read in the Nation (4.00 / 2)

That Dean doesn't want the campaign to go past April, so we should, finally, have a DNC-sanctioned election (the so-called "Do Over Caucus") and it'd better be in April (not this silly June date I'm hearing or Luke's idea of August 5).

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 17:14:40 PM UTC

The earlier the better (4.00 / 1)

And as soon as possible, as far as I'm concerned.

---

by: Brady @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 17:37:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A do-over that will choose delegates to a state convention. (0.00 / 0)

Another round of congressional district conventions doesn't see too likely.  

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 18:57:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]