Clinton to use Michigan as tool of brinksmanship?

Yup, that about sizes it up. (4.00 / 5)

The primary was illegal in it's conception (since it included giving the voter list to 2 private organizations for free while charging everyone else).

The primary was in direct violation of DNC rules, which were agreed upon by the entire Michigan delegation (as well as Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's top advisers, and Terry McAuliffe, former DNC Chair (and another one of Hillary's top advisers...right up until AFTER they realized they might lose.)

The primary was shunned by Hillary Clinton herself, who agreed not to campaign or advertise here...right up until AFTER she realized she might lose.

The primary didn't include one of the only two candidates who is relevant at this juncture.

The primary disenfranchised thousands or even millions of people who were told repeatedly by BOTH campaigns beforehand that it would be meaningless.

And, as Eric notes, the primary, legally speaking, NEVER TOOK PLACE anyway.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:10:52 PM UTC

Good summary. (4.00 / 1)

This is truly a nightmare.

Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:38:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An important distinction... (4.00 / 2)

The primary disenfranchised thousands or even millions of people who were told repeatedly by BOTH campaigns beforehand that it would be meaningless.

I voted in the Republican primary because I thought it a joke that my choices were Hillary Clinton or Someone Other than Hillary (uncommitted).

The argument that seating our delegation now, as the January results stand, lets our voices be heard in Denver is an insult to our collective intelligence.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:50:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If as you say (4.00 / 1)

the primary, legally speaking, NEVER TOOK PLACE anyway.

Does that mean the Republican primary never took place either? Didn't the same rules apply to both Parties?

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:01:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good question, although on the Republican side it wouldn't make any difference anyway... (0.00 / 0)

...since Romney won the GOP primary, but McCain is getting the nomination.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:47:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the Republicans did count it (0.00 / 0)

they went halfsies but they did count it. And they did not and do not have the mess on their hands that we do.  

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:19:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, the judge did not make a ruling on the issue of severability (0.00 / 0)

So its disingenuous and inaccurate to state that the primary never took place.

The Court agrees that the issue of severability is beyond the scope of the claims raised by Plaintiffs in this motion.  Accordingly, the Court makes no ruling regarding the constitutional validity of the remainder of PA 52.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The court had no choice (0.00 / 0)

It's written right into the law.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except that it didn't void the results of the primary, nor did the Court (0.00 / 0)

say that  new primary was needed.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Irrelevant (4.00 / 1)

No judge is going to do this after-the-fact.

On the other hand, two lower courts threw out the law based on clear legislative intent that if part of it was found illegal that the entire thing is.

You may be able to point to numbers and say that the primary took place and was Michigan's only primary.  On the other hand, the question is whether those numbers reflect the will of Michigan's Democratic voters.  They don't, and attempting to do so -- in the face of everything that's resulted from that primary -- is laughable.

If you see Hillary today, please pass along my best wishes and also that I wish she'd stop using something that's tormented our state for half a year purely for her own benefit.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he won't remember (4.00 / 4)

at least my one-year-old son, who I brought with me to the polls that evening, won't have any memory of this disaster being the first election he was a part of.

i know i wish i could forget all about it.

put this down in history next to the two "fab five" trips to the ncaa finals that didn't happen either.  

Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
The PhiKapBlog

---

by: phikapbob @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 19:24:59 PM UTC

I was at both of those Fab Five trips to the NCAA finals (4.00 / 1)

Since the games don't count, shouldn't I get my money back from the NCAA, Northwest Airlines, and the hotels I stayed at? I won't ask the bars to refund my beer tab because I would have watched the game at a sports bar back home.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:39:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just Think (4.00 / 5)

The MDP wanted a more important role in the primary process and moved the date up.  Just think how important it would be if they had moved it back to, say, June 3.

---

by: oldwarden @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 19:38:46 PM UTC

you can thank obama for stalling on a re-vote (4.00 / 2)

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:19:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once more for those slow on the uptake (2.50 / 2)

A new law to authorize a June Primary would never have passed with immediate effect, since that would have required a MINIMUM of 16 House Republicans and 9 Senate Republicans to cross over (assuming 100% Democratic legislator support) and vote for a bill that would solely benefit Democrats.

Bottom line. It was never gonna happen.

You can thank the Clinton people for pushing the totally disingenuous notion that a legislative solution was EVER possible, which ruined the chance to hold a party-controlled caucus.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 15:35:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, let me get something straight... (4.00 / 1)

You guys side with the Party ("It's a private organization!") when it comes to not seating Michigan's delegates... but oppose the Party when Chairman Brewer says "That election is on the history books, and it doesn't disappear because the law that created it is off the books."

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:15:41 PM UTC

Stop. Just stop. (4.00 / 3)

Yes, of course the state PHYSICALLY held an event in January at which ballots were printed, some voters attended and filled in bubbles and fed them into a machine. No one is denying that it existed "on the molecular level" (to paraphrase Jon Stewart).

What has been judged here is the legality of said event, and the conclusion was that it has no legal validity. The DNC has also declared that it has no delegate validity due to it not meeting the criteria that the DNC itself set out for those delegates to vote at the convention.

Any state party can physically hold any sort of contest they want at any time they choose, but the DNC has the final word as to which of those contests are valid for the purpose of choosing a nominee.

I've signed onto emptywheel's proposal out of a sense of "if it'll get the Clinton campaign to finally let it go, fine", not because I feel the argument has any reasonable validity. It's akin to caving into a child who keeps crying until you give them a cookie; perhaps the kid doesn't deserve a cookie at all, but sometimes you just roll your eyes and say "fine, TAKE the cookie, sheesh!"

Even the best parents occasionally cave to their child's demands, and the Clinton campaign is being particularly bratty lately. (And yes, I'm being very careful to specify the campaign, not any specific supporters, who vary in their maturity level, as do Obama supporters).

---

by: Brainwrap @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:29:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm tired of people telling me what to do (0.00 / 0)

So if you could kindly please stop.

As I've indicated above, the judge made no ruling on the issue of severability, and therefore, the assertions you are trying to make about the "legality' of said event are innacurate.

Additionally, the DNC RB&C has made a ruling, but, part of "the process" includes challenges to rulings, especially when a ruling is not in compliance with the DNC's Charter of actual bylaws (as is the case).

The DNC RB&C has made a ruling, but that ruling is certainly not final, can be reversed at the Spring meeting, or can even be reversed at the credentials committee meeting at the convention.  I think we should allow this process to work its way out, as intendended, and not attempt to solve this in backroom deals as the Obama campaign favors.

If you give the child a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because the process will be played without (4.00 / 1)

any games?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 17:51:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our non-election (4.00 / 1)

While I supported (and still do) the idea of Michigan trying to shake up the old order of who goes first in primaries...I DO NOT support the idea of Hillary trying to game the system when she is clearly behind.  Her attitude of winning at all costs means I will never support her even if she does manage to steal the nomination.  I voted in the Dem primary MAINLY to cast an anti-Hillary vote.  Now I hear talk that even uncommitted delegates may be given to her!?!  If that happens then the (so-called) democratic party will lose my support for any and all "party" functions/fund-raisings/etc.

---

by: GLDNRULE @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:30:21 PM UTC

Except none of this is new (0.00 / 0)

Even her statement from last October about why she stayed on the ballot implies her long-term concern for the way removing Michigan's delegates will affect Democratic chances in the general.

HRC, Feb. 2008:

...I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

Hillary, January 2008:

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.

And from Don Fowler & Carl Levin last December:

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement: "The threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat. They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs."

Why is the Obama campaign so afraid of letting the process play out?  This is all a part of "the process"... what was the rules committee created for?

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:33:24 PM UTC

Oops (4.00 / 2)

You totally forgot the part where Hillary said Michigan "won't count for anything."

Michigan didn't start to count until Hillary learned to count.

---

by: SonicT @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:40:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*sporfle* (3.00 / 3)

If Hillary knew how to count, she would've realized that there were only 22 primaries on Super Tuesday, and that 22 is less than half of 50 (or 50+ if you count PR, Guam, American Samoa, Dems Abroad, etc.), and she wouldn't be in this position in the first place. If Hillary knew how to count, she'd realize that she's down ~130 delegates and that Barack Obama would have to literally stop campaigning in order for her to win at this point. If Hillary knew how to count, she'd realize that the $25 I'll save in the gas tax boondoggle doesn't mean squat.  

I could keep going. Point is, Hillary's not exactly a numbers kinda gal.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:48:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, she did just say that she doesn't "put her lot in with economists"... (4.00 / 2)

...when it comes to judging the financial impact that the gas tax "holiday" would have on the nation or individuals.

Kind of makes me wonder whether she "puts her lot with doctors & nurses" when it comes to healthcare, or whether she "puts her lot with physicists" when it comes to nuclear power.

Scary. I think we've had enough of presidents who refuse to listen to the counsel of those who actually know what they're talking about.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about looking at her full quote from that interview (0.00 / 0)

for the context in which she said that.  She was speaking to the fact that the DNC RB&C would be disqualifying the delegation, and that under such an interpretation, the primary would not allocate delegates.  But she made very clear her belief that Democrats would have to figure something out in order to prevent losing ground to the Republicans in November.  We can do this now, through the challenges process of the DNC and allowing the process to work itself out.

But of course its easier (and rather Republican) to lift things out of context to make your point.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:14:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you call it (4.00 / 1)

when you limit your search at a specific time frame to make your point?

hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, whether you can see it or not.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 17:54:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Election Not Voided (4.00 / 7)

I am the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit which successfully challenged the Michigan primary law.  I am also an Obama supporter.  As much as I disagree with Hillary Clinton's attempts to change the rules and have the rule-violating primary count in the allocation of delegates, I have to disagree with some of Clinton's critics.  The judge's decision did not, in any way, shape or form invalidate the January 15th primary or vacate its results.  The judge's opinion makes that absolutely clear.   Yes, the entire law has now been struck down, but that has no retroactive effect on the primary and its results.  We Obama supporters can certainly argue that the primary should not count, because it violated DNC rules.  We cannot legitimately argue that the primary, as either a factual, or a legal matter, didn't occur.  It did.  The court decision did not change that.

Tom Wieder, Attorney-at-Law
Ann Arbor

---

by: Twieder @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:11:49 PM UTC

If this is the case, I stand corrected on that point. (4.00 / 2)

Assuming this is true, I hereby eat that amount of crow.

Everything else I said still stands, however.

For the record, I do agree with PhilGoBlue's proposal that we find some way of pulling off a fair do-over after all, even this late in the game.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:22:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now a non-binding primary (2.50 / 2)

Yes, Tom, but the "without effect" language made the primary results not "binding".

As another attorney of my acquaintance noted, the convention Rules are rather comprehensive. Apparently, this is not the first time in party history that there have been problematic primaries.

The Rules provide that when a primary is not binding, the attendance at district-level conventions is used to determine the proportion of delegates.

Since the Clinton forces were frequently outnumbered 2:1 (as much as 6:1 in some districts), the delegates should be reallocated. There's already specific Rules on setting up a committee for handling that assignment.

---

by: William Allen Simpson @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 23:21:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From the DNC 2008 delegate selection rules: (0.00 / 0)

13. FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES
A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.

I guess it depends on what is meant by 'binding'. Reading it naively, I previously assumed this meant as opposed to a planned 'beauty contest' primary - which this was not, the plan was to use the results. Do you have any source that defines 'not binding' as 'found by a court to be unconstitutional'?

---

by: memiller @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:41:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whether it is binding depends on the Delegate Selection Plan (4.00 / 1)

And the plan currently on file with the DNC has the delegate selection tied to the results of the January 15th primary, or more correctly, delegate selection is bound to those results.

The rule you cite is more a reference to states such as Washington, where there were both caucuses and a primary (a potential challenge to the results of these caucuses could be that turnout in the primary far exceeded that of the caucuses in terms of # and diversity).

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It might be better to actually cite this fictional plan (2.50 / 2)

... rather than making it up.

The only submitted plan that used the Jan 15th results was rejected.  [DNC RBC Minutes of December 1, 2007, pp 73-74]

And the reply to Mark is, yes, of course.

---

by: William Allen Simpson @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The rules of the convention allow for the petitioning for reinstatement of the delegate (4.00 / 1)

What I meant to say is that the plan officially adopted by the Michigan Democratic Party binds delegate selection to the primary.  It would be wrong to change this, ex post facto.  Moreover, the rules allow for challenges to the December 2007 ruling which rejected the MDP's Delegate Selection Plan.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can see why the plaintiffs would have a vested interest in arguing this... (4.00 / 1)

After all, Mark Brewer blamed the ACLU's lawsuit for preventing the state from being able to hold a do-over (can't access the voter lists, can't make sure the re-do is fair, he said).

On the other hand, the legislative intent was written right into the end of the law.  If part of it is struck down, all of it is struck down.  And, if the law that authorized the election was struck down (which it was), then it simply makes it much more clear that what took place in January was not the voice of Michigan's people ... unless Hillary Clinton thinks that Michigan Democrats wish their voice to be expressed through elections authorized by illegal laws.

My gut tells me that the reason why everyone is kind of glossing over this huge after-the-fact problem (mostly, because it means the state is footing the bill for an illegal election) is because untangling it at this point would be ... I don't know, I don't think anyone really wants to dive into that.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:47:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brewer's credibility stands at absolute zero (4.00 / 1)

His handling of the January 15 Train Wreck Primary was ineffectual at best, disingenuous at worst. He deserves an awful lot of the blame for making Michigan a national electoral joke.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except that the judge did not make a ruling on severability (4.00 / 1)

The court made no ruling on the constitutional validity of the severability clause.

Moreover, the judge did not make unconstitutional the primary, but rather the release of the voter lists.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is simply incorrect (4.00 / 3)

I don't want to participate in the two-sided delusional, cool aid drinking contest that this has become.

But, the fact that the voter lists cannot become private property owned by our parties does not invalidate the primary.  Period.

Now, both sides can roll in the mud.  Arugula-eating-Obamadrones can swear that one candidate pulling his name off of the ballot somehow means that the other candidate is bad.  Sure.  Those who favor a girl with newfound fondness for cheap whiskey can swear that their girl didn't waffle on MI.  I don't care.  

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good grief (4.00 / 2)

The primary was invalidated the moment the ink dried on the legislation authorizing it.

But, based on clear language and intent of the Legislature, the entire law is thrown out if part of it is found to be illegal.  Part of it was, so the entire law is tossed.

The point, of course, is whether the January primary reflects the will of the people of Michigan.  It doesn't, and one camp's use of those to bolster their fading case for the nomination is a case of using this state, deeply divided over its primary, as a tool for their own agenda.

Wishing that the one candidate would stop doing that is not a case of drinking someone's Kool-Aid, especially since I'd be making this exact same argument if the other candidate were guilty of doing it.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:46:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm obviously not going to convince you, but (4.00 / 2)

Legislators do not write judgments; judges do.  This judgment did not overturn the election.  Legislators write all sorts of goofy shit that is over some of their heads.

We don't know if the primary reflects the will of the people, but it might have.  We don't know because:

(1) two major candidates pulled their name off of the ballot - because they were convinced that they would lose;

(2) one of those major candidates then ran a well-financed campaign for "uncommitted";

(3) the other major candidate ran an unfunded but labor-supported campaign for "uncommitted";

(4) in all honesty, none of these primaries necessarily reflect the will of the people because all of them are snapshots in time, heavily contingent on the voters' belief that the candidate will remain "viable"; and

(5) we were denied a "redo" in large part because one of the major candidates remained convinced that his early analysis (he couldn't win here) was accurate, and therefore made sure there was no redo - I know it was more complicated, but the previous statement is accurate.

So, what do we have?  We have HRC winning a blue collar state by 10%.  That is in keeping with other results in this primary.  Remember when our result was ridiculous because Obama lost by such a large margin?

Now, I've been sucked back into this damn thing! (cue Godfather music)  Let's just draft Gephardt damn it!  And Bonior for VP.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 13:04:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, you're not going to convince me... (4.00 / 1)

...mostly because I'm not arguing that a judge overturned the results.  I'm arguing that one of the two candidates left should stop making use of an election that has tormented this state for the last half year to her own benefit.

Of course the judge can't wave a magic ruling wand and make January's results go away.  No one has argued as such.  The election was held, the votes were counted, and the results exist in such places as CNN's election Web site.

And, of course, judges issue rulings and sometimes things legislators write make no sense.  That is not the case here, where a judge apparently decided after-the-fact not to make an even bigger mess (this, too, happens all the time).  The inseverability clause made plenty of legal sense to the state's court system, which decided at two lower levels that lawmakers had spoken out of their collective hinder-ends found the inseverability clause sensible enough to invoke it.  I also give you various people who, while this was working its way through the state court system, said, "I really wish they hadn't added that non-severability clause."

As to the question of will of the people ... very true.  We all know that January's primary didn't reflect the will of Michigan's voters for a great many reasons.  One of the candidates, however, is saying that it did and ... surprise, surprise ... that we liked her the best.  I myself have been arguing for half a year that the primary was a farce in the making and its results a tragic joke the bill for which the state's taxpayers got socked with, so I don't see why anyone should take it as me drinking anyone's Kool-Aid to continue saying so.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 13:41:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who is "we"? (4.00 / 1)

I don't accept that the primary didn't reflect the will of the people.  I think it is open to honest disagreement.  Its not obvious to me that HRC's 55% win is not reflective of an outcome with Obama's name on the ballot.

Also, I think it is open to disagreement primarily (big fat pun) because of Obama's actions, not HRC's.  I don't think anyone gave a rat's ass about the DNC's rules, or our inevitable punishment.  Voters just aren't that in tune with the process.  So, I don't buy the "it shouldn't count because we in blogosphere knew about Dean's threats".  Millions voted.  When 10,000 votes were cast in Wyoming (or some damn western red state) we pretended that was important.  

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 13:52:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rewriting history (4.00 / 2)

I realize we have a serious, collective problem with short-term memory loss in this country, but let's not pretend that the blogosphere is the only place where the Michigan primary was written off as a joke.  Aside from our role as national freak show, the national media wrote off the Michigan Democratic primary, instead focusing their efforts on the Republicans.  The night of the primary, as our results were coming in, the networks and basically everyone else was paying attention to a debate in Nevada.

Also, if you wish your argument that the results are the collective voice of Michigan, as Hillary has argued, you should probably also avoid arguing in favor of a re-do.  It tends to call into question your sincerity.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 14:14:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet, millions voted (4.00 / 1)

When millions vote, I don't see that as a write-off.  At a minimum, they didn't see it that way.

The national media?  Gosh, they're surely neutral in this primary, huh?  If the national media are directly relevant to reality, then we must be stuck in a Bradbury novel.

My sincerity?  I'm not arguing in favor of anything other than that the issue is debatable.  A vote took place, millions participated, and the result is in keeping with the other results in the primary season.  If their is doubt, it was caused by Obama, and therefore, it should be construed against him, not HRC.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 14:33:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here we go again... (4.00 / 1)

You're not really supporting someone, but the blame all happens to fall on Obama's shoulders and those of his supporters.  Also, the fact that the nation's media wrote off the Michigan primary isn't because it was between Hillary (who, of course, had the support of the Democratic establishment) and To Be Decided Later, but because they were in love with Obama.  That would explain the love fest they threw for Hillary after her teak-soaked speech won her New Hampshire and Howard Fineman declared on MSNBC that what the Granite State voters were really after was making the process longer.

Doubt in the validity of the primary was sewn all along -- from the day of the vote to the moment the state Supreme Court overturned two lower courts on the Grebner lawsuit the day before Thanksgiving and going right back to the day when the state Legislature ratified the belief that because the Democratic nominee has to win Michigan that we can do whatever the hell we want in defiance of the rules.

I at least am honest enough to acknowledge that blame falls basically everywhere regarding this mess, which is why I sincerely wish Hillary Clinton would stop trying to exploit it to keep her candidacy from totally fading away.  It makes me feel like a child being used as a weapon by one parent against the other in divorce proceedings.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 14:52:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truce. (4.00 / 1)

No, I'm not secretly supporting someone.  I just dislike Obama more than I dislike HRC, which my posts generally reflect.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 14:58:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eric, do you really see Clinton as (0.00 / 0)

totally fading away? After her win in Indiana tonight I'm afraid she isn't going anywhere just yet. Could she use the slight gain she would get from Michigan. Of course. But even without it I do not think she is fading away by any means. If the super delegates would break strongly for Obama then I would agree with you. Otherwise I see her as hanging tough, right up to the convention unfortunately.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you very much! (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate this, because I have continued to say this (and have even quoted the ruling) but no one listens...

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

democracy can still solve this problem (0.00 / 0)

It's 5 May, I think we have until 10 June to have a real selection of delegates.  Something, anything, can still be put together in a month.  It'll cost money and be a headache for a lot of people, but it is still feasable, but it won't be in about a week.

But Obama has to be willing to go along, and though I agree with your feelings on Hillary, it should be noted that Obama (through Hunter and Thomas) is using Michigan to try to run out the clock by disenfranchizing all of us.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:12:24 PM UTC

HRC has become the Leona Helmsley of politics (2.50 / 2)

Helmsley, the late, unlamented Queen of Mean, once said that paying taxes was for the "little people." Evidently, Hillary Clinton has exactly the same attitude toward playing by the rules.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:37:05 PM UTC

yuk (4.00 / 1)

whatever happened to that much vaunted new politics?

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 22:18:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New Politics (4.00 / 1)

Unfortunately, there are those on the left who are every bit as closed minded as many on the right.  There are those who fail to realize that being a Democrat goes well beyond one's position on particular policy issues.  There are those who's definition of liberalism is based on the failures of the past 40 years rather than the many accomplishments of the 200 years before that.

---

by: Brady @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:38:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please elaborate (4.00 / 2)

You're using so broad a brush that the model isn't available at Lowe's or Home Depot. You have to mail-order it from an industrial supply catalog.

Kindly define "the left", "being a Democrat", "liberalism", "the failures of the past 40 years" (that ought to be rich), and "the many accomplishments of the 200 years before that" (ditto).

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

read my post on "the rules" (0.00 / 0)

for a little perspective.

It's funny how a lot of Democrats begin sounding like Katherine Harris in 2000 when she cited "the rules," when she was simply referring to her own interpretation of them.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It never ends! (4.00 / 5)

---

by: djtyg @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:48:21 AM UTC