I thought this was a pretty entertaining part of this afternoon's Associated Press story on this Saturday's congressional district meetings:
The 15 congressional district meetings could get raucous. Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and two other candidates pulled their names from the ballot, forcing their supporters to vote for Uncommitted.
About 450 people have registered to run for the 36 delegate and 2 alternate spots set aside for those who backed Uncommitted. Brewer says the vast majority are Obama supporters, but he expects the competition to win a spot will be intense.
"People feel very passionately about their candidates, and I expect we're going to see a lot of passionate campaigns on Saturday," he said.
About 450 people also applied to run for 47 delegate and 13 alternate spots that will go to Clinton supporters, but the Clinton campaign has reduced the list to around 150 people, Brewer said.
About 21,000 party members are eligible to vote at Saturday's district conventions.
Its especially encouraging for me, a Hillary Clinton supporter, to see that, despite not having any formal organization in the state (like Michiganders for Obama), there was a fairly equal number of applicants for spots for "Uncommitted" and Hillary Clinton.
I can't help but to assume that the Obama campaign will benefit from its geographical closeness this Saturday. From what I hear from my Obama-supporting friends in Grand Rapids, the competition could be described as "intense."
I know in California, the Obama campaign slashed over half of his delegates to the congressional district conventions, until public pressure (and a fierce reaction from the netroots) caused Axelrod & Plouffe to reverse their decision at the last minute. There was a lot of speculation about whether the Obama campaign made a coordinated effort to eliminate anti-war activists and members of the netroots as a way of controlling the tone of the meetings. But others have contended that it was less of an effort to cut bloggers and hardcore activists, and more of a way for the Obama campaign to ensure that its big donors were rewarded with a spot at the convention.
We'll see how this Saturday turns out, any predictions?
I know that I plan to be watching this all unfold at Creston High School in Grand Rapids.
I thought I would cross-post a response I just wrote to a post on the University of Michigan College Democrats Blog about Bittergate. The bolded parts are his post, which I recommend you all read, as it echoes the "Request" posted here--which I agree whole-heartedly with. But, just as with the Wright controversy, Democrats not talking about these issues doesn't mean they go away. The GOP has some of the best opposition researchers, ad makers, and a vast network of surrogates and news shapers which will be activated in the general election, and these issues are sure to surface again and again.
What Barack Obama said is a logical, truthful, and accurate argument about the alienation of a large part of American society. This argument was explored in-depth in the book What's the Matter With Kansas. His phrasing was poor, which has consistently been the down fall of Democrats (see everything that spilled out of John Kerry's mouth)
I fundamentally disagree with your assertions here. First, Sen. Obama in his own words:
it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This is not an "accurate argument about the alienation of a large part of American society," as you assert, but rather an attempt to explain his poor performance among blue-collar whites by blaming them. This is elitism, at the very least; arrogance, at its worst. I worked the long, winding streets of rural Ohio for Hillary Clinton, and talked to many more rural Ohioans by telephone. Their support of Sen. Clinton was firmly rooted in their belief that only she could deliver the economic change that was necessary in this country--it had a lot to do with their family's economics, but it had nothing to do with Sen. Obama.
Let's next discuss his choice of words. It seems only appropriate, as it was the Obama campaign that (re)introduced the "Just words? Just speeches?" meme into the national dialogue. Instead of using the opportunity to discuss the rich traditions and history of America's small towns with a group of coastal liberals, using a high-dollar fundraiser as a platform for bridging the disconnect that exists between two of the Democrat Party's most important constituencies, Sen. Obama chose to reinforce the stereotypes about small-town Americans that are far too common amongst Californians: that gun-owners and people of faith are backwoods xenophobes who, unable to reasonably discern for themselves how to vote or what issues are important, respond to external stimuli. In secular, politically correct California, it is not terribly hard to begin to think that the claims made by social conservatives are entirely off-base; but that's not entirely true.
Jon Stewart nails the current controversy over Barack Obama's words at a recent fund raiser. I love how Stewart is always able to find the ridiculous in the political debates and gaffes of the day.
Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton attended a forum in Pittsburgh hosted by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. At the "Forum on Manufacturing," Sen. Clinton outlined a new set of proposals designed to "to strengthen U.S. trade enforcement and crack down on Chinese trade policies that she says are unfair."
Hillary continued to cite the Bush administration's complete failure to stand up for working Americans by aggressively enforcing the trade laws on the books.
"We need solutions to fix our trade laws, build a strong manufacturing base, and stand up to China and say that unsafe toys and unfair currency practices are unacceptable," Clinton will say at the meeting, according to excerpts of her speech...
"I know what manufacturing means for this country. It means good jobs, thriving communities and the products that keep this country going and growing every single day," the New York senator said.
Hillary, one of the co-founders of the Senate Manufacturing caucus, announced that she would:
Provide relief for U.S. industries hurt by excessive Chinese imports;
Aggressively use the WTO to challenge other nations for violating rules of trade;
Create a new Intellectual Property Enforcement network to crack down on piracy;
Accept and review petitions when outside groups petition the government to enforce trade laws; and
Ensure that America is able to take retaliatory action against China and other non-market economies when they subsidize their domestic industries.
The last seven years can easily be characterized by the Bush administration's complete failure to utilize the trade enforcement tools that are currently in place, allowing for countries (China, notably) to violate trade rules and hurt the US manufacturing industry.
The administration had brought less than three complaints a year to the WTO alleging trading partners with breaking WTO rules, she said, compared to 11 a year under the administration of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
In fact, during this period of time, America's trade deficit has doubled to over 700 billion dollars, while we've added hundreds of billions more to the debt that will be passed down to the next generation.
The crux of Hillary's speech and the policy proposals outlined within is that America's trade policy is no longer working for American workers or for the American economy. Today's policy announcements add to an already comprehensive plan to jumpstart the American economy that Sen. Clinton announced earlier in the campaign.
She has already outlined an ambitious trade agenda, including a trade time-out to review existing trade agreements and to formulate a new pro-worker trade policy; a detailed four-part plan to fix NAFTA; and appointing a new Trade Prosecutor and doubling the trade enforcement budget at USTR.
Right before the Iowa caucuses in January, there was a noticeable shift in the issues being discussed. The war in Iraq, which took up a majority of the early debates between the Democratic candidates, slowly began to give way to more bread and butter issues like health care and the economy.
And there is no doubt that the next President will truly have their ability to be a good steward of the economy tested, given the disastrous economic policies of the last seven years. And being able to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans on economic issues is going to be essential to the Democratic strategy in November.
The plan Sen. Clinton outlined today will ensure that, as America modernizes and improves trade agreements and trade laws, we actually begin to enforce those laws effectively and aggressively. Her plan includes (I can post the full descriptions, if anyone's interested):
I. Better Utilizing and Strengthening Our Trade Enforcement Tools o Aggressively Challenge Trading Practices that Violate World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. o Ensure that “Section 301” Petitions Alleging Unfair Trading Practices Receive a Fair, Nonpartisan Review. o Create a New Intellectual Property Enforcement Network to Strengthen Protections for U.S. Intellectual Property.
II. Cracking Down On China’s Unfair Trade Practices o Take a Tough Line on Chinese Currency Manipulation. o Provide “Section 421” Relief for U.S. Industries Hurt by Surges of Chinese Imports. o Apply Countervailing Duties to Non-Market Economies Like China.
Although this may represent the first time Sen. Clinton formally announced these policy proposals specifically, they echo the sentiments and rhetoric she has used on the stump across the country since the beginning of her presidential campaign. In fact, Sen. Clinton touched on many of these issues in her remarks at the AFL-CIO town hall in June of 2007:
Clinton spoke to union members and their families in Detroit, Michigan about how much homeland manufacturing will help the economy. Detroit, being one of the nation's largest manufacturers, was an easy campaign for the democratic Hilary. Most of Detroit's workforce consists of blue-collared factory workers.
She told the entire crowd, "If we don't have a strong manufacturing base in our economy, it won't be long until we don't have a strong economy." The Associated Press also reported that Clinton believes that the federal government needs to invest more in the United States manufacturing industry instead of depending on foreign factories that do not help the current American economy...
While I don't typically post poll-driven diaries I thought that this one might be of interest. In an EPIC-MRA poll released today Michigan voters clearly are not angered by the fact that Obama took his name off of the primary ballot.
When asked who they would prefer to win the Democratic nomination, voters picked Obama 42% of the time and Clinton 37% of the time.
When given a general election matchup Obama and McCain are statistically tied with Obama receiving 43% of the vote to McCain's 41%. On the other hand McCain led Clinton 46% to 37%. The margin of error for the general election match-ups was 4%.
McCain was viewed favorably by 59% of voters. Obama was viewed favorably by 55% of voters. Clinton was viewed favorably by 45% of voters.
Again, while all of these numbers are interesting, the numbers can change significantly. We should not rely on general election numbers now to be any sort of predictor of actual votes. The important take-away is that individuals who say that Democrats have lost Michigan and Florida already are wrong.
This morning, prominent Democratic women from Massachusetts rallied in front of the State House, where "they threatened to withold support for the party nominee if they felt the nominating process has been bankrupted."
They called on MA superdelegates (which include Sens. Kerry and Kennedy and Governor Patrick Deval -- all three of whom have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama) to push for both a new primary in Michigan and a commitment to including the Florida delegates by seating those already elected or holding a new primary there, as well.
“Without us, there is no party. And if we leave, that wouldn’t be good,” said Senate President Therese Murray, standing at a podium in front of a staircase packed with bold-faced Democratic names. The group circulated a pledge for superdelegates to sign...
Attorney Ellen Zucker said the mechanics of campaigning would be harmed by disillusioning a major bloc of the Democratic coalition. “This is the core of the party,” she said. “These are the people who do the work. And their frustration has to be taken seriously.”
The rally took place around the same time as a meeting between Florida superdelegates and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, resulting in a joint statement, saying, in part:
We are all committed to doing everything we can to ensure that a Florida delegation is seated in Denver. We all agree that whatever the solution, it must have the support of both campaigns... We're committed to working with both campaigns to reach a solution as soon as realistically possible...
Clinton campaign Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer released the following statement in response to the DNC's statement:
We have long maintained that pretending the voters of Florida and Michigan don’t exist is not fair in principle and unwise in practice. This morning’s Quinnipiac poll out of Florida reflects the urgent need for Democrats to get behind our effort to count Florida’s voters and seat its delegation. Chairman Dean is clearly committed to seating the Florida delegation and we urge Senator Obama to join us in calling on the rules and bylaws committee to make this a reality.
Singer is referring to the latest Quinnipiac poll which shows Clinton leading John McCain 44-42, while Obama trails by 9 points. (The poll also has Hillary leading McCain in Ohio 48-39, with Obama's lead over McCain is just 1 point.)
Full news story after the jump.
EDIT: In the original version, I wasn't thinking clearly (blame it on midterms) and put "Michigan" instead of "Massachusetts."
Hillary just sent out the following message encouraging Americans to join her in calling for the voices of Michigan and Florida Democrats to be heard.
Dear Friend,
It is a bedrock American principle: we are all equal in the voting booth. No matter where you were born or how much money you were born into, no matter the color of your skin or where you worship, your vote deserves to count.
But millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren't being heard. The delegates they elected won't be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August -- and that's just not fair to those voters.
The people of Michigan and Florida must have a voice in selecting our nominee for president. I have repeatedly called for seating their delegates.
Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams has released the following statement, urging Sen. Barack Obama to join the Clinton campaign in calling for a party-run primary to ensure that Michigan voters are not disenfranchised.
Michigan will be a key battleground state in November. Disenfranchising Michigan voters today will, in the heat of a general election, provide Senator McCain with a powerful argument to use against the Democratic nominee. We cannot allow this to happen.
The people of Michigan must be counted and their voices finally heard. What the people of Michigan need now is just action, not just words.
The Clinton campaign is calling for a new primary, because as Marc Ambinder notes, the judge's ruling does not necessarily require one.
Judge Nancy Edmonds's ruling DOES NOT order a new primary. She writes that the "the court agrees the issue of severability is beyond the scope of the claims." In other words: the parties themselves ought to figure out whether they need new primaries or not.
Full statement from Maggie Williams below the fold.
I've had a couple of diaries rolling around in my head for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately I work full-time and have other obligations in real life, so I haven't had the chance to sit down and flesh any of these out into a real diary.
Over the flip, I shall go bullet-style and rant on Real ID, Matt's Law, outsourcing, food stamps, and maybe a little bit on Hillary Clinton.
Disclaimer: in case you didn't know already, I back Obama
Barack Obama
should endorse the current June 3 Michigan primary proposal.
Why?
Well, for one thing I still retain this quaint notion - only recently
subscribed to by Camp Hillary - that we ought to have a vote in
Michigan with more than one major candidate on the ballot.
But
here's another reason: I have $20 that says even if Obama gave the
go-ahead to this idea...it still wouldn't happen. So he may as well
cast his lot on the right side of the issue.
I'm not
necessarily saying that the Clintons and their Michigan backers are
bluffing - though the thought has certainly crossed my mind. But
there does appear to be more than a few other significant
obstacles to its enactment than just Barack Obama. Take for instance,
the terrific list offered up here
by the noble Mark Grebner last week at the instant the June 3 plan
surfaced.
The biggest problem: in order for this to
happen, both the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled
Senate have to give it immediate effect. That means a 2/3 vote
of both chambers. And...unless they want to forgo their vacation, they
have to do it TODAY.
Call
me crazy, but given the
complexity of this proposal and the fact that it's never really been
done quite like this, I just don't see a 2/3 vote coming
together in
one day. And anyone who was around for the budget brouhaha last fall
knows how much our beloved legislature loves its vacations. Even with
the prospect of the first government shutdown in 50 years staring them
right in the eye, they still went on vacation. Does
anyone see Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) giving up any of his precious R
& R to pull the Dems' fat from the fire? Riiiight.
It would appear that the much-talked-about "Michigan Mulligan" is inching towards becoming a reality, with Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick saying "we're close."
The proposed date? June 3rd. (The do-over--in whatever form--must occur before June 10th to count towards the Convention, according to DNC rules).
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Michigan congresswoman said Friday that the state's Democrats are working on plans for a June 3 primary that would give them a say in the tight presidential nomination race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said the primary would be statewide and would be funded through party money. She is one of four Democrats who are not endorsing either candidate who are working together on a plan for a repeat primary.
Clinton won a primary the state held in January, but Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. He had it removed because the primary was held too early to comply with national party rules, meaning no delegates were at stake.
Florida also had its delegates stripped for holding a primary in January. The Florida Democratic Party offered a plan for a mail-in primary Thursday, but admitted it didn't have a good chance of being approved. Kilpatrick said the mail-in approach wouldn't work in Michigan.
Kilpatrick said discussions on the plan would continue Friday. "We're hopeful. We're close," she told reporters after appearing at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.
Other Michigan Democrats working on the plan include Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, Sen. Carl Levin and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger.
Kilpatrick said although she is optimistic, Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey has expressed concern they may not have the time or manpower to pull it off. She said they are trying to work through those issues.
To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two candidates' campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.
Michigan Democrats need to act quickly because the politically divided legislature will have to sign off on the deal and approve how to spend the privately raised funds for a new election. Members of the Democratic-controlled state House and Republican-controlled state Senate leave at the end of the month on their two-week spring break.
Florida Democrats said they will make a decision by Monday on whether to hold a dual mail-in and in-person re-vote. But the plan floated this week faces opposition from the state's Democratic congressional delegation, and Obama has also expressed concerns about security and accuracy of a mail-in vote organized so quickly. Democratic National Committee rules require the vote to be scheduled by June 10.
I hope you don't mind that I use your first name. This is the day after the Mississippi primary. Barack Obama is now ahead of you in delegates, which is how this game of Democratic politics is scored. He is now ahead in delegates 1608 to 1478, which if you do the math and look at the races still to be held, is basically an insurmountable lead.
Even if Michigan and Florida hold do-over primaries or caucuses, it doesn't change the math.
I honor the service that you have done for your country, however, your continuing in the race may do irreparable harm to your country and perhaps to our candidate in the fall. This election is bigger then Hillary and Bill Clinton. This election is about the soul of America. We cannot afford to lose to John McCain, who no doubt will continue the most disastrous policies of the Bush administration.
With the goal in mind of doing all that we can to make sure that the next president is able to start to heal the wounds caused by the Bush administration, I plead with you to step aside now, before any more damage is done to the Democrats' chances of taking back the White House and increasing our majorities in both houses of Congress.
Further, I would ask that you enthusiastically endorse Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States and call for all Democrats to work as hard as they can to ensure that he is elected.
Thank you for your years of dedicated service to this country and for your consideration of this plea.
Hillary Clinton, speaking before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, where she expanded on her Hispanic Agenda -- Una Vida Mejor Para Todos -- spoke about her campaign's efforts to have the voices of voters in Michigan and Florida heard, calling the exclusion of the nearly 2.5 million Americans from the democratic process "wrong."
She outlined two options moving forward, which echo the "Dear David" letter written by Clinton Campaign Manager Maggie Williams to David Plouffe earlier in the morning.
In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don’t see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states.
Regardless of the outcome, Sen. Clinton said we have a "basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts."
Sen. Clinton called on Sen. Obama and his campaign to join her to make sure that there ia "non-partisan solution" to the problem.
This comes on the heels of the Obama campaign expressing deep reservations about using the mail-in option in both Michigan and Florida (Florida's Congressional Democrats have issued a statement opposing a re-do of any kind). Despite Sen. Obama's position on mail-in votes in Florida and Michigan, he co-sponsored a bill last June that would establish a vote by mail grant program.
My thinking is that the Obama campaign is in favor of a limited-window caucus (as the Edwards campaign was when it derailed the inclusion of all candidates on the Michigan primary ballot). I haven't seen any studies of it, but would a vote-by-mail operation increase the number of senior citizens (a population that trends HRC) that participate? I would think that the limited-window would function to exclude working-class and blue-collar workers (who also trend to HRC, especially in rust belt states).
Here's a good video explaining the lead-up to Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot.
It's beginning to look like Florida is moving toward Grebner's mail-in idea. And if that happens it seems likely Michigan won't be far behind. From the AP:
A consensus began to emerge Sunday that the best way to give Florida's Democrats a voice in electing a candidate for president lies with the U.S. Postal Service.
--snip--
DNC Chairman Howard Dean said a mail-in primary is "actually a very good process."
"Every voter gets a ballot in the mail," the former Vermont governor said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It's comprehensive, you get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home. It's not a bad way to do this."
As for who pays, Dean said, "That is a problem," reiterating that the party needs its money for the general election campaign against Republican John McCain.
He also ruled out the state of Florida, where Republican Gov. Charlie Crist has nixed the idea. Dean suggested the state Democratic party might foot the bill. Florida's political parties, unlike the DNC, can accept unlimited contributions.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., supports the mail-in solution, comparing it to an absentee ballot process. He also pinned his hopes on the state party to pay for it.
--snip--
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., appeared to be amenable to a mail-in solution for his state, though with less enthusiasm.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Levin said doing the election again would be against state law. "That can't be changed, and that can't be paid for," he said. Levin also said caucuses would be difficult, with 500 potential sites.
"The one possibility would be some kind of a mail-in caucus," he said. "But there's some real problems with that, too. Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"
I guess I'm old-fashioned in that I still prefer at least having the ability to show up somewhere (other than a mailbox) to cast my vote. That said, a mail-in election is certainly an improvment over an election with only one real candidate on the ballot...
Well,
here's one
way to pay for a new primary/caucus:
James
Carville, a Democratic operative and Clinton supporter, said on
CNN that he had been calling deep-pocket Democrats and pledged to come
up with $15 million to help pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida.
He challenged Obama supporter David Wilhelm, a former DNC chairman, to
match it.
"I'll guarantee $15 million and have the
Obama people put up $15 million," Carville said. "And let's go to the
polls come June 7. I've got fund-raisers that are lined up ready to go.
I think the Democratic Party is going to look absolutely absurd if they
don't have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote."
Wilhelm
said the issue needs to be solved but was noncommittal to Carville's
suggestion.
Meanwhile, MDP chair Mark Brewer pointed
publicly to the Obama campaign as the immovable object standing in the
way of a
new Michigan primary/caucus. The Obama camp counters that they're still
open to
a "fair solution." This from
the Detroit News:
Michigan Democratic
Party
Chairman Mark Brewer said Friday that the Obama campaign opposes a
do-over election scenario preferred by Gov. Jennifer Granholm. On
Thursday, she advocated a "firehouse primary" -- a contest that is
somewhat less than a full-blown primary but broader than a caucus. It
would be run by the party, and allow Democrats to vote at as many as
1,000 sites across the state on a Saturday in June.
"Obama
opposes the redo as proposed by the governor and unless we can get the
two campaigns to agree on something it's not going to happen," Brewer
said.
A statement from the Obama campaign, however,
suggested Brewer overstated its position. While the campaign is adamant
that results from the Jan. 15 primary must not be recognized -- Obama
had his name stricken from the ballot, to protest the unauthorized
early primary -- it is open to a "fair solution."
"Our
campaign will support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair
remedy to this problem," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said. "However,
allowing Sen. Clinton to change the rules and award her the nonexistent
delegates when there was no campaign in the state and Obama's name was
not on the ballot is not the answer. Whatever the resolution, we are
looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the
general election."
Since no one has seen the
specific details of what's being proposed - and apparently rejected by
the Obama camp - it's hard to say for sure exactly what's going on.
Maybe they've decided they're better
off just going to Denver without
the Michigan/Florida issue resolved. What a disappointment
that would be (not to mention bad strategy for winning or
holding superdelegates).
Then again, perhaps there is some particularly onerous provision in
the "firehouse" plan that we don't know about. Maybe there's some weird
linkage to Florida. More likely in my mind is that Obama is
simply
holding out in favor of a format that's more favorable to him. I guess
that's somewhat understandable...but the clock is a-ticking. And it
would be pretty shameful if the whole thing fell apart just because
they're playing
tit-for-tat.
We'll see what tomorrow brings...
Finally,
in case you're missed it, our old friend and ML front-pager Mark Grebner
is the guest on Michigan Public TV's "Off the Record" this week.
If any
of you have ever wondered what Mark looked or sounded like, here's your
chance: watch the show here.
As
Commissioner Grebner's slogan goes: "he may be a fool, but he's OUR
fool!"
According
to the
papers this morning, lack of money is the chief obstacle
standing in front of a new Michigan caucus. Okay...here's a
suggestion for dealing with the problem...
As soon
as possible, the MDP should put up a special website devoted to raising
cash for a new contest. Let it be known that the MDP will be soliciting
contributions for one week (either on the site or by delivering checks
to Hart-Kennedy House by mail or in person). At the conclusion of this
week, the amount of money raised will determine what sort of
contest we'll have. For example, if less than $1 million is
raised, there will be no re-vote (I'm just pulling these figures out of
you-know-where). Over $1 million, and we'll vote by mail or Internet.
Over $3 million and we have an Iowa-style caucus. $10 million and we
have a 2004-style closed primary (a.k.a. a "firehouse primary.")
It
is true that since Camp Hillary seems to be gunning for the "firehouse
primary" option, it would put significantly more of a burden on her
supporters to come up with the cash. On the other hand, if they want
the more expensive option then they ought to pony up more for it.
Another
option might be to allow people to indicate candidate preference when
they donate. The candidate with the largest total or most donors then gets to choose the
date (within certain parameters).
Of course, the
downside of both of these options is that it takes time to pull a
caucus or primary together...and time is running out. But if we could
spare a week...perhaps this is a way to settle the both funding issue
and some of the logistical sticking points in one fell swoop.
This is my first blog on Michigan Liberal: Hope you enjoy
After Hillary Clinton's landmark wins in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas on Tuesday it is time for Americans of all kind, Democrats or Republicans, Young or Old, Blue Collar or White Collar, to support Hillary Clinton in this historic presidential election.
Hillary Clinton brings to the table something that is unique and growing in America, the "strong woman." Since birth, I have grew up around these "strong women." My Great-Grandmother, Ella was a single mother in the 1950's, working hard hours to support herself, and the family she loves, and I considered her a Hero in my book. My grandmother Brenda, getting married at the age of 16, and having my mother at the age of 17, and owning/running a small business for over 30 years. My other grandmother Alice, who had ten children, and making the sacrifice of staying home everyday to take care of her Children. Then to my mother Denise, the first in her family to get a college degree, and a steady career. I have grew up around strong women all myself, I see the hard they have put into their families, careers and there communities.
I believe Hillary Clinton can serve as a strong woman in the oval office, making the right decisions for our nation, and working hard for the everyday American, giving everyone healthcare, lowering college tuition, ending the war in Iraq, making the American economy stable and making equal rights for all Americans.
I have been around the presence of strong women, and I have seen the great works they have done. With Hillary Clinton in the White House, we can still strive for a new America, and actually make it a reality, not just dream. Its time for woman in the Oval Office, and that woman is Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE by Hazen Pingree: A source close to the negotiations has confirmed to me that the Clinton campaign is indeed giving serious consideration to a new vote in Michigan. An actual government-sanctioned primary isn't going to happen. What may emerge is a party-run primary with a large and expansive multitude of sites and opportunities for participation. Electronic voting could potentially be involved. Funding issues still need to be resolved and it's not yet clear what Obama's position will be. However, given his support for a new Michigan vote in the past it would be pretty lame if he backed away now (this coming from a diehard Obama backer).
It could be one hell of an exciting Michigan summer!
Results were too close to call in Texas early today, but even before Clinton won in Ohio, her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he would welcome a second chance in both states (Michigan and Florida), where Clinton won what are, for now, meaningless primaries.
"We're all for a primary in both states because we can't go into a general election and say those votes didn't count," he said. "But do-overs cost millions of dollars. It's up to those states."
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, said the victory in Ohio changes "the landscape a bit" and could open the door to a Democratic caucus -- not a primary -- in Michigan, though it would have to be privately funded and both candidates would have to agree.
Earlier this week, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said of the Clinton camp "they keep moving the goalposts, but at some point you run out of field." Well...I guess this is one way to address that problem: make the field bigger.
I guess since I'm an Obama guy I should favor a caucus...but really I can live with a primary too. Just so long as it's not paid for with tax dollars and both candidates are on the friggin' ballot.
Who knows? Maybe we get to go the prom after all?
BTW, congrats are in certainly in order to Camp Hillary for their victories yesterday (even though the overall delegate count margin remains roughly the same) and for a hard-fought campaign. For Obamarama, here's hoping we get our groove back in Wyoming and Mississippi...
Florida Governor Crist said that he would be open to a “redo” of his state’s Democratic primary.Michigan’s Governor has not been so generous.
The Democratic Party stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates for moving their primary before February 5th in violation of party rules.
Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said in February that, “The DNC created this problem by the sanctions they used and unfairly applied. The DNC has to fix this problem.”
As both a Democrat and a resident of Michigan, I have to say she could not be more wrong.Moving the primary ahead to January 15th brought Republicans and Democrats together in Lansing in ways they would not previously.
