|
|
Michigan primary 
Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 23:52:08 PM EDT
|
|
Let Your Voice Be Heard! There will be a Young Voters Forum with the Democratic Primary Candidates in the 34th State House District (Flint) and the 51st State House District (Grand Blanc, Fenton, Linden) at UM-Flint in the Michigan Rooms on Wed. 7/30 from 6-8pm. The Event is being co-sponsored by the Genesee County Young Democrats and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Candidates will answer questions and respond to the issues that are important to young voters.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 245 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon May 26, 2008 at 20:44:26 PM EDT
|
|
Lanny Davis layed out a compromise on the issue of Michigan and Florida in a piece on the Politico. He starts with two neutral principles which the Rules & Bylaws Committee members ought to use as a guide. The legal principle supporting that solution is pretty simple. In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to "cure" the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.
According to Davis, this is what happened in 2008 to Michigan and Florida: both states violated party rules, but by March of 2008 were willing to "cure" (hold new primaries and raise money to pay for them).
DNC Chairman Howard Dean said at the time that such revotes were permissible and would bring Michigan and Florida back into compliance. And there was precedent: In 1996, Delaware Democrats held a party caucus earlier than the permissible date, resulting in a rule violation. But state Democrats were allowed to hold another caucus later on and were then found to be back in compliance.
|
|
There's More...
:: (14
Comments, 459 words in story)
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:29:28 PM EDT
|
|
(This is a partial response to the "challenges" posted by William Allen Simpson, as well as various comments left on this and other blogs.)
The discussion of the rules and the December 2007 decision by the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee to strip Michigan and Florida of 100% of their convention delegates does not do justice to the complicated and nuanced nature of "the rules" and eschews any discussion of a decision improperly rendered or an innacurate interpretation. Reading the various challenges that have been posted on MichLib during finals week forced my hand and I felt compelled to review the primary documents--the DNC Charter and Bylaws.
The Charter of the Democratic Party Article 10, Section 4 The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which: [snip]
(h) notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Section:
(iii) permit unpledged delegates consisting of:
1) the President and Vice President of the United States, if Democrats,
2) the Democratic members of the United States Senate and the Democratic
members of the House of Representatives,
3) the Democratic Governors,
4) former Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States,
5) former Democratic Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate,
6) former Democratic Speakers and Minority Leaders of the United States House of
Representatives,
7) former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee,
8) such delegates shall not be permitted to have alternates and such delegates shall
constitute an exception to Subsection (b) of this Section 4.
Now, unless I'm mistaken this provision stipulates that the Democratic Governor, Democratic Members of Congress, and Democratic National Committee Members "shall" be delegates.
I studied Computer Science in high school, and the definition of "shall" in programming is:
Describes a feature or behavior that is mandatory for an implementation that conforms to this document. An application can rely on the existence of the feature or behavior.
Davis, California -- where my mother attended college -- makes the distinction between "shall" and "may" quite clear:
"Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.
The United Nations Environmental Programme defines it as:
As negotiating language, shall creates an obligation for action for the addressee. It is binding.
But enough on the word "shall." These examples only serve to explain that the original decision by the Rules & Bylaw Committee decision to disqualify unpledged delegates violates the Charter, which makes their attendance as delegates a mandatory "feature" of the convention.
|
|
There's More...
:: (53
Comments, 567 words in story)
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:43:28 PM EDT
|
|
What if I was to tell you that deep within the bowels of the Arlington headquarters of Sen. Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign there is a room. In that room, there is a folder. In that folder, there is a top-secret plan...a plan to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August by going to the Rules & Bylaws Committee and asking for just that. But this isn't like any other top secret plan. Because this plan is not a secret at all. In fact, as far back as September 2007, those instrumental in the challenge to the oversized influence of early-voting states have been making very public statements to that effect. What if I told you that the recent hullabaloo coming from Obama supporters, may have more to do with the "potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall," then it does with the shocking-nature of the information "just recently confirmed" about the Clinton campaign's strategy.
What if I were to point you to the following information all of which proves conclusively that challenging the RBC decision is nothing new?
Sen. Hillary Clinton, February 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.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, 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.
Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, December 2007:
"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, December 2007:
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.
Debbie Dingell & Sen. Carl Levin, September 2007:
In the face of New Hampshire's decision to violate the DNC rules and your silence concerning that decision, and given our strong feelings about the need to reform our nominating process to make it fairer, Michigan's Democratic leadership decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary...
New Hampshire's gun remains at our candidates' heads and they fear the repercussions to their campaigns in New Hampshire if they don't sign the New Hampshire pledge -- dramatic proof, if any more were needed, of the disproportionate impact of the New Hampshire primary.
Maybe Florida will join us if we have to take our case for the seating of our delegates to the Democratic convention in Denver. And maybe Nevada will insist on maintaining the number two position assigned to it. Maybe one or more of our Democratic candidates will join us. In any event, there cannot be one set of rules for New Hampshire and one set for every other state. We are determined that Michigan not be bound by rules that are not effectively enforced against other states.
Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, August 2007:
"We're going to fight for all of our delegates," Ms. Thurman said. "The disenfranchisement is on their hands."
Now, if I had told you about this top-secret "nuclear option" the Clinton campaign didn't want you to know about, I wouldn't be a good Clinton supporter--it is a secret, after all.
....But of course if I told you about this secret plan, you'd probably just think I was lying.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 19:05:09 PM EDT
|
|
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.
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 14:20:03 PM EDT
|
|
Earlier this week I was contacted by a woman who introduced herself by saying she had never done anything "activist" before, but after hearing about a protest of the DNC in Florida, had decided to organize one here in Michigan. I'm pasting the flyer for the event below: On January 15, 2008, nearly 600,000 Michigan Democrats went to the polls to make their voices heard in the Democratic Presidential primary. The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has been counted, certified by election officials in each state, and officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state. Our votes cannot be ignored. We will not be disenfranchised. The DNC’s refusal to count our votes and seat our delegates according to the ballots cast on January 15 compromises our civil liberties and our voting rights. This decision affects the rights of ALL Michigan residents regardless of political affiliation. Michigan, let your voice be heard. Join together in a grassroots effort to ensure voting privileges and protect the right to vote for future generations. - Demand that our votes be counted and delegates seated based on the Jan. 15 poll results or that a new Michigan primary take place.
- Demand that the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee take the necessary steps to ensure the voices of the people of Michigan are heard and its delegates are seated at the Democratic convention this summer.
Where: Michigan State Capitol Building, Lansing, Mi.When: Thursday, April 17, 2008 Time: 12:00 PM Michigan matters! Preserve Democracy. Our votes cannot be ignored! For more information go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/actioncenter/event/view/?id=11862 click on Events, or contact Buffysmomplus3@Gmail.com
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 14:15:03 PM EDT
|
|
According to The Politico's Ben Smith, there are 50-60 Michigan and Florida union members picketing at the DNC headquarters. They're complaining that the DNC's refusal to seat Florida and Michigan delagates will prevent dozens of union members who are delegates from attending the convention, and they want DNC Chairman Howard Dean to resolve the dispute.
Mike Williams, a Florida union member, compared the DNC's refusal to seat the delegates from those two states as similar to when a comoany locks outs striking union employees.
"We're getting locked out," said Williams as he and the other union members pickteted the DNC. Williams estimated that as many as a dozen building trade union members, and 30 union members overall, would be part of the Florida contingent to the Democratic convention
Update: The pickets are members are of the Building and Construction Trades Council, which, to my knowledge, has not yet endorsed a presidential candidate.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 19:44:04 PM EDT
|
(Well, it's official. - promoted by ScottyUrb)
Well, apparently it's happened, Mark Brewer and the Michigan Democratic Party were unable to accomplish the basic task of holding an election for our delegates to the National Convention in Denver. The leadership of the MDP has proven itself completely incompetent -- no election, no campaigns, no discussion of Michigan issues, no movement to change the primary calendar. With or without delegates, this is a complete and total failure. So, it's time to head to your county clerk office, pick up a form and run for MDP Precinct Delegate so you can vote at your County Party Convention and the State Party Convention against Brewer, Dingell, and anyone who sat on the Central Committee during this farse.
The AP report:
Michigan Democrats are expected to decide Friday against holding a do-over presidential election, The Associated Press has learned.
The state party's executive committee is expected to hold a meeting by phone to vote on a statement saying any kind of election to replace the results of the January 15 primary no longer is possible, according to Democratic leaders who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions so far have been private....
Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton supported holding a second election so the delegates could be seated, but rival Barack Obama feared problems [meaning, squashed all attempts at democracy in Michigan -- pgb].
State Democrats now hope the two campaigns can agree on a way to split Michigan's 128 pledged delegates so they can be seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver....
The state Democratic Party already has pushed back the date for choosing national convention delegates to April 19, hoping the matter can be resolved before delegates are chosen.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and four top Michigan Democrats who have been trying to work out a way to get the delegates seated are expected to put out a statement Friday after the executive committee vote.
In the statement, they're expected to say the DNC is committed to seating Michigan's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders....
A sad day for Michigan Democrats. We've lost an opportunity to reunify the MDP through a mulligan primary or caucus (blame: Obama), because this unity was harmed by the January 15 strawpoll powerplay (blame: Hillary, Granholm, D. Dingell, Levin and Brewer's weakness). And what will be the harm? Unenthusiastic activists, unmobilized voters who didn't get a chance to get excited by a primary campaign and hear the Democratic brand, and fewer memberships and donations. And this all leads to an opening for McCain to win Michigan (remember Kerry won by a mere 3% and for all McCain's faults, he isn't George Bush), harms our chances of retaining the State House, and prevents any coat-tail tidal wave at the county level because of low Democratic turnout.
Someone must stand up in opposition to Brewer-Dingell. Anyone listening?
|
|
Discuss
:: (126
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:37 AM EDT
|
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.
(More below the fold...)
|
|
There's More...
:: (41
Comments, 610 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 19:41:18 PM EDT
|
I was thinking: when we messed up the primary situation in the state, the RNC cut Michigan's delegation in half. Why don't we just cut Michigan's votes in half and still seat the delegates? We would send the full number of people, but our delegates (pledged and/or super; I'm not concerned with that at this point) but each vote would only 'count' as half a vote. The DNC already uses this system for Americans who live overseas: they hold primaries and nominate delegates (I believe around 14 or 18) who attend the convention but each of their votes counts for half, leaving a total of 9 delegates votes for the Big Count.
It would be interesting to see this plan seriously discussed.
|
|
Discuss
:: (15
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 13:30:55 PM EDT
|
|
Glenn Hurowitz and Gregory Nini have published a study on the Michigan and Florida primaries; their findings conclude that 2 million voters didn't participate in the primary because they felt their votes didn't count, and therefore the results of the primary are highly skewed. You can catch Hurowitz' blog post on the report at OpenLeft. You can catch the full study at this link. (PDF) We'll have a Fellow covering this study in more detail shortly. In the meantime, here's what's on tap today: And nuts, I forgot to cook the Daily Pasty -- but the last one is still worth reheating.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM EDT
|
(The latest - promoted by Eric B.)
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.
|
|
Discuss
:: (82
Comments)
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 21:33:22 PM EDT
|
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...
|
|
Discuss
:: (30
Comments)
|
|
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM EDT
|
|
Please visit www.oaklanddemocraticpolitics.blogspot.com to view Carl Levin talking about Michigan's primary situation. Carl Levin basically tells us that Michigan's delegates will count one way or the other. The best possibility is a primary by mail, but the questions is still where the money comes from. Why isn't anyone talking about James Carville's offer of $15 million?
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
|
|
This Michigan Primary situation has gone from bad to worse. It was bad enough that the Legislature, fully aware of the candidates' decisions to boycott our state and the censorship from both the Republican and Democratic parties, decided to spend over $10 million of our dollars on this January 15th mistake, and then withhold the information from the very people who put up the money: the public! Now, just as there was beginning to be hope that Michigan delegates would be re-enfranchised with the close race, this issue of another, 'do-over' caucus/primary/who-knows comes up. Should we do one? Will it count? Who will pay? What form will it take? If we do one, how will it be administered: by the state or by the party?
Governor Granholm's got her plan for a 'firehouse' primary: a semi-open primary that would be done at community gathering places with a relatively low cost that would have to be shouldered by the state parties. Some throw out the idea of a party-run caucus. James Carville has publicly stated that he will raise $15 million (if the Obama campaign agrees to do the same thing) to contribute to the primary and cover campaign costs. Obama's people have been non-committal, and Senator Levin (a Clinton supporter) agrees with Senator Clinton that the vote from January 15th should be honored and that's that.
Everyone and their brother seems to have an opinion one way or another, most of them formed not out of reason, but from a feeling of being slighted. So far there are only two progressive ideas I have heard: one, from Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, an associate professor of political science at Wayne State University, is to re-enfranchise our delegates and commit them 50/50 for Obama and Clinton. The other is from Mark Grebner, whereby we would do a mail-in primary, with low costs for everyone involved. This would also eliminate many of the barriers that exist with traditional polling places: harassment, wrongful disenfranchisement, and the inability of low-income citizens and seniors to turn out in as great number as their younger and wealthier counterparts.
I have another idea: IT DOESN'T MATTER. A lesson in DNC politics: all delegates are only bound to their stated preference for the first round of balloting. After that, it's anyone's game. Therefore, if Michigan splits 50/50 for the first round of balloting, or if another proportion is found through a new primary, or if the results of Jan. 15th are upheld, it doesn't matter. There are bound to be multiple rounds of balloting, with an intense floor battle that will render any apportionment we can think of moot. Some may complain that this is un-democratic; if so, it is the system's fault rather than Michigan's. We should not unfairly burden our people for another election that will not hold much water. Grebner's plan is solid and provides the best compromise between the unfortunate reality of the DNC system and the preciousness of our tax dollars, while Mrs. Sarbaugh-Thompson's plan would also be sufficient. Personally, I think the original primary should be honored, as the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan's delegation hold a great deal of power, being able to make up their own minds and give the Superdelegates a small challenge.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:21:21 AM EST
|
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!"
|
|
Discuss
:: (36
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:28:35 PM EST
|
|
Based on:
Mark Hornbeck, State Democratic chairman: Obama opposes Michigan 'do-over' plan, 7 March, Friday, no time.
MLive.com, State Dem Chairman says Obama opposes primary 'do-over' format, 7 March, Friday, 3:22 pm.
The Barack Obama campaign in not in favor of a do-over "firehouse" primary proposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer told the Detroit News today.
MDP Party Chair Mark Brewer:
"Obama opposes the redo as proposed by the governor and unless we can get the two campaigns (Illinois Sen. Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton) to agree on something it's not going to happen."
Brewer said he doesn't know why the Obama campaign opposes Granholm's approach.
Brewers assertion was not confirmed by anyone in the Barack Obama campaign, but the co-chair of the Obama effort in Michigan, State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, warned against a sudden change in the rules that may benefit one candidate:
"All of a sudden, a do-over election was seen as a chance for Sen. Clinton to add Michigan and Florida delegates to her total."
How can anyone justify this position?
And this is a matter between the MDP and the DNC, who cares what Obama or Clinton think.
|
|
There's More...
:: (42
Comments, 160 words in story)
|
|
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:37:18 AM EST
|
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.
What
do you think? Any better ideas?
|
|
Discuss
:: (83
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
