Michigan's Dem Establishment is Boxing Without Gloves, Why Are Activists Wearing Theirs?

by: skarefamena

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST

I believe that Jack Lessenberry is closer to the truth than most Michigan Democrats would like to admit.   Michigan's Democratic establishment is playing hardball and using brute force to prevent a fair fight in Michigan.

I don't think Senator Levin planned it that way at the outset, or that Levin, Granholm, Dingell, and Brewer had a "secret meeting" to decide their strategy.

These are all savvy politicians.  They know what they want, and they know how to get it.  They know that this is the most important election in decades.  They know this is the biggest opportunity for Democrats in decades.
 
They know just as well as any of us does what the difference is between a caucus and no caucus in Michigan, and seating the delegates as they stand or not seating the delegates at all.
 
They know which candidate they support too.   They have done the math and picked their pony.   What they've ultimately chosen is good for them, but that's no good for Michigan or the Democratic Party.

You tell me which candidate you support, and I betcha I can tell you what you think about a caucus in Michigan.  You tell me what you think about a caucus in Michigan, and I'll tell you which candidate you support.

This ain't rocketscience.

I promise, I will not be boycotting Clinton if she wins the election by the Michigan Margin.   I'm a Democrat, and another Republican president could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

But you can bet the farm that other folks will boycott!  This has the makings of a true disaster for the Democrats.  If Florida 2000 haunts us to this day, how are we gonna feel if the Clinton operation pulls off this ham-fisted delegate rob in Michigan, and it makes the difference between President Democrat and President McCain?  They always say, "Democrats always manage to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory" ...

The only near-fair solution is a showdown in Michigan and Florida. So long as the Democratic establishment in Michigan is not boxing with gloves on in this election, why should the voters, why should I?
 
We should be demanding a caucus, and we'll only be getting a caucus when Democratic activists say, "Either we caucus or heads are gonna roll!"

The Argument for a Michigan Caucus

by: skarefamena

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 18:46:26 PM EST

ARGUMENTS:

(1) Michigan deserves to have clout in this election. So long as our delegates do not count, Michiganders do not have clout.

(2) Our 128 delegates could be decisive. The race for delegates is expected to be very close at the time of the convention, with both candidates near, but not at, a majority. Michigan could tip the balance.

(3) Michiganders deserve to see the primary candidates up close and hear the candidates debate the issues that matter in Michigan, like the health of the Great Lakes and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Michiganders will not have this opportunity if January's results stand.

(4) Michigan voters deserve to be able to choose between all of the candidates. Most of the candidates names were removed from Michigan's ballot, and "Uncommitted" won the "youth vote," the "black vote," and over 40% (200,000) of the overall votes.

(5) Michigan deserves to have our delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention. As it stands, the DNC will reject the delegates distributed at Michigan's January 15 Primary because Michigan advanced the date of our Primary in defiance of DNC rules. They will restore our delegation's voting credentials if and only if we hold a caucus.

(6) Whichever candidate wins the nomination, they must win Michigan to win the presidency.  The opportunity to campaign in Michigan prior to the nominating convention would strengthen the nominee with Michigan voters.

Michigan Deserves to Count

by: skarefamena

Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:21:43 AM EST

Let's be honest with the people of Michigan.  Michigan's January Democratic Primary was nothing more than a beauty contest and a straw-poll.

"Primary" Thoughts

by: philgoblue

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST

Clinton: 55% -- 328,151 votes
Uncommitted: 40% -- 236,723 votes
Kucinich: 4% -- 21, 708
Dodd: 1% -- 3,853 votes
Gravel: 0% -- 2,363 votes

Overall, I'm just amazed that 40% of those that voted, took the time to go out and vote for "nobody" given there was no campaign to speak of, just some small grassroots work on LTEs and email lists. Especially given that Team Hillary Michigan sent out glossy mailers and held rallies for Hillary. I also credit the media which around here and I know in Lansing, got the word out that Edwards and Obama supporters were advocating Uncommitted.

Why I'm Voting "Uncommitted" on Jan. 15th

by: ypsi-blue

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 13:01:02 PM EST

I'm not a Democrat. And frankly I am put off by the bickering and back-biting that has characterized the Party's battle over the primaries.

I understand the perspective of Michiganders who want their voices heard early in the nomination process. Jobs, a green revolution, rebuilding our infrastructure, protecting workers' rights to join and organize unions, peace, instituting fair trade policies, and ending tax breaks for the Dick DeVos' of the world and giving working families a tax cut are all Michigan issues.

I have been tempted to just throw my hands up and say boycott the primaries. Your vote doesn't count anyway. The Party won't seat those delegates, or will it? And does a two-way race between Sen. Clinton and Rep. Kucinich really reflect what's happening not only in the Democratic Party but more broadly in the country?

But the fact is the president should not belong to a single party. The next president has to be president of all of us. And the fact that Sen. Clinton has decided to thwart the party's rules to gain a delegate advantage suggests she is interested in being the president of the Democrats.

I think Sen. Barack Obama has been right. Sen. Clinton's experience and strong bonds with the national party's machine have both entrenched her in special interests, on the one hand, but more importantly on the other, it means that if she wins the nomination we can expect four years of her butting heads with Republicans on personality issues, while universal health care, ending the war, alternative energy policies, and workers' rights languish.

So that's why I will be going to my precinct, say I am voting Democrat, and voting "uncommitted" on Tuesday Jan. 15th. If you support Edwards or Obama, that is the only way to send a message for change, a message to the Party to get its act together, and take a step forward away from the grinding partisanship and personality bickering that would be the hallmark of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

From  Michigan Class Notes