Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Do-Over Undone


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell pause as they walk in the Scranton St. Patrick's Day Parade in Scranton, Pa., Saturday, March 15, 2008. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
Ed Rendell and Jon Corzine have done Hillary Clinton no favors in her fight for the Democratic nomination. The neighboring governors (Rendell of Pennsylvania, Corzine of New Jersey) set out to eliminate one obstacle to do-over votes in Florida and Michigan. Instead they ended up creating one.

When officials in Florida and Michigan first started talking about how to set up new primaries to assure that their delegations will be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they were understandably insistent that taxpayers not be stuck with the bill. Taxpayers had funded their January primaries; somebody else should pay for do-overs.

Because they were in a dispute with the Democratic National Committee, officials in both states looked to the DNC to bear the cost of new contests. DNC chairman Howard Dean, who has taken a hard line in his dealings with the two states, promptly rejected their entreaties. The national committee, he said, needed every available dollar it could raise to wage a general election campaign in the fall. The states would have to look elsewhere.

Dean was not entirely unhelpful, however. He reminded state officials that, while the national committee is barred from raising soft money (large, non-federally regulated contributions), state parties were not. Rendell and Corzine brashly decided to take matters into their own hands.


Money has never been an obstacle in the political life of Corzine. The former Goldman Sachs chairman has spent more than $100 million from his personal fortune to win election to the Senate and then the governor's office. Rendell cannot match Corzine in personal wealth, but as a former DNC general chairman he knows the network of Democratic fat cats as well as anyone, and he is ever ready to be a player when it comes to party politics.

So the two men teamed up to find the money needed to pay for new primaries and on Wednesday delivered a letter to Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm in which they announced that they had found 10 individuals willing to ensure that up to $12 million in private money will be available for a new primary, should the stalemated Michigan Legislature approve such a plan.

As Rendell and Corzine modestly put it, "In the interest of providing assurance that the private funds necessary to finance a publicly administered election will indeed be available should the Michigan Legislature choose to proceed in this direction, we have taken the liberty of soliciting guarantors for such an effort."

Handled deftly, this might have been seen as an act of political altruism. Instead it smacks of an inside job. Rendell is a Clinton supporter. Corzine is a Clinton supporter. Granholm is a Clinton supporter. Perhaps coincidentally, the letter guaranteeing the money arrived on the day Clinton flew into the Michigan to ratchet up pressure on Obama and the legislature to support a new primary.

That was the least of the problem. Where was the money coming from? According to my colleague Matt Mosk, who quickly analyzed the Gang of 10 guarantors, eight are Clinton contributors, and five of those eight have helped raise at least $100,000 for her campaign. No one in the group is an Obama fundraiser.

Obama, who took his name off the Michigan ballot after the DNC sanctioned the state for violating party rules by moving up its primary to Jan.15. Clinton, who kept her name on the ballot and won 55 percent of the vote, with 40 percent going to the "uncommitted" line. Obama prefers a 50-50 split of the delegates, while Clinton wants a revote.

Obama has said that, if the state and the DNC reached agreement on a plan, he would accept that decision. But he has been dragging his feet, raising one question after another about the terms of the proposed legislation. There are some legitimate issues, but the outlines of the proposal have met with preliminary approval from the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee and no new primary could go forward without a period of public comment and a final vote of the committee after it receives a proposal from the Michigan Democratic Party.

Michigan officials bear considerable responsibility for the mess they have helped to create, and a revote is one way out, though that looks increasingly unlikely given the political stalemate. But what Rendell and Corzine took matters into their own hands without thinking through the consequences. Their letter to Granholm creates the impression that a Michigan do-over would be Clinton-financed contest designed to save her candidacy.

The integrity of the Democratic nomination contest already is in question -- remember, they are supposedly still counting votes in the Texas caucuses that were held on March 4 -- and this only adds to public cynicism.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 20, 2008; 12:09 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Barack's Bracketology
Next: Obama Pivots Back to the Pocketbook

Comments

No candidate is legitimate without Florida and Michigan. Think Bush 2000.

Mary Anne

Posted by: AnneR1 | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

No candidate is legitimate without Florida and Michigan. Think Bush 2000.

Mary Anne

Posted by: AnneR1 | March 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

This makes me SICK. Why don't they give the money to Darfur refugees, families of our soldiers who died in Iraq, Iraq veterans when they return, families that are losing their homes.

They can raise $12 million in 2 days for a stupid revote yet they turn their cold hearts to the real charity needs in this country and this world.

Posted by: AnninSeattle | March 24, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

seth --

The amount of anger many white people have about Rev Wright is very large.

Their sense of betrayal by Obama is very strong.

I haven't seen people this angry about an event, and a politician for a long time.

Its at the level of their anger towards Bush.

This isn't going to go away.

People feel taken advantage of.

The feel they been "played"

Nobody likes to be played for a fool.

Its not just an insult, its an insult to the person's self image.

Obama betrayed our trust.

The people who seem to be the most angry are the people who were his biggest fans.

They don't trust him anymore.

They feel like he used them.

Posted by: svreader | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I like it mul: you really imitate your candidate. You guys say "Look at the polls, Obama is behind in all of them". When I post three recent polls that show him ahead, you say "but look at the trend."

Trends change all the time--but he's had a rough week, and he's holding credible leads in major polls. Polls taken after the Wright stuff broke but before his speech.

You don't have to believe that the trends will turn or that his lead will hold up--but the smart money does. Have you checked Intrade lately?

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

The key question is "what's the most important thing?"

The right to self determination is what defines democracy itself.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the last post except that why all of the commotion now? the citizens of michigan and Florida knew before their votes were not going to count - why didnt they raise hell then? That is my biggest issue - only push the revote when it is politically convenient?

Posted by: GivePeaceAChance | March 20, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

The depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.

Bill had his picture taken with Wright.

Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.

Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.

Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.

The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.

Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

POLITICO.COM IS REPORTING ...

JEREMIAH WRIGHT WAS CLINTON WHITE HOUSE GUEST

The recent coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright has often cast him as a marginal, almost fringe figure, but Trinity Church is a major Chicago institution, and Wright has long been a prominent pastor on the American scene.

And an anonymous blog set up to defend his church offers some compelling photographic evidence of this: A photograph of Wright and President Clinton, which it says was taken on September 11, 1998 -- the date of a White House gathering for religious leaders.

[UPDATE: The blog seems to have taken that item down; here's the full image that was posted.]

Hillary Clinton, according to her recently-released schedule for the day, was present at the gathering.

That's where Clinton reportedly told the assembled clerics, at the depth of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, that he had "repented." ...


By Ben Smith 07:49 PM

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

The key point here is one of priorities.

TThe right of Florida's and Michigan's voters to have their votes count in choosing the Democratic Party's candidate must be the highest priority.

To deprive them of that right goes against the most fundemental principle our country is based on -- the right to choose our own leaders.

To block their votes is to take away their right to self-determination.

Their right to participate in choosing the candidate for the Democratic party democracy must be paramount.

The DNC's idea of punishing the voters of the states of Florida and Michigan for their states moving up their primaries punishes the wrong people -- the voters of those states -- for actions that they had no direct control over.

To deprive citizens of their right to vote goes against the most important principle our country was founded on -- Self Determination.

This isn't a game.

Its a question of the most fundemental right of citizens in a democracy.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

To DABucher: Ms Clinton standing on the moral high ground? You're kidding. Perhaps, you should take a look at yourself in the mirror and see how long your nose has become.

As for revotes and compromise seating plans, I oppose both. The citizens of Florida and Michigan boxed themselves out of the convention by disobeying the primary rules. Their choice. Touch luck.


Posted by: pbarnett52 | March 20, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

It's disgusting the way Obama and Axelrod, are treating the FL and MI voters like dirt.

Posted by: autowx | March 20, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone not see through the Clintonian tactics? She agreed to Michigan and Florida not counting when she was sure she would be the Democratic frontrunner - and that is the only reason she did not raise hell then? why all of the commotion now? well its obvious, because she is losing. I dont have a problem with a revote in those states, but the way Hillary is doing it cries politics and there is no doubt about that. if she so wants the "voices" of people to be heard in michigan and florida, then why is she not pressing for superdelegates to follow their consituents? come on, if the tables were turned, we know that hillary would never be acting this way! seriously hillary supporters, just be honest with yourselves about your candidate. i am not saying obama is perfect, but there is no doubt that hillary is very unfair in her tactics.

Posted by: GivePeaceAChance | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no scruples. He and Aelrod are tossing away the FL and MI voters, as if they are trash. They are treating those voters like dirt.

Posted by: autowx | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Look Florida's Democrats had no choise about the date of the primary, it all in the hands of the Republican state government. . . . . But the real bottom line is that Obama is just another politician; he's obviously no one special.

Obama's looking more and more like George W. Bush day by day, as the "Uniter" stonewalls the democratic process -- shades of Florida 2000.

Posted by: coldcomfort | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

You got to look at trends on polls not the numbers. Polls have biases.

Obama lost 7-10 points on almost all polls.

Typical white person. Michigan is not going to help.

Preacher man will be all over the news next week when he gets his award.

Obama needs some good news. 4 weeks of hell for B.O.

I think obama has a 40 percent floor but the states coming up save Oregon SD all look bad.

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

I wish the Obama supporters would just say what they mean.

If you hate Hillary just say so.
If you think Obama is going to lose FL and MI just say so.

99.999 percent of the logical post are just a pathetic example of our school system.

Don't pollute the world with you BS.

1. Both Obama and Hillary need suppers to win.
2. There are Rules for seating FL and MI.
3. There are Rules for changing the Rules.
4. Hillary never said the Del would never be seated, at the time not count meant they were not going to affect the race at the time of the votes (which was true) who knew.
5. When she said the MI election would not count that would be fully correct if there were a new primary. So that would be a true statement not a lie.
6. Obama said he wanted a re-vote that was fair and approved by the DNC. He lied again.
7. Barrak Obama is a Typical White person.

We don't need a lot of your hate and stupidity. 80 percent of the Obama cultist on the board are what are called 'country club republicans'. You still are so go back to the GOP were you belong. Deep down Obama is too - me thinks - that is why he had to go to that church for 20 years - needed the cred.

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that we can all--serious Obama people, serious Clinton, and assorted psycho nuts--we can all agree that this has been the worst week Obama has had in the campaign?


The new CBS/New York Times poll shows Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton nationally, though not by nearly as much as he was in their last poll from three-and-a-half weeks ago:

Obama 46% (-8)
Clinton 43% (+5)

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has unraveled his own campaign due to his dishonesty and hypocrisy. He is a politician that will say and do anything to get elected. He refuses to allow the Michigan and Florida voters to be heard in the primaries because they did not support him in January and they will not support him in April or May or June OR November. Obama has proven very clearly that he is disingenuous and not to be trusted."

Florida and Michigan BROKE THE RULES and, therefore, they were punished. All of the candidates AGREED in the beginning not to campaign in those states. HRC campaigned in those states after she got blown out in Iowa....she is a cheater and a rule bender. Obama is keeping to what was agreed upon from the beginnning.

I mean really, if people are allowed to break the rules and get away with it, then what is the major uproar about illegal immigration???

Posted by: massmedia77 | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Vmunikoti: No way Senator Clinton is as crazy and ill-informed as SVReader.

For SVReader: Um, I think Obama's got a pretty good idea that he's going to need a lot of white votes to win--and the vast majority of the votes he's gotten so far have been from, surprise--white folks.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

To the idiots that keep posting the "typical white person" comment by Obama:

HE IS HALF-WHITE HIMSELF YOU IDIOTS!! IT'S LIKE A WHITE MAN TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN RACE FROM A POINT OF EXPERIENCE. OBAMA IS NOT SIMPLY A "BLACK" MAN...HIS BIRTH MOTHER IS A WHITE WOMAN. THE GUY IS SPEAKING ABOUT HIS OWN FAMILY....NOT A RANDOM BLACK MAN MAKING IGNORANT STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WHITE RACE, BUT A "BLACK MAN" (BECAUSE OF THE ONE DROP RULE THAT RACIST WHITE PEOPLE CREATED) WHO HAS GROWN UP WITH HIS OWN WHITE, CAUCASIAN FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE PEOPLE SHARE THE SAME BLOOD WITH HIM....HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN FOLK. LET'S NOT BE STUPID.

Posted by: massmedia77 | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER IS ACTUALLY HILLARY CLINTON!

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama's history.

There's no way he can win without the white vote.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 03:03 PM
-------------------------------------
Well, of course he can't you idiot! Whites are the majority. Pull your head out of your butthole.

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Of course its not in Mr. Obambas best interest to have everyone vote. Especially after his behavior this week..Time to question him on his experience. He showed his lack this week when trying to tell me that my white grandmother was racist...

Posted by: robinhood2 | March 20, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has unraveled his own campaign due to his dishonesty and hypocrisy. He is a politician that will say and do anything to get elected. He refuses to allow the Michigan and Florida voters to be heard in the primaries because they did not support him in January and they will not support him in April or May or June OR November. Obama has proven very clearly that he is disingenuous and not to be trusted.

Posted by: mo897 | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama believes the typical white person is a racist. Listen to him speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 07:51 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh my God! I just heard this! What a disaster!

Posted by: aamittal | March 20, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

OH LOL!

Wexlereric, J-McChesney & Dale

Somewhere? Washington, DC. (202) 872-8411

LOL!

Fools THINK they Know me!

Dummies thought I would call on MY Phone!

Hey Dick Tracy-Er, Eric-My Name is NOT William!

You can bounce THAT off WaPo BEFORE you harass the wrong person!

;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 20, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

The "typical white person" gaffe is major. This could unravel the Obama campaign.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama believes the typical white person is racist, like his grandmother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI

He should never use words unless they're written for him.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama believes the typical white person is a racist. Listen to him speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse


For $12 million you can win new eligible delegates to help you continue your campaign.

There is no moral high ground for Clinton to take in the primaries anymore.

She and her team are a great strategist, one step at a time. But this is more of the same old politics, which as turned me and my family off from both the Bush clan and now the Clinton clan.

Posted by: bjb | March 20, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

zukermand: "If Dan Balz is going to continue to pretend he is a professional journalist, shouldn't he avoid typing stuff he makes up out of his head as though it were fact?
It doesn't matter whether one agrees with Mr Balz or not, my point is this is not the function of a "news reporter", it is the job of an opinion columnist."

Psssst, Zuckie, I've seen innumerable whines from you about "opinion" being injected into Dan Balz's "news" articles. Apparently you don't understand how a newspaper (or in this case an online news site) works. It must've escaped your notice, but if you look verrrrry carefully at the top of this article you'll see the words "Dan Balz's Take." See, when a column carries a kicker (sorry, that's journalist jargon) with the writer's name in it, it generally means that this is an analysis by the writer of what's going on--in other words, a *GASP!* opinion piece.

Now if this were a bylined news article on the Post's front page rather than an off-the-cuff analysis entry on a blog, you might have a leg to stand on. But stop whining about a lack of journalistic objectivity in what is plainly a SUBJECTIVE opinion piece just because it's making Hillary look bad (as if she doesn't do that all by herself). It just makes you look woefully uninformed.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama doesn't want revotes in either Michigan or Florida, because he is afraid that he will lose in both states and risk the nomination. Just another example of Obama's dishonesty relative to what he has said his campaign is based upon. He is nothing more than an ambitious politician calling everyone else ambitious politicians and portraying himself as someone that will change all of that. Based on his campaign, he won't change anything -- he'll talk about it if he thinks it will get him elected, but actually do it -- no way.

Posted by: mo897 | March 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I see that svreader is growing more psychotic with each passing day. I think she will have a complete breakdown when it finally becomes apparent to her that Clinton has lost the nomination. She does have an amazing capacity to delude herself and lie about others, however.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | March 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Fret not, any Dem can beat Mr Magoo McCain.

Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The dems are finished. Hillary as destroyed the party. No one can win in the fall. Just sad.

Posted by: lumi21us | March 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida will be seated eventually but they won't have an impact on who get the nomination unless it goes to a second ballot.

Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Obama's made us feel like a bunch of idiots for having done that while Rev Wright and God knows how many other pastors were preaching hatred towards whites."

The Vast Angel-Wing Conspiracy!

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is still has an insurmoutable lead in elected delegates. Hillary's only hope is the superdelegates. Not likely there are enough of them to help her at this point. One other possibility being rumored is that Gore may come out of "retirement" if the Wright issue continues to grow and seriously hurt Obama's chances in the general. The deal would be Obama would cede his delegates to Gore and Obama would get VP. Might work.

Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

For his sterling efforts to manage the Democratic National Committee, I want to present to Howard Dean, the Best Friend I Ever Had Award.

Thank you,

The RNC

Yeeeehawwww!

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

This idea that rules only count for other people is a trademark of the Clintons. Look at the pardon of Marc Rich, the lying under oath, Travelgate, etc.

Its tiresome, really. Most of us learn about rules early on, and realize that if we're part of an organization and we don't like its rules, we leave the organization, or we try to change the rules within the proper process. The idea that you can change the rules on your whim, or manipulate them, to benefit yourself, is simply sociopathic.

Hillary could have structured her campaign so that she wouldn't be in this situation now. She and her advisors were outsmarted by a bunch of novices. It must be very hard for them to take responsibility for their own screwup.

Posted by: smeesq | March 20, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Actually Barack has survived quite well considering the idiotic non-stop playing of the Wright video on every media outlet. The bog daily tracking polls, Rasmussen and Gallup, both showed a slight uptick overnight.

Also from Fox News (of all places), the first major poll taken since Barack Obama's big speech on race relations, shows that the effect of the Jeremiah Wright flap might not be so bad after all. By a 57%-24% margin, registered votes do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views. Fox also asked respondents whether they had doubts about Obama because of his association with Wright. The results: 35% Yes, 54% No, with the numbers standing at 26%-66% for Democrats, 27%-61% among independents, and 56%-33% with Republicans.

Its not over but the worst appears to be over.

Posted by: zb95 | March 20, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules in Michigan before we start blaming the candidates?

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules in Michigan before we start blaming the candidates?

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Obama's lies are the #1 topic of conversation out here.

People are livid.

Everyone feels like they've been taken for fools.

I've never seen people this angry.

They're pissed beyond words."

Don't worry. The nurse will be by shortly with their (and your) meds.

Oh before I forget: L'Chaim! L'Barack!

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't trust Ed Rendell on anything. He is most likely on the Clinton list of people who owe them for favors. If you missed his appearance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, take a look.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23546686#23546686

It's like this Bill and Hillary, we live in a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. We have rules for fair elections. Each state has to follow the rules or, if they don't agree, they can contest them in a legal way.

If there were no rules on how early primaries can be held, they would be holding them in 2009 for the 2012 election. Good grief! It already seems like as soon as people take office, they start running for the next election. We need our president, senators, representatives, governors to start doing the jobs they were elected to do.

Posted by: joy2 | March 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules before we start blaming the candidates?

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

The real question here is whether everyone including those overseas, would have a chance to vote. From what I heard on the news, certain people would not be able vote. Does anyone know the rules before we start blaming the candidates?

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Well, its Hillary's race to lose now. Barack is dropping in the polls like a lead baloon, after his failed race speech. TWENTY Years...he listend and said nothing!!
No racist in the White House!!

Posted by: Phil6 | March 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Clinton must - and it appears she will - destroy Obama as a viable presidential candidate.

She wins because either she gets to be the candidate this year, or she gets to be the candidate in just 4 years running against a 76-year old incumbent.

For now, let's get ready for President McCain.

Posted by: Wolfeman | March 20, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Did Howling Dean say something along the lines of:

"Now, This is going to Hurt me More than You!"

As he disciplined Michigan and Florida?

ewexler-Just checked back-sorry-after 5.

Posted by: rat-the | March 20, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

It is simply amazing how far Team Clinton will go to try and stay in this race.

These are bad people.

Posted by: gthstonesman | March 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

This is why folks think the media is favoring Obama.
We have Obama killing a revote, because he is apparently afraid, and Hillary rounding up money to help fund one - and you spin it as a negative for Hillary??
Put down the KoolAid!

Posted by: johnL1 | March 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to tell Senator Clinton...

Just because you know how to win, does not mean you can win.

Move when it is profitable. Stop when it is not.

Posted by: jamdn463 | March 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic candidates were requested to take their names off of the Michigan ballot. All agreed except Clinton. Now she wants to claim that the delegates for her were fairly won. And since the DNC disagrees, her buddies are trying to pay for a re-vote. It boggles my mind how anyone could call that fair. She will do anything, no matter how dishonorable, to win. The Democratic party may never recover from the damage she has done.

Posted by: crobins16 | March 20, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse


why does hillary cheat right before our eyes?

she cares more about her career, than she does about the american people.

she has always been a polarizing individual, and she is dividing the democrats even more so now, basically handing the presidential election to mccain.

how can hillary does this to her country?

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | March 20, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Thinker: All that hate will make you ugly.

Perhaps you need to go off and start a blog with SVReader, Walnuts and The Rat so the rest of the rational readers here can go on with an honest discussion, without having to wade through your never-ending stream of filth.

Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The only fair revote would be a caucus where Limbaugh's dittohead Hillary voters would not show up.

Posted by: joy2 | March 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.

I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.

Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.

This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.

I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.

Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.

This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary allows the Clinton-supported money to fund the re-vote, it will bite her later because there will be questions. The same would hold true for Obama if Obama supporters funded the re-vote. Hillary doesn't want to make this call, though. She wants Obama to make it. This way she looks like the alturistic victim.

I am an Obama supporter and I believe the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida need to be heard. It just needs to be fair. If they are not heard, Obama looks bad -- and Clinton -- and the DNC.

Mich. and Fla. chose to ignore DNC rules and were punished for it. The fact that anyone is willing to do a re-do is beyond the call in the first place. However, with the election so tight, we cannot ignore the voters of Mich. and Fla. It just has to be fair -- and the funding of the Mich. proposal as well as the mail-in vote were either subject to fraud or unethical.

This has to be squeaky clean. And the solution should NOT come from a campaign. It should come from Howard Dean - who remains objective.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

We can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone agreed with the rules before we began: Florida and Michigan votes wouldn't count if they moved up their primaries.

Clinton agreed to these rules. If she had lost, she were running behind in those states, she would be fighting a redo.

Any way the complicated and arbitrary rules were set up would have changed the outcome.

If California had not moved its primary up to Super Tuesday from June, Obama probably would have won California.

It would be a disaster to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Posted by: saraz1 | March 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Why are the reporters such idiots who write this garbage, Wait, Wait I have to say they are not idiots '' we are '' or that is what they think. What difference does it make who pays for the revote , do the voters not have a mind of their own, the reporter who wrote this garbage would have you believe everyone would have to vote for Clinton, I think the voters of michigan would vote the way they saw things & not be swayed by who paid.

Posted by: jrs6776 | March 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

We need and pray for Hillary as an opponent for McCain because she is a treasure trove for us. She has so much trash and garbage in her backyard. Just wait and see what a spectacle it will be come November. McCain can denounce, renouce and reject all the dirty tactics coming at Hillary but he can't stop independent bloggers throwing cr*ap and sh*t at Hillary 24/7. There is youtube for us. The films and videos are ready. The right is ready to fight. Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove are our greatest assets. We will trash her to nothing.

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh Hillary, go ahead and skirt party rules or stretch them to the limit all you want. Go ahead and team up with your political crones to try to buy elections in Florida and Michigan. You're just confirming that you are bought and paid for by special interests that you'll owe big favors to if you win the white house. And, you'll probably lose to McCain. Keep it up dummy.

Posted by: JHG_sec405 | March 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Balz,
I think your last two paragraphs hit the nail right on the head. This does look like a Clinton buy out of the potential re-vote. It is disgusting.

The Michigan and Florida state parties created their own disenfranchised vote problem.

In the background while reading your article, I could hear the Beetles recording, "But money can't buy me love..." I hope it can't buy Michigan votes either.

Posted by: ChokoChuckles | March 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Why should Michigan get to vote again? First they tried to dominate the contest by moving their primary up to the beginning, contrary to party rules. Now they demand a "do over" to be the deciding factor in the end. Why not have every state vote "again", so they can "pick the winner"? This is nonsense, they blew it the first time, let them live with the consequences.

Secondly, Shillary is flat out lying when she claims is about "making sure Michigan voters' votes are counted." She didn't give one rat's behind about making Michigan's votes count when she was ahead. Now that she is behind and will say or do anything to give her campaign a chance to win, she claims to be the champion of democracy. What a fraud!

Posted by: RealChoices | March 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much Rush Limbaugh kicked in. He's been doing every else he could to support her candidacy, from urging Republicans to vote for her to providing creative inspiration for all the race-baiting her campaign has engaged in.

I would not be surprised if he is a silent partner in the funding effort.

Hillary/Rush '08! A natural ticket.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

aepelbaum,

I hope your reports from the trenches of PA are true. They sound a little too good, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and my support behind Obama to finally put an end to this "Weekend at Bernies" fiasco.


Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

As it is, Hillary had won more states, she has more popular votes and she has more pledged delegates than Obama. She leads by over 120 in total delegates. Moreover, Hillary has also raised money from sources outside the US such as from China (Norman Hsu) and Kazakhstan (Giustra).

It is about time the DNC stop this nonsense and ask Obama to withdraw. I don't understand why Howard Dean has not asked Obama to step aside for Hillary.
Hillary should be crowned the nominee for the Democrats and let us have Bill Clinton as the VP.

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The argument that Obama refuses to wear a flag pin which disproves his patrotism is just an unintelligent argument. It just is. Bush wore a pin, Cheney wore and pin and they deceived the American people about the need to go to war in Iraq. Is that patrotism? The lobbyist and special interest folk probably wore flag pins to Washington as they pillaged this country wealth.

Posted by: gal7764 | March 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

THIS A RIOT !!

OBAMA WENT ON LARRY KING AND SAID "WHAT IS NEEDED IS LESS SPIN AND MORE STRAIGHT TALK !!"

LET'S SEE - THAT WOULD BE HIS TELEPROMPTER ROUTINE, HIS ROCK STAR FLOAT ROUTINE, HIS RUN FROM THE REPORTERS ROUTINE. HIS SERMON RATHER THAN Q&A ROUTINE.

HOW ABOUT TRUTH AND ANSWER FIVE MOTHS AGO WHEN YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT REV. WRIGHT AND REZKO? HOW ABOUT YOU JUST GO BACK TO ILLINOIS.

OBAMA IS A FREAKING LIAR AND HE CAN ACTUALLY GET ON TELEVISINON AND SPEAK THINGS LIKE THIS WITHOUT LAUGHING OUTLOUD.

WOW. DOES HE NEED PSYCHOTHERAPY.

NO WHITE HOUSE FOR NUT CASES. OR LIARS.

STRAIGHT TALK. I'M SURPRISED HIS TEETH DON'T FALL OUT WHEN HE SAYS THAT. VIDEOS BELOW OF MR. STRAGHT LIAR.

HE'S TOTALLY AFRAID OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BECAUSE NOW THE WORD IS OUT ABOUT HIM.

Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his videos - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. And two ads the Republicans are working on. Enjoy the previews!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M


Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

...and a math tutor.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania governor, according to his interview with pbs, would not be surpised, if Obama campaigns his way into the victory of Pennsylvania primary. These divisive Clinton's tricks with reverend Wright, etc. would probably help Obama to make the governor's words about his Pennsylvania's victory to become the truth.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Yup...just think if Obama was in Hillary's position and he flip-flopped on MI & FL, on national TV, for his own personal gain...what would you be saying then?

You really need to get some objectivity sheep...bah....bah...

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

How does Obama think that by shutting out the voters in Florida and Michigan that he could win those votes in a General Election?

Those two states won't vote for him, and the states whose voters sympathize with MI and FL won't vote for him, either.

Obama is up the proverbial creek without a paddle, so to speak. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, well, it might be evidence of an inside job, but the Clinton proposal is made with the reality of the convention in mind, and in this case, Clinton needs Michigan. It is a legitimate reason for the Clinton campaign to do what it could, but, what will matter is that the Michigan and Florida voters get their votes counted.
I feel confident that Obama would do the same if his campaign felt it was in his interest. I suppose the Obama campaign feels it has the edge in a contest that will be governed by the DNC. The numbers in the future primaries will probably determine the final outcome.
Regardless, we once have Florida in the mix, mucking things up for the voters. The state government there is messed up.
I doubt they will any time soon figure out how to do the right thing for their voters. At least the Michiganders are trying to resolve this before the convention.
What a pitiful mess.

Posted by: zennhead614wheatland | March 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

These two states knowingly broke the rules. Dem leaders in both voted to move their primaries and figured they'd get away with it because "we're big swing states". Enough!

Voters in those states should be upset with their officials and no one else. Maybe next time, they'll follow the rules. If we let them off the hook, then primaries will start on Jan. 21, 2009 for the 2012 election.

Hillary is obviously desparate and is hurting her party, thus her country.

Posted by: capone1 | March 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton, as her released records show, was the very active supporter of NAFTA. Pennsylvania voters should know it now well. Obama is more in the stream for Pennsylvania voters, and they should vote for him by majority. I hope that the release of Mrs. Clinton's tax returns by 4/15/08 would finish the trick and show Pennsylvania voters exactly who the right choice and who the wrong choice is.
Obama in 2008.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

This financing is being underwritten by sleazy friends of Governor Jon S. Corzine and Governor Edward G. Rendell?? How interesting? Their names sound familiar. Aren't these the two Governors, who had the same experience as Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York? Birds of the same feather flock together. All of them including slick Willy had extra-marital affairs and all are adulterers. This just reminds me of the slime and sleaze of the Clinton years. Can we expect the same old slime and sleaze again in the White House with Bill Clinton as the de facto President running and chasing 19 year old virgin interns in the Oval Office? I can't even imagined he had sex with Monica when Hillary was at home.

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Where was Hillary concern for MI and FL voters when the decision was made to exclude FL and MI. The governors of FL and MI disenfrancished their own poeple. The truth is she thought she'd have this nomination wrapped up by now and would not need MI and FL.

Posted by: gal7764 | March 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Calm down folks, its not that bad. Life goes on. Really, it does - trust me.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

As a MI independent (who las leaned liberal for several years) I was very eager to vote in the primary this year.

Even though I am not a member of either party I have a right to vote in either party's primary. It is a dynamic that will be lost in a primary re-do. I voted in the Republican one this year since I knew my Dem vote would not count. I decide to pick the least objectionable candidate.

Also, even though I am not a member I wrote my reps and both state and national parties several time to complain about how our primaries were being handled BEFORE the election took place. Our State parties had solid reasons for bucking the rules, but they also broke them and we will have to pay the penalty.

I think the DNC was foolish to allow the whole thing to get to this point. They look very arrogant and pointless, to ignore two large states (one with some very serious economic issues)makes one wonder if they really can offer the leadership needed to get our county back on track. But I will wait and see.

It is tough in MI right now. I am a lucky to have a decent job, but I am watching more and more white collar jobs being shipped overseas every single day. It is almost as if the companies are in a race to see who can outsource the fastest and with the most creativity. The concerns in our state right now are in a hyper-mode and very accelerated and I worry that by ignoring our very real and hard to solve issues the rest of the country will lose out on some real debate and resolutions for what they will soon see.


Good Luck.

Posted by: krygel | March 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut sized brain,

Ah...your true colors. Left-wing conspiracies and an isolated black voting block that are just being mindlessly controlled by liberals. Obama, the perfect manchurian candidate to sway the black votes...whoops he wasn't supposed to win...back to the Star Chamber...you can't be serious...oh yeah...you're a dinosaur...and in more ways than one...think about it.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

mcrochip;

Once again, let me try to correct this disinformation:

In caucus states, people know how it works. (Texas excluded--I have no idea what their problem is.)

There is not much bullying that goes on for a really simple reason: if you live in a community of 6,000 people, you're going to run into those people again at the supermarket or the gas station. People make their cases and they make their choices and they respect the decisions. A lot of New Englanders are accustomed to standing up in public meetings and having their say--and they don't announce their income bracket before they speak. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter if you live in a doublewide by the transfer station or the best house in town, you get to speak and your opinion gets considered.

Anybody who believes that caucuses are some kind of terrible exclusionary event has never been to one. It's a different way of life and if you don't like it, don't live in a caucus state.

I don't think Maine, to name one caucus state that was slandered by Clinton's political operatives, is going to be particularly receptive to a bunch of folks "from away" telling them their caucus system is wrong. It's worked for many decades, including in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was running for President. Funny there were no complaints then.

Posted by: newcanoes | March 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

sbgamatt, are you Carl Rove's assistant or one of Rush Limbaugh's boys?

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Just recently we were reminded of trying to form a more perfect union.

An obvious flaw of our current voting system is the primary where politicians, candidates, and parties get to cut deals to determine the leadership of this nation at the expense of the voters and the citizens of this country.

We need to remedy the primary system so that all voters get to participate despite the cries of lawyers and political hacks.

That remedy needs to be afforded now. Paramount to any candidate winning is that our nation, our people, ALL OF US, get simply the opportunity to participate in the election of our President.

We form a perfect union when we face and solve our tests during the most difficult of times, and do not push them off until politically expedient.

Denying the vote to Michigan and Florida will render the Democratic party apart. It is divisive to let two large states twist in the wind, and the men and women in it, while politicians fight and argue whose fault is.

The simple answer is give the vote to the people. Find a WILL Democrats, not EXCUSES, to get the re-vote to Michigan and Florida.

Posted by: camasca | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

mnjo wrote: OBAMA is a sham, and hoodwinked the nation. Why should we be stuck with him?

We told you so!!! Now let's concentrate on HRC.
___________________________________________

sergio wrote: She'll kiss a baby while she is stealing its candy.

Yes, yes, yes... This is getting better and better. I'll get the popcorn.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The media as well as the FBI should investigate if the Michigan Revote is being finance by the likes of Norman Hsu, whose donations to the Clintons come from illegal money laundered by the Communist Chinese. The same goes with the dirty money donated to Bill Clinton by the Kazakhstan uranium deal. Clinton greased the wheels for this massive deal in exchange for $100 million. Bill Clinton used the $100 million dollars to pay for all his daily expenses. It finances everything he does as a former president: trips, travel, hotels, dining, rentals, escorts, s*x, virtually everything he does can be billed to his foundation. He even had his charity pay for his Starbucks coffee each morning.

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Thinker...svreader...a_bigone...interesting that these mindless sheep give themselves such arrogant, high and mighty names?

Don't forget to feed all your cats, erase all that porn off your computer, and check on your Mom upstairs.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

I've done everything I posted, and far more.

Some people accomplish a lot in their lives.

Others, very little.

You're clearly in the second category and cannot imagine how a person in the first category could so much more than you have.

But, again, thank you for providing me a window into your soul.

Its not a pretty sight.


Posted by: svreader |
****************************
SVRETARD, you sit on these boards day after day, building up your imaginary resume - which will probably include you walking beside Martin Luther King in Washington, DC someday - and tearing it down with your thin-skinned, repetitious lies and innuendos. You are not fooling anybody. Nobody believes your s**t. If you were half those things you claimed, you would come here with better things to say instead of cutting and pasting what you can find from right-wing propaganda sites.

As for soul-searching? I imagine yours is like the basement room you are typing this from: dank, dirty, and smells like socks and chinese food. Does your mother have to clean up after you all the time?

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

He's not where he is just because he's black, Scrappy, but he wouldn't have been selected by the left wing of the Democratic party if he had been anything other than black. They knew a black man who could speak like a preacher could pick up most of the black voters, Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, they make up about 15 percent of the electorate so they can't elect a candidate without help.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama has hoodwinked and hijacked this Democratic election. By refusing for months to answer the questions We The People - by walking out and driving away from these questions and refusing to answer - he has left people who voted for him wondering what they have done. The answer is, they've done nothing. Mr. Obama and his campaign of sly political (not new, not different) marketers have bamboozled and gotten him past those questions until he had delegates in his bag. Cheated - refused to answer questions at this interview.

Obama spent TWENTY YEARS with Mr. Wright as a Father Figure. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq, He refused to put his hand to his heart and pledge allegiance to the United States flag as American troops are dying in Iraq to protect it. He's on the Oversight Committee on Afghanistan and HASN'T DONE ONE THING IN OVER A YEAR - FOURTEEN MONTHS - NOT ONE MEETING. Our troops can sit there and die. Obama cares about HIMSELF. His wife tells us she's never been proud of America. Sounds like a religious problem to me.

This man intends to continue on in this church and his relationship with this rabid racist man who speaks against this country. This man should never be President of the United States.


Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his videos - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. And two ads the Republicans are working on. Enjoy the previews!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M

We reap what we sow. And Mr. Obama is a cheat. Thank God for Karma!

Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Nobody concealed that to finance revote is possible only by using heavy weight donors. How elese would it be possible?"

This is a classic. The Clintons can't fathom Obama's funding method. The only "heavy weight" they could find is Rezco, a ridiculous lightweight by Clinton standards, both in terms of dishonesty and money donated.

I think the lack of corrupt money behind Obama's popularity is why they have to categorize him in the only way they know.
Lets see, very popular black person...well must be an entertainer and a thug.

If the people of Michigan wanted to vote again, don't you think we would have heard from more than a handful of them by now?

So Bill's idea is, how about if we create an election bought and paid for by just my candidate?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

You are right Vilberg. Plus, I actually have a life. Good night. SVRetard, YOU go ahead

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Good. Now step off, harpy.

Posted by: poortrekker | March 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut sized brain,

Yes...you're right it is more than emotion...paranoia...conspiracy therioes...comfortable with the safe moderate candidate from a bygone era that is about to face charges much more serious than Rezko...close the blinds...lock the doors...its okay...the light and fresh air feels great...come on out...she's gone.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Michigan do-over would be Clinton-financed contest designed to save her candidacy."

That's exactly what it is. Hillary will do anything to win. She used a nuclear bomb (race card) to kill the Democratic Party. For her anything goes. One should also questions if any money is coming from Communist China to fund the Michigan Revote. The Clintons ties to China are very troubling.

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey, "Thinker" ( the nickname is ironic, right?)
"He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq,"

So, not wearing the lapel is unpatriotic, but voting to send them to that war isn't?

Didn't Clinton say that her years of experience on both side of Pennsylvania Ave help her decide to vote for that war?

Based on previous posts of yours, I know thinking is not your strong suit, but try.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

All the comments here mean nothing unless you are saying every American has the right to have their vote counted.

You can call it stealing, trickstering, fixing, whatever you want to call it but it all boils down to what I just said - Every American has a right to have their vote counted. Nothing else matters more, and Dean should get off his high horse and compromise to get the votes counted.

It is only one person's fault and that is Dean. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Actually Villberg is right...goodnight

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

This is why I cannot vote for Hillary. Her and Bill have all sorts of cronies and contacts and people to make things happen.
She is just part of the good-ol-boy club so to speak.

Posted by: mjk2210 | March 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

thinker...LOL! Boy, I guess you right-wing nuts are scared little hypocrites. Oh well,...

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

So Hazelnut, are you saying the only reason Senator Obama is where he is now is because he is black? If so...stop it...please...it is making you look foolish.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

All of you. Stop it.

If you live in FL or MI you should be embarrassed that your legislature advanced the timing of your primary at the risk of your disenfranchisement. They gambled and you lost. Next time elect smarter legislators.

And if you live elsewhere, you got to vote and. presumably, your vote counted. Now move along.

Posted by: vilberg | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Only a Clinton who wants to win at any and all costs (including ripping her own party apart) would try to change the rules after the fact. Amazing that she had no problem with Michigan and Florida not being counted when she thought she was a shoe in. Now that she's a long shot she's crying foul? Give me a break. Why hasn't anyone in the press core asked her if she would be pushing this hard and yelling and screaming this loud if the roles were reversed, and she was the one with the lead. You can bet your bottom dollar she would be saying, "These are the rules of the game, and we have to play by them." She really is amazing, and in the worst possible way.

Posted by: jaykeith_29 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

LABC - you rock!

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse


Mr. Obama has hoodwinked and hijacked this Democratic election. By refusing for months to answer the questions We The People - by walking out and driving away from these questions and refusing to answer - he has left people who voted for him wondering what they have done. The answer is, they've done nothing. Mr. Obama and his campaign of sly political (not new, not different) marketers have bamboozled and gotten him past those questions until he had delegates in his bag. Cheated - refused to answer questions at this interview.

Obama spent TWENTY YEARS with Mr. Wright as a Father Figure. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel as American troops die in Iraq, He refused to put his hand to his heart and pledge allegiance to the United States flag as American troops are dying in Iraq to protect it. His wife tells us she's never been proud of America. Sounds like a religious problem to me.

This man intends to continue on in this church and his relationship with this rabid racist man who speaks against this country. This man should never be President of the United States.


Mr. Obama is deceitful and dishonest. Here is his video - laughing while he talks about bamboozling. The second one is the ad Republicans are working on. Enjoy the preview!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M


We reap what we sow. Mr. Obama is a cheat.


Posted by: Thinker | March 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Balz' take is really quite a take!
The subjectivity of media - and The Post first of all - exceeds all limits.

Nobody concealed that to finance revote is possible only by using heavy weight donors. How elese would it be possible?

Clinton gets donors - an open list, nothing hidden - and that is bad too for obamists, icluding Balz.

Posted by: vanitsky | March 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The dieing cat always howls the loudest.

Posted by: OldCoot1 | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

It hurts her because it is another case of maipulating the system to her and his husband ambitions.

* She release the papers yesterday, but there are 27 days missing and many pages are censored.
* Mrs. Clinton still is not releaseing he income tax reports.
* Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have not publicly to explain the interaction of their team and the Canadian Ambassador and/or the Canadian Consulate in Chicago on the NAFTA issue.

It hurst her because everybody knew that the Democratic Party had opposed the actions of both Florida and Michigan...but now that she is behind in the popular votes, now that she is behind in the number of won States...and she is also behind the number of delegates...the real purpose of this exercize, she is trying to chnge the rules in the 3rd period of the hockey game.

Give me a break!

Posted by: PCM011 | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Brian, you can't feel my anger because it's not there...disappointment is and I suppose you can say that's an emotion but that's not why I'm supporting Senator Clinton. I'm supporting her because I have checked her record and she has most of the time championed issues that I support, two of which is affirmative action and more rights for the working poor of this country. But she has much more experience. Senator Obama has no experience except his half-hearted efforts to help minorities and poor African Americans, even while he was assisting his friend Rezko as a slumlord who failed to maintain his buildings to a minimum standard of living even though Senator Obama secured government funds for him to do so. The left wing of the Democratic party chose Senator Obama to run so that he would take the black vote from Senator Clinton. They didn't think he'd win, just that he would cause Senator Clinton not to win. They wanted a Chris Dodd or some other left wing democrat to win. Too bad for them. They've made a huge mess, and we have Howard Dean to thank for that as well as the Michigan and Florida mess. He could have punished the 2 states by allowing them to seat only 1/2 their delegates as the Republicans wisely did, but he is that stupid so here we are.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Look, maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't the DNC expressly forbid any states from moving their nominating contests earlier than February 5th without permission? Weren't Michigan and Florida expressly warned that their party delegates would not be seated at the nominating convention if they violated this rule?

They played chicken with the national party, broke the rules, and received exactly the penalty they had been promised. What's unfair about this? Why especially should Michigan and Florida's delegates be counted, other than that they'd likely provide a boost to one particular campaign? The whole thing reeks, and what's amazing about it is that while the campaigns, the state parties, and the DNC are squabbling over how best to provide these two states with unwarranted exemptions from a rule they knowingly broke, their party is being discredited around them and an ugly nominating process is all but handing the general election to John "Another Hundred Years" McCain.

I say that not as an Obama supporter, but as someone who loves the Democratic Party. It drives me absolutely nuts to see us doing this: we're chopping our own feet off, doing absolutely everything in our power to delegitimize ourselves and whatever claim we may have had to being the truly post-political party.

Posted by: manalive | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why Hillary's campaign hasn't release a glowing analysis of her WH schedule...if she has all this experience here's her chance to show it and tout it...how come all I hear are crickets?

I thought they were the campaign gurus with the proven and experienced candidate?

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER: although its been intellectually dull talking to you, one last thaught before Im done for the day, you claim "At least the Clintons are patriotic." is that what that means when you authorise america to go to war, and kill 4000 americans, is that what you mean when you say " Obama let people who voted for him freeze to death.
That's a completely different level of sin". your right, although thats a complete fabrication, if it were true, i geuss it would be differant than being responsible for bankrupting the nation, and murdering 4000 americans


Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

I've done everything I posted, and far more.

Some people accomplish a lot in their lives.

Others, very little.

You're clearly in the second category and cannot imagine how a person in the first category could so much more than you have.

But, again, thank you for providing me a window into your soul.

Its not a pretty sight.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Left --

She's doing it because she can win and she will.

Let people vote.

That's their right.

Please stop gloating.

Its far from over.

When it is, I doubt you'll find very much to gloat about.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

Yeah, I was really stupid to contribute to the united negro college fund, NAACP, promote affirmative action, march for civil rights, etc, etc, etc.

You really put one over on me.

I'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time I'm asked to contribute.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 04:33 PM
**************************
Yeah, you are just a big teddy bear of love with sugar sprinkled on top to black folks everywhere. I doubt that you marched for anything other than your high school marching band, that the last time you shared anything or contributed anything was a cold bug. Your words on this board and others do not match up with your "deeds". You are a venomous fishwife whose only contributions to this board and others are your tired faux news generated gossip. You are one fedora and a closet away from being Matt Drudge.

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

This is nothing more than an attempt by Clinton supporters to buy the election. At one point Ms Clinton said that the Michigan vote wouldn't matter. Now, when it matters, she is happy to have surrogates pay for a re-vote. Michigan and Florida did not abide by the rules. Period.

Frankly, I get a bit tired of seeing the posts of bigots here. If you don't like Hillary or Obama, just say so.

Posted by: jordy1 | March 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

That would be easy...see all your post...Hazelnut's post...and Harried. The difference is we are calling Hillary and you on your crap. We are saying your arguments are nonsensical. All these racial arguments are just distractions.

Obama drops in poll today...well so what? The polls change daily and he already has won more votes. It also shows Hillary losing to Mccain...Harried...do you really expect her to win after the process which she is a part of says she lost? We are not just young and blind followers. Most of us were Clinton supporters before we saw the real Hillary Clinton. I do not know any of you lunatics from Adam but if your views seem to be really collectively consistent and represent the worst part of politics and sadly the democratic party. You have no desire for party unity. You only care about advancing Hillary to a definitive loss. You are really a sad lot.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"The integrity of the Democratic nomination contest already is in question...and this only adds to public cynicism."

Why on earth didn't Rendell and Corzine raise HALF the money and then open the other half up to Obama supporters? Problem solved equitably and everybody looks good. If the BHO supporters couldn't come up with their half they'd look bad so that wouldn't be a problem.

Once again, I have to wonder if there are any adults working in the HRC campaign.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary also needs to check herself with the experience line...helped broker the Irish peace settlement...you spoke to some women about their lack of involvement in the process...you were not at the table and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise...you were on tour, while the real negotiators were at the table...you have not fooled this Irish American with your targeted lies. Nice try...but I got another stone you can kiss.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

.

And let's not Kid ourselves...

Even if they Redo MI and FL,

Obama will STILL win, and Everybody knows it.

She cannot make up the deficit in popular votes NOR delegates.

This FACT makes her actions even MORE despicable.

She CANNOT WIN. So, WHY is she doing this?

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue.
-------------

Do you care to explain how Hillary Rove Clinton has the moral high-ground on the re-vote? She left her name on the ballot after agreeing that the vote would not count.

Here's what she agreed to:

"I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina..."

It seems to me that leaving her name on the ballot is "participating" in the process. So, she cheated, and now she wants to claim the spoils of her cheating. How childish can you be.

Posted by: katie11 | March 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

This needed to be worked out between the State parties and the DNC in accordance with the rules that were laid out when the decision was made. The decision said that if they worked out a way to hold a re-vote AFTER Feb 5th, that those votes would count and those delegates would be seated.

Both campaigns agreed to, and signed their names to, the decisions at the time. For one side to try to now claim its unfair is entirely disingenuous because they weren't complaining when they agreed to it.

The state party had an opportunity to fix this twice and failed -- they should never have agree to hold the primary outside of DNC rules; and, once they did, they needed to work with the DNC to work out some other arrangement. Having Hillary's supporters show up with a briefcase full of $$$ because she now needs the vote doesn't really pass the smell test. What happens if, in order to hold this primary in such a condensed time frame or to lower costs they end up reducing the # of polling places? Are the ones that might get cut ones that are predominantly serving Obama's constituency? There seem to be issues that come up during just about every primary or caucus and almost all are dismissed because of the implied impartiality of the process since it's funded and conducted by the state, who should only be looking out for its voters, not any specific candidate. If this were funded almost exclusively by any individual campaign, that presumption of an impartial process is GONE.

This needed to be done by groups that, at least publicly, have no rooting interest in the outcome -- the state party and the DNC. And at this point, I'm giving the DNC more of a pass than the state party. The DNC isn't doing a single thing that they didn't tell the state party they were going to do when there was still plenty of time for them to change course. They didn't and now they're stuck.

Posted by: gmtiffany | March 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

breww21 --

Your own words discredit your far more effectively than anyone else's ever could.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ok. ENOUGH! Democrats - let's just get behind a candidate once and for all - instead of all this insult-hurling!

Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

An Observer: "Hey Obamma, those are ugly shoes!"

Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!

Another Observer: "Hey Obamma, you have BUSH ears!"

Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!

ETC, ETC, ETC!!!


Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 04:28 PM

******************************
Obama: "Nice to meet you. Hope you will vote this year."

Harried: (inner voice) "HE's black. He's black. He's black!! If I shake his hand, I will get black cooties!"

a tad more realistic than your dialogue, seeing as he never said those things.

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should try running for a Senate seat in PA after so loses hers in 2012, because she will after all this...and her drawn out and ugly divorce from Bill.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The GOP may give new meaning to vile and sleazy when it comes to elections...but the Dems give new meaning to stupid.

The last two nominees the Dems have left standing are Obama and HRC. Unbelievable. They have just handed the GOP another 4-8 years of incompetence and corruption in the White House.

But the Dems can pat themselves on the back as they once again go down to defeat that they were so PC that they nominated a black or a woman.

Morons. They deserve what they get.

Posted by: checkered1 | March 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks jhtlag1 and SueB2.

I know about facts and logic in politics.

I just moved out of DC and things seems so much more reasonable outside of the beltway.

It's a shame that these two things have so little meaning in choosing our elected leaders and running the country.

Posted by: biercuk | March 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut : your missing the larger picture I answered myself in the post, no I dont care, and B hillary wasnt responsable for that it was her husband, its just with svreader logic you could make an argument about that, SVreader if your going to make a post please make an intelligent observation, or please go back to whatever you do, which is probably not much of anything. I mean honestly do you believe half the things you say, I mean I geuss I could read the national inquirer and come up with the same things you do, but really dont you get tired of always being wrong

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

Yeah, I was really stupid to contribute to the united negro college fund, NAACP, promote affirmative action, march for civil rights, etc, etc, etc.

You really put one over on me.

I'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time I'm asked to contribute.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama trying to avoid "primary" voting should not be surprising to anyone.

Obama is for Co*k and A** (Caucus) like Saudi King's court, or old Russian polit bureau.

At this time, he can not win when masses vote.

His taflon is gone. He is just trying to survice.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Facts:
---Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. He was not asked to do so. He did not do this in Florida.
---Obama then asked his supporters to vote "uncommitted". Hillary won anyway.
--- He was the only candidate to run ads in the State of Florida. Hillary won anyway.
---The DNC said that FL and MI could seat their delegates if they re-voted.
---The DNC said the re-votes would have to be financed by the states or the candidates.
----Hillary's campaign has come up with the money to do what the DNC said they should do in order to seat the delegates. Obama has not pledged any money although they are free to do so.
----Obama has not come up with any plan to make sure the delegates are counted. All he says is that he would go along with what the DNC says. The DNC has spoken.

Where is the Unity candidate??

Posted by: joep1 | March 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Michigan (and Florida) officials decided to break party rules that they had agreed to - they should be the ones facing the blame of voters, not Obama, Clinton, or the DNC. Why should Michigan get a do-over? What makes them so special or better than all the states who did abide by the rules? Rules, by the way, that both Clinton and Obama agreed to.

Of course, now that Clinton is losing the race, she's all gung-ho to include Michigan and Florida.

Michigan and Florida jumped up the schedule to try to be relevant and it bit them in the rear, instead losing any relevancy to the Democratic nomination. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: r32rsilver | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is just a girl only been in the Senate 7 years what does she know.

WH she spent all her time keeping Bill in line.

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

breww21 --

Wright was Obama's "Spiritual Advisor"

Now we know that his advice was "God Damm America"

At least the Clintons are patriotic.

Stop acting "shocked, shocked" that Bill got a BJ.

Obama let people who voted for him freeze to death.

That's a completely different level of sin.

I hope Obama likes REALLY warm weather.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Rat-the:

I know who you are. If you want to discuss, call me at 443.822.9067. You have until 5PM today.

Posted by: ewexler1 | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

breww: Do you really hate all people who've had extra-marital affairs, especially the spouse of the person who had the affair, even though that is probably at least 50 percent of the US population? Are you that naive or is that the only derogatory thing you can say about Senator Clinton? What else do you have? Without quoting the Rush Limbaugh crowd...

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut sized brain,

I can feel your anger...isn't that an emotion?

and svtalker...man you've got issues...but that's all the attention I'll pay you because you know how much black folk love the Kool-aid...oh, that's right...you've never been to a black persons house.

Start saying it...yes we can.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

An Observer: "Hey Obamma, those are ugly shoes!"

Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!

Another Observer: "Hey Obamma, you have BUSH ears!"

Obama: "You Racist , Bigoted, SOB!

ETC, ETC, ETC!!!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

This may be a little off topic, but I just would like someone to explain to me this "Experience" that Hillary has been touting so much.
Was it her time in the White House, becuase if that is what it is, then I wouldn't be touting that. Lets see, was it her failed attempt to reform health care? Maybe it was her support for the NAFT treaty that she now denouces, Coveniently just before the Ohio Primary.
I just don't understand the logic of the Hillary supporters. Is it becuase our Economy was good when president BILL Clinton was in the white house that you magically think Hillary will bring the same. How about the shame and embarrassment that the Clintons brought to the white house with the Sex Scandal and legal troubles, do you remember that as well.

Please, a little help here with what good SHE, that being Hillary, Not Bill, brings to the table.

Posted by: bgaeta | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Svretard is sooooo angry. Careful, he might cry. Me no like Obama, whaaaaaaaaa, he mean black guy who ignores me.....whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

And if you think that was dumb, take a look at the last 50 posts of this supposed CEO of a silicon valley company, this championed of poor people in the slums, this liar, slanderer. The closer to the nomination Senator Obama gets, the crazier SVRETARD posts get. Have you placed Obama at the grassy knoll yet, SVRETARD?

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Neither Clinton nor Obama were concerned about disenfranchising Florida or Michigan voters when the DNC punished those states for violating DNC rules.

Now Clinton has become a great advocate for voting rights because she must have the votes for any chance to win the Democratic nomination.

I'd respect her for standing up for a principle because it's the right thing to do. She doesn't gain my respect for standing up for a principle only when it benefits her.

Posted by: Wolfeman | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in with the Daily Machine. He did get people kicked of the ballet in his State run. That is normal for Chicago so it just makes Obama run of the mill F head.

Maybe that is why he is so cool on the issue. The rest of America is not like IL thank god. He is playing with fire but is so clueless does not even know it.

Please Please if you are going to sound like the GOP go over there and stop pretending to be and Dem.

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't even understand why this is even a debate we are having. The rules were set by the Democratic Party and the Michigan and Florida parties broke them. End of discussion.

And people think Hillary has any moral high-ground here? Give me a break! She was happy with these sanctions when this contest was her presumed coronation, but when she lags in the delegate count and wins when no one else is on the ballot, she wants a re-do. I see. So, essentially, Hillary Clinton gets to change the rules when it benefits her. Moral high-ground, indeed.

Here's how this is going to play out: Hillary's minions will succeed in getting a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. She will win Pennsylvania and woo enough super-delegates to win the nomination, despite Obama having more actual delegates. An entire generation of young voters will stay home in November, as will a record number of African-Americans. Independents who would have voted for Obama (or even Hillary, had she won in a legitimate manner) will mostly vote for McCain. McCain will win in a landslide and the Democrats, once again through their convoluted people-pleasing, will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be a stellar performance.

Posted by: mlepage | March 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

Posted by: LouiseFletcher | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

scrappy --


Please provide evidence for your statement.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

tintin08 what are you talking about? that is not my post...silly

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

SV READER: So with that logic, blame the aquaintance of the person responsable, than we should blame Hillary for being immoral and decetiful having Bill lie about his relationships and cheating on his wife, than surely because hillary has been with him as his wife she should be held accountable because she must of know what he was doing.......does anyone ever think like that...honestly,, no maybe some right wing nuts but who needs them, give them guantanamo, and let the conservatives form their own nation we would be better off without them, hey maybe you can go there too cause you probably have more in common with them than liberals

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama the political expedient operator is shown in full bloom on the question of Michigan and Florida: speak from one side of his mouth publicly while doing all he can in the backroom to kill the re-vote. Is he a supporter of equality for all or just when is convenient to him?

Posted by: paul2150 | March 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

and.....your candidate Obama is beginning to drop in the polls. How is he going to show he's still viable if he doesn't win any states? He should be hoping for lots more chances, but he's losing his confidence and you're losing confidence in him. It's too obvious. When you're afraid to have your candidate compete in a primary, that says it all. You don't care if he loses in the general election in November...which he will without Florida and Michigan...you are too emotional to think straight.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Left --

What did I say that was racist?

Why?

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

and.....your candidate Obama is beginning to drop in the polls. How is he going to show he's still viable if he doesn't win any states? He should be hoping for lots more chances, but he's losing his confidence and you're losing confidence in him. It's too obvious.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Hazwalnut...Hillary appeals to the worst type of people...people like you and svreader...people who will pull out race, class, sex, age, fear....whatever to steal an election. Not this time. America at least the one I live in knows that we have some common problems that the best candidate will solve regardless of color or sex since it affects everyone regardless of color or sex. This 1950 style backwards thinking that pits race against race and class against class has divided this nation into red and blue states much like gangs. We are not a gang. We are a nation. We will not be divided by spewers of hate and ignorance. We are leaders in this world because we solve our problems not use them as weapons against ourselves. You notice how I keep saying ourselves because after this primary we are still one nation that has problems that we must solve. Be divisive and basically stupid is not going to solve a thing...period. Mrs. Clinton could do well by acknowledging all the BS she has put out during this primary and work to heal the rift SHE created.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

WOW...I think I've read it all! Someone needs to remind everyone perhaps in BOLD NEON LIGHTS, perhaps even flashing ones, that the state legislatures of Florida and Michigan had initially approved having their Democratic primary on a specific date which may have coincided with the Republican primary. This most likely for cost efficiency. It was mutually agreed to by the state parties. It is the state legislature who decided to move the primary. It was at that time the ELECTORATE or VOTERS should have stated their position to THEIR state representatives in light of the demands of the DNC to not move their primary before Feb 5th or be stripped of the delegates at the convention. It is NOT Obama, it is NOT Edwards, it is NOT the DNC...for that matter it isn't even Clinton. The responsibility rests with the state legislature for having made the decision they made.

This sounds like someone who is driving down a thoroughfare at 100 mph and gets stopped by the police only to tell them there were no signs posted. However EVERY state's driving handbook notes that on such streets there is a reasonable speed limit to be adhered to and 100 mph is way over it.

In circumstances like that usually the fine is reduced...not expunged. And signs are posted at the required distance intervals.

So what I say to ALL the complainers after-the-fact, there is no excuse for ignorance of what could have been done at a time before the state legislature ratified this change. And yes I know it's a hard pill to swallow...but true.

My suggestion, similar to ideaology of the fine reduction as stated in my aforementioned example, would be to seat the delegates in either fashion...(a) split the delegate count equally over all the candidates at the time of the primary or (b) split them equally amongst the remaining candidates at this time. Either is more prudent than not seating them at all.

This then puts more pressure on the state party and state legislature to maintain their integrity in the interest of the people of the state...not politics! It also makes it more important for the electorate/voters to play more of an integral part when they feel civil liberties are at issue. They have the right to call, write, email, etc their concerns to their state legislatures and respective state/local party officials. Know your ward leaders!

I think what I've suggest here is the fairest and most prudent way to proceed so as not to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan while at the same time duly representing each state at the convention. All for the purpose of participation there and NOT throwing this nomination process deeper into chaos. The were rules in place and the rules and by-laws committee should enforce them.

EVERY citizen, be it natural or naturalized, had to take American Government. This should be the lesson perhaps we didn't learn in class.

Posted by: ewjazzed | March 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

MShake --

Get off your high horse, fella.

Obama won in Chicago by using legal loopholes to knock everyone else off the ballot.

The members of the cult of Obama are digging themselves a deeper and deeper pit with every post.

Make sure Jim Jones Barry Obama mixes up enough Kool-Aid after you lose.

I wouldn't want any of you to miss the chance for one final drink with him.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!


Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 04:04 PM
=====
What is wrong with you Harried? They reach conclusions like this because she lied and is trying to flip-flop to steal an election...Seriously...what is wrong with you?

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 04:11 PM
___________________________

What's the lie and what's the Flip-Flop?
By the way Flip-Flop has had it's day as meaning anything but something that comes from the mouth of a PARROT!!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

For all you mathematically challenged Hillary supporters out there...Obama is still ahead in the popular vote even with Hillary's votes from FL. Keep lookin for light...but you might want to start prayin if you're religious...the clock is running out and so is your candidate.


Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

A. Michigan state government set the dates.
B. The DNC set the rules, disallowing those dates, and disqualifying any results.
C. All Dems signed a PLEDGE not to be involved in any states that broke those rules, i.e., Florida and in this case Michigan.
C. Around Jan 15, the Republicans in the Michigan Senate refused to consider a bill from the Michigan House which would have included ALL Dems names on the ballot.
D. As a result, only candidate Clinton's name appeared on the ballot, along with, I believe, "uncommitted" or "undeclared".
E. In recent days, the Michigan legislative bodies chose not to consider further action on the Dem's primary.
F. End of story.
G. Fade to black.

Question - why do you suppose the Republican senators in Michigan would want only one Dem on the ballot?

Personally, it is an easy thing to resolve, but it does require agreement by all the parties. HA!

Posted by: thesfg1 | March 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a coward, dare not to fight with a woman, no gut at all, how are you suppose to be commander-in-chief if you dare not to fight in a revote head-on. Don't hide behide your advisers, don't find any excuses, have some vision and good judgement, otherwise MI & FL will not vote for you, just think about this, in GE republican will definitely say you don't even want MI & FL's vote to be counted, how are you going to get their vote. Don't be a coward!!!

Posted by: georgefyc | March 20, 2008 02:56 PM

*******************
Wow, take an aspirin and have a lie down...

and SVETARD, the hits just keep coming, huh? You are such a racist, vile douchebag - you should sue massengil for backpay.

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

.

svreader wrote:

"Blacks can be just as racist as any other group of people.

They've just proved that, beyond any question."

----------------------------------------

I think you are failing to realize you OWN Racism.

You are OLD. That's why you cannot get your brain around why your statement is Racist.

Someone, please. Help Her.

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the one making Michigan and Florida an issue. If there is a backlash against the dems in Nov. (I'm not sure that there really will be), it will be on her.

Also, there has to be a great ad in this for Obama -- "Hillary's hench-people try to buy her the election." Play it in PA non-stop, along with reminders about how she hasn't released her tax returns and her multi-million dollar annual income ("I wish I could loan my campaign 5 million dollars").

I think Obama is on the right track with changing the discussion and the rules of the game, but going from our current system to a good system can't happen in one cycle. He should keep talking substance and reform, but get a few jabs in at Clinton at the same time.

Posted by: MShake | March 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I'm dying to see the venom spit out on these pages make in front of the TV cameras in Denver in August by the various supporters of Obama and Clinton.

Best campaign ad for McCain ever.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Ok once again I am going to ask people who think voting is a 'Trick' to please the the Hill out of my party.

"The only way Hillary can win is for there to be a primary" Obama is too smart for that. WTF

Do you lessen to yourselves. Please go be a dido head or something just don't come hear and peddle Fake candidates on us.

Obama is Magic and will win so why be not let Michigan vote.

God D Michigan
God D Florida

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are so desperate and bitter that his real character has been revealed and they have been worshiping a brand rather than a person, they can hardly contain themselves. You have lost all judgment. You threaten that you will never support Senator Clinton. Well think of those of us who could never support anyone as superficial as Barack Obama, who would destroy the reputation of his grandmother, his mother, his father, everyone except his radical brother, Rev Wright. Even subjecting his young daughters to such hate and venom. How must they feel about white people and the US. The same as his wife Michelle? You trashed and alienated everyone who has not been captivated by Senator Obama. No wonder he appeals to inexperienced younger voters...there is no rationale or reason there, just emotion.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's see... 10 big donors want to put up a million $$ each to have a 50% chance at buying a nomination and a President...HMMMMM... why would anyone see a problem there ? Why not try it the Obama way ? If enough Michiganders want to overcome the bad/wasteful behavior(they were TOLD what the outcome of this action would be before they took it)of their party, get see if they will put up donations no bigger than $100 each to fund it....if the citizens really want it they will... wanna bet on it?

Posted by: ligona | March 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

split the votes based on how voters were voting that week. which was by a landslide in hillary's favor....why should she split them down the middle when those florida voters - who could have voted for him - voter overwhelmingly for her?

Posted by: lounatick8 | March 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"I've never seen people this angry.

They're pissed beyond words."

Who besides you and your Klan buddies, svreader?

As for Obama getting "0.0%" of the white vote; I'm white, and I'm voting for Obama. Even if Clinton bribes and cheats her way onto the ballot, I'll write him in!

Posted by: thrh | March 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

... so corzine and rendell want to purchase one illegitimate campaign instead of the first illegitimate campaign. these two governors ( trolling for jobs in a clinton administration) think this is going to get any support ? it's amazing that polls like corzine (who will be a 1 term gov b/c of his high negatives in NJ) and rendell (with murder capital philadelphia) have time to prop up the weekend at bernie's candidacy of HRC. amazing.

Posted by: jacade | March 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!


Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 04:04 PM
=====
What is wrong with you Harried? They reach conclusions like this because she lied and is trying to flip-flop to steal an election...Seriously...what is wrong with you?

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't see what rationality the Clinton campaign is using here. I heard her with my own two ears and I saw her that day when she said, that these MI & Fla. votes won't count anyway! How dare she turn around and yell foul! she broke the rules - she has to accept the consequences. I am a staunch Democrat, and I am eagerly waiting to vote again in November, but for the rightfully-nominated candidate.

Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

.

OH NO !

Blacks are angry at me cause I'm a white liberal.

WAAAAH! WAAAAH!

You have GOT to be OLD if you think THAT'S gonna work.

The times have changed. We're ALL mad now, black, white, brown, green, yellow, blue, red...

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

me I have a good job, I am a highly paid professional,
Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 04:01 PM
______________________________

So was LASSIE!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone knows MI and FL need to be counted or the Dems will lose the general. I don't see what is wrong with her trying to make sure the votes count."

Your first declarative sentence is based on what information exactly?

Your second sentence ignores the FACT that Clinton agreed to the DNC rules established for Michigan and Florida and now she is whining about voters being "left out" because she is losing. She assumed she would have the race sewn up by Feb. 5th, and she was wrong to assume anything. You don't go back and change the rules to favor one candidate.

The people "aren't buying" Hillary's transparent attempt to turn around her crappy results by including a "win" against "uncommitted" in Michigan and another in a state where no one campaigned. Obama did not "saturate" the airwaves in Florida.
There was a national ad buy on CNN. Whatever. That is quite different from "campaigning" in a state and it is nothing measured against Clinton's name recognition.

Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Hillary's problems are not over.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton21mar21,0,6508895.story
BTW, where are the tax returns?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut sized brain? I certainly trust Hillary more than the entire press core...yeah right. It's not their fault...just like its not their fault with Obama...they are what they are...good and bad...its just Hillary has more bad than good and she wasn't able to win the nomination...its over...move on and start thinkin about how we beat McCain...or your gonna find yourself our someone you care about losing blood on some downtown street in Tehran.

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

breww21 --

Its Rev Wright and Barry Obama's actions that are destroying the Democratic Party.

The've also set race relations back by years.

Call us naive, but neither myself, nor the people I know, had any idea that anything like this went on in Black Churches.

GROW UP!!!

Stop blaming other people for your own failures.

Every other minority has pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

That's the American way.

Rev Wright is as Racist as the KKK.

Pointing that out, isn't.

Blacks can be just as racist as any other group of people.

They've just proved that, beyond any question.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Fool they Obama people stupidly thought that they can get away with not doing Michigan. Getting the money in time was not the problem that as the Obama presser the the WP keeps printing as news. Obama did not want a do over he said so on AC. Now he can explain preacher man and why Obama GD Michigan.

Hillary has 300,000 votes in Florida and she will be ahead in the popular vote in early May.

Posted by: mul | March 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

On 60 minutes, Obama was very passive about any revote and basically deferred it to the DNC as whatever they wanted was fine with him.

There's no doubt in my mind that Clinton wants a revote to strengthen her campaign and there's not doubt that Obama doesn't want it fearing a closer race. Defering it to the DNC is wimpy.

Clinton AND Obama will do anything to win the presidency. What I find most irritating about Barack is his self-righteousness and endless rhetoric about unity and inclusion. I have a feeling he's more passionate about winning the nomination then he is about unity.

How about a nice flowery speech about including MI and FL and demanding their votes and delegates count?

Not gonna happen. Three years in the senate and he feels entitled to be president. He's as ambtious and duplictious as any politician, including Clinton, and McCain.

Posted by: orson72 | March 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"We liberals have bent over backwards out of "race guilt"

To find out that the people you were trying to giva a leg up to were cursing you out in Church is both insulting and incredibly painful." -svreader

Wow. Talk about racism. "we liberals"? --You're a liberal?

"trying to giva a leg up"?

sheesh.

Posted by: max | March 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

After what they wanted to do in Michigan (invest their money to buy the voters), I am convinced more than ever that she is too self-fish to be OUR president.

Posted by: Docta | March 20, 2008 04:00 PM
____________________________

How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

After what they wanted to do in Michigan (invest their money to buy the voters), I am convinced more than ever that she is too self-fish to be OUR president.

Posted by: Docta | March 20, 2008 04:00 PM
____________________________

How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

.

OH, I get it... Sure is hard to tell the difference, Don't you think?

HA HA, not gonna work.

Try again in 4 years

Why did they move their primarie$?

I can't imagine.

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

After what they wanted to do in Michigan (invest their money to buy the voters), I am convinced more than ever that she is too self-fish to be OUR president.

Posted by: Docta | March 20, 2008 04:00 PM
____________________________

How on earth do people reach conclusions like this!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

No matter what she does its spun negative; if she wants their votes counted she's dirty and underhanded, if she advocates for a re-vote she's dirty and underhanded. The irrational Hillary hysteria has definitely educated media consumers, who have for the most part learned to take criticism of HRC with a grain of salt.

Posted by: DPoniatowski | March 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama may help himself by shutting out MI in the primaries, but he's going to need all the votes he can get in working class states, especially MI. This is a dangerous, short-sighted game he's playing.

Posted by: citizenjane | March 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

please svreader, save your rants for another time, what ur doing is destroying the democratic party, me I have a good job, I am a highly paid professional, but I think this country is off track, and I would like to see the Democrats produce results instead your handing the presidential slot to McCain in a basket, people like you should join the Republican party, please, say I dont know your a romney supporter and rail against Mccain for all the percieved religous intolerance that sown up Romneys bid, youd be much more of a productive member of the party instead of the devisive thing you are now

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

.

WHY DID THEY MOVE THEIR PRIMARIES?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Its sad to say, but contrary to your racially focused remark, on whites will not vote for Obama, Myself, along with my liberal leaning friends registered as independents can see through the racial commentary that has been focused on Obama . As a white middle aged voter I along with many others that I know, will not in the event of a Hillary win support her. Her devisive campaign and her supporters retoric have pushed many people that were on the fence away from her. And your relentless spam on blogs across the web is helping to propel that momentum.

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 03:40 PM
--------------------------------------------
Thank you. My faith in America is reinforced

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I thought the maximum donation was $2300...

How Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 03:51 PM
________________________________

This is not money for a candidate, this is money to allow people's vote for a candidate to be counted.
Get it now!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has already lost this nomination. She is just playing with the clock.

She wants to get our "honorably" She knows that after this context she is finished politically.

After what they wanted to do in Michigan (invest their money to buy the voters), I am convinced more than ever that she is too self-fish to be OUR president.

The Clinton's have lost. Now they should think about the future of the Democratic Party. By doing what they are doing to stop Barack Obama, they are actually killing their party. Don't be surprised if Hillary decides to switch back to where she started after all this is over: the Republican Party.

Posted by: Docta | March 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I thought the maximum donation was $2300...

How Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 03:51 PM
________________________________

This is not money for a candidate, this is money to allow people's vote for a candidate to be counted.
Get it now!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Okay...we're gonna play...here are the rules...do you want to play...yes...you can't break he rules...okay, but I want to play differently...okay, then you can't play...I'm going to play anyways...okay, well you can't play with us...that's not fair...your mean and disrespectful...I don't like you...give me the ball!

Children, there are rules to every game...you make choices in life and there are consequenses...these are basic lessons I teach my six year old...grow up and stop wasting people's time and money...we've wasted enough in Iraq!

Posted by: brian | March 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Dan Baltz, are you that naive or you just have nothing else to write about. Of course, the donors are going to be supportive of Hillary Clinton. Do you think Obama supporters are going to contribute? Please. Obama does not want to have any more primaries...he would like everything to stop right now and someone, anyone, make him the nominee. You press people drive me crazy, I just can't figure out if you're that stupid or you're still just trying to trash and put obstacles in the way of Senator Clinton. One thing I know for sure, I have never been so disenchanted with the press. I don't think I will ever trust you again.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I keep wondering why Clinton supporters are so negative? or, unless these are those Republicans who voted for her in those "big states" ahah! You poor negative people - STOP poisoning the rest of us! GO AWAY!

Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

.

sv - "spitting venom"

What on earth are you talking about?

If you didn't know a lot of African Americans were angry, then, I really cannot imagine WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN???

Even people who have NEVER been to the US know many African Americans are angry, and for GOOD reason.

You are ignorant.

There's no way around it.

Why would anyone take you seriously? Because you claim to be a CEO? You are as out of touch as a CEO and vote like one, too.

Walk around your state. Learn your world.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

This issue is fully out of context with what you should be asking, Would Hillary be stonewalling if she was in the same position as Obama, absolutely based on her past behavior, for ardent Hillary supporters, obama will be the devil until Hillary wins, but logical arguments will be out the window and blind support will be the norm. So its really a waste to have a discussion about the issue.

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"Their letter to Granholm creates the impression that a Michigan do-over would be Clinton-financed contest designed to save her candidacy."
===================
If Dan Balz is going to continue to pretend he is a professional journalist, shouldn't he avoid typing stuff he makes up out of his head as though it were fact?
It doesn't matter whether one agrees with Mr Balz or not, my point is this is not the function of a "news reporter", it is the job of an opinion columnist.

Posted by: zukermand | March 20, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

After putting Kwame Kilpatrick and Jennifer Granholm in office I don't think we in Michigan should be trusted in a re-vote.

Posted by: hpclub | March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

After putting Kwame Kilpatrick and Jennifer Granholm in office I don't think we in Michigan should be trusted in a re-vote.

Posted by: hpclub | March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

What's the problem here? Seems to me Obama is free to contribute money to the re-vote too, but instead has made the choice to stonewall and not have the Michigan votes count. DNC said the proposal passed the regulations and it was ok with them. Still waiting for Obama. Perhaps he is trying to figure out how to make it into a "caucus."

Everyone knows MI and FL need to be counted or the Dems will lose the general. I don't see what is wrong with her trying to make sure the votes count.

Why did Obama remove his name from the Michagan ballot? He was not asked to do so. He did not do this in FL. In Florida, he was the only one to saturate the airwaves with commercials. He then encouraged people to vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary. He realized that did not work since she won anyway. Now he wants to make sure that no re-votes occur. And he calls himself the Uniter. The people aren't buying it.

Posted by: joep1 | March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

.

I thought the maximum donation was $2300...

How is she getting a million a piece from these people?

Same OLD Politics... That's what Obama supporters are fighting against.

Fat cats writing checks to hijack Democracy.

By the way, WHY did Michigan and Florida move their primaries? Were they unaware of penalties? I think they may be another example of fat cat politics hurting their own electorate... AGAIN.

nice.

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

are you kidding me, he hasn't braught up race to the full extent that Hillary and her clowns have been pushing it, their low ball tactics is tearing apart a primary race before it even gets to the election, there will be so much bad blood between the two groups of supporters that Hillary can forever wish away becoming president

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

From the first day she announced she was running for president she has lied about her thirty five years of service, which is not only a bald faced lie, but totally laughable as well. She lied about Nafta and lies about many, many other things. Her campaign has tried discrediting Obama with Jewish voters implying that he was a Moslem and anti-Israel, and has done whatever they could to bring the ugliest parts of racism to the voters in an attempt to scare them away from voting for Obama. The Clinton's have run a win-at-all- costs campaign against Obama of mud slinging, incessant lies, and trying to disparage, demean, and debase him every chance they get.
Her vote for the Iraq War is not what makes me against her. Why I can never and will never vote for her is because of the type of person she is and the kind of campaign she has run. She is a revenge filled, mean and nasty person with zero scruples who will stop at nothing to get to the White House. She has engaged in the politics of personal destruction and the real sorry thing about all of this is that senior members of the party and superdelegates such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore have sat silently by and not warned the Clintons that if they did not change their tactics of smearing Obama and racism that they would come out publically and declare their support for Obama. A party without any principles does not deserve to return to the White House and if we have President McCain in the White House a year from now the Democratic party has only itself to blame.

Posted by: amitai | March 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

As much as I dislike Clinton, the fact is that she'd win legitimate primaries in Florida and Michigan, in January or this month. Therefore, splitting the delegates 50/50 isn't fair. Counting the phony primaries isn't fair, either.

The only legitimate reason for Democrats to resolve this issue is to not alienate the voters of Florida and Michigan in the general election. DNC should pay for new elections and Dean should be fired. The Republicans came up with a much wiser way to deal with those states.

Posted by: ericalaska | March 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

People are angry at Obama because of his racism.

We liberals have bent over backwards out of "race guilt"

Obama's made us feel like a bunch of idiots for having done that while Rev Wright and God knows how many other pastors were preaching hatred towards whites.

To find out that the people you were trying to giva a leg up to were cursing you out in Church is both insulting and incredibly painful.

This isn't going away.

He's caused an incredible amount of damage.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --

Keep insulting Clinton Supporters.
You'll either lose the nomination, or the general election.
I can't wait to see what happens in Penn.
Barry Obama will NEVER, NEVER, be President!!!
Now that the press has seen what he's really like, they're going to rip him to pieces.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 03:35 PM

Nobody on earth deserves Obama.
Only Satan himself does.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 03:36 PM

svreader you're amazing. You accuse Obama supporters of personal attacks, then pull the same move yourself in back to back posts less than one minute apart.

Posted by: mack1 | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

GOOD. So should Florida's, too. You don't change the rules when they suit your objectives, just as "BILLARY" Clinton is NOW trying to do!

http://OsiSpeaks.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

If "out here" means Northern California, I can tell you that I have seen tons of Obama bumper stickers and maybe ONE Hillary sticker. SF, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, Napa all went for Obama.

Educated voters recognize the honest candidate and don't buy into Fox News Republican Fear Campaigns.

Only reactionary pissed-off bitter racist voters will be "scared" by video clips of Rev. Wright. Those peope wouldn't vote for Obama anyway so GOOD RIDDANCE.

People like you are "planting" and fomenting racial hatred.

I wouldn't want to get behind ANY candidate that someone like you supports.

She can't win, period. Do the math. It isn't going to happen.

Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Michigan Dems screwed this one up. Sorry for them, but they'll get to vote in the general election in November, just like the rest of us.

Posted by: crd203 | March 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

AND why isn't this proposed private funding not subject to Federal campaign spending limits? It is designed to help one candidate - that purpose is clear. This is clearly an effort to get soft money to help the Clinton campaign.


No one sees that as illegal?


What is going on?


Posted by: Miata7 | March 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Maybe this will send a message for future states wanting to buck the system. Stick to the plan. You'll all get a turn if you just wait for it. You see, I learned this in first grade.

Posted by: tgolamb | March 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

All the votes that are fit to buy! I guess these are a couple of rich liberals that slipped through Sen. Obama's fingers, eh? Oh the hypocrisy of it all ... maybe Bill should remember, these rich folks don't really neeeed a president, so it shouldn't be necessary for them to buy one!

Posted by: Omyobama | March 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. Obama and voters should feel secure with a do-over financed by Clinton backers all the way up to the Governors office?

Are you so blind you can't see the inequity of what is being proposed?

Posted by: Juked | March 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore would be fantastic, and has a legitimate claim as standard-bearer.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Its sad to say, but contrary to your racially focused remark, on whites will not vote for Obama, Myself, along with my liberal leaning friends registered as independents can see through the racial commentary that has been focused on Obama . As a white middle aged voter I along with many others that I know, will not in the event of a Hillary win support her. Her devisive campaign and her supporters retoric have pushed many people that were on the fence away from her. And your relentless spam on blogs across the web is helping to propel that momentum.

Posted by: breww21 | March 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Hilliary Clinton does NOT have the high ground here, but her familiar sleaze ground. FL and MI were not arbitrarily disenfranchised, the Democratic Party decided on a primary calendar and the leaderships of those states removed themselves from the process. Clinton is unprincipled in claiming "victories" in such elections, the high ground would have been to demand changes in the process before the votes took place. Then she was silent.

Posted by: elias | March 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that neither Obama nor Clinton would secure their nomination after all the primaries. This in fact provides a great opportunity for us to make fresh choices. We can do much better without either candidates if we could persuade president elect Al Gore to go back to the white house. He is the conscience of the democratic party, a thinker, a Nobel prize winner, and his real experience will bring all the greatness of the Clinton administration back, while rid of all the negativities at the same time. Please call or write to your super delegates and sign up to make history,

http://www.draftgore.com

Posted by: work2play | March 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Nobody on earth deserves Obama.

Only Satan himself does.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --

Keep insulting Clinton Supporters.

You'll either lose the nomination, or the general election.

I can't wait to see what happens in Penn.

Barry Obama will NEVER, NEVER, be President!!!

Now that the press has seen what he's really like, they're going to rip him to pieces.


Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

AMEN cbarnes! Split the delegates and MOVE ON!

Posted by: dlind55 | March 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Americans -

You are the very same people that elected W twice.

You may not deserve Obama.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Americans -

You are the very sam e people that elected W twice.

You may not deserve Obama.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Some observers seem to doubt that re-voters' identities could be securely identified. But verification should prove no practical problem. All the privately-paid re-do officials need watch is whether balloteers are wearing their Hillary buttons:-)

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

am i the only one who wonders when svreader is going to make a structured and articulated argument that defends his views. what a waste of bandwidth!

Posted by: asja | March 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by jhtlag1:

"Well, I won't change that, but it is pretty clear to me that Ms Clinton is one of the most disingenuous people, heck, she's always been that way, way back when she disparaged people that baked cookies then, after realizing her gaffe, offered up a cookie recipe. Why does she treat us all like we're idiots?"

The answer is simple: she is not as intelligent and as in command as she's made out to be; and this raises the question of which Clinton would be people actually be electing.

Posted by: piul05 | March 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

GeneWells: "And Michelle - we will hold you to your word that this is your only run for the White House."

Don't be ridiculous. Don't you expect them to run for a second term in 2012? LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

Just like Obama, you suck all the good will that people had felt right out of the room.

If Obama gets the nomination, the guys publishing "Obama's Slums" will make a fortune.

As far as my concern about the people in his slums go, I've felt really sad for them, but now I'm starting to wonder why I care so much about them when their own people couldn't care less.

Remember Ronald Reagan's story about "welfare mothers driving Cadallacs?"

This is 100X worse.

The sympathy is gone.

Its been replaced by anger.

People reap what the sow.

Obama's planted racial hatred and will harvest the same from the people he directed it towards.

You csn Gloat now.

You'll Suffer later.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Full disclosure. I'm an Obama supporter.

I agree this smacked of an inside job, which is unethical to say the least, and would only hurt Hillary in the end.

Further, I strongly believe that, somehow, the delegates from those states have to be fairly accounted for.

True, Mich. and Fla. broke the rules. They really should take there lumps. But they haven't. And, rightly, voters are pissed off. The voters in those states cannot be ignored. If they are, Obama will look bad.

Howard Dean is the one who should fix this mess. Not the campaigns.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 20, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

we should revote in michigan and florida in order to make sure that that white-hating, america-hating bigot barack obama does not become president.

Posted by: lounatick8 | March 20, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I swear that Obama supporters are bigger crybaby know-nothings than Bush supporters were in 2000 and 2004. These people are a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: tdavis2 | March 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Surely everybody in America should know by now that word Clinton means Sleaze with a capital S.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters. (NYT)

Does anyone seriously believe Hillary would speak this way if the positions were reversed?

This is ALL political. MI & FL disenfranchised themselves. They were warned by the DNC and ignored that warning. --If they want a do-over they should pay for it.

It's positively scarey to think FL has wound up in this situation again --this time of its own accord.

Posted by: max | March 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This whole re-vote issue is indicative of a larger problem with this country: if you don't like the outcome or the rules, cry foul and do it over. What a great lesson we continue to teach our youth, there is no need for you to worry about following the rules or even paying attention to them, because when you fail or the outcome is not what you want,you can do it over again. We as a nation grew strong because we believed in hard work, fair play, and competition. Now we are turning into a bunch of crybabies who cry do-over whenever we fail.

Get over it. Florida and Michigan broke the rules knowingly and should not be allowed a re-vote because now they (including Clinton supporters not in those states) don't like the outcome.

Posted by: cbarnes | March 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama will get 100% of the Black vote and 0.0% of the white vote.

Obama's lies are the #1 topic of conversation out here.

People are livid.

Everyone feels like they've been taken for fools.

Republican are saying that "Obama is the best thing that's ever happened to the Republican Party"

I've never seen people this angry.

They're pissed beyond words.

Obama's set race relations back 50 years.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if some pols are already scheming how they will move their states into Summer primaries next time after precedent is set by the DNC and Denver credentials committee caving to the Clinton dynasty.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey, svretard, are you and your Washington connections going to pony up for revote for Clinton? I mean after you singlehandedly rescue the slums of Chicago from Obama?

Posted by: LABC | March 20, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Compared to Chicago Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton is Mother Teresa.


Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 03:12 PM "

Ahh svreader, you are infesting this thread now. You are always good for a laugh. I was just thinking how like Mother Teresa Hillary really is

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't for the life of me understand why there is even a serious discussion of seating the MI or FL delegates. The rules were laid down. Everyone agreed to them. That should be the end of the story. Where were all these high-minded Clinton supporters when the DNC laid down their decision not to seat those delegates?

Posted by: shunt1 | March 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Dear scrappyc --,

You really are crappy! Let me assure you that contrary to your predictions - Obama will only narroly miss PA. There won't be any landslide - KEEP DREAMING!

Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to biercuk for a well reasoned post. To take a different cut at his comment, the political parties are not part of the Federal government, they can choose their candidates any way they want. This talk of "disenfranchisement" is nonsense. This is a party discussion, nothing more. I even wonder how they conned state governments for paying for the primaries in the first place (as well as those conventions)

Well, I won't change that, but it is pretty clear to me that Ms Clinton is one of the most disingenuous people, heck, she's always been that way, way back when she disparaged people that baked cookies then, after realizing her gaffe, offered up a cookie recipe. Why does she treat us all like we're idiots?

Posted by: jhtlag1 | March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The more I read these articles and comments, the more ludicrous the idea that Barack Obama can be elected gets. The majority of the states that he won in the primaries are either republican states (that will always go repub no matter who the democrat is) and the caucus states where loud mouthed Obama supporters could bully the Clinton supporters into agreeing with them. That's why the constitution guarantees anonymous ballots.

Meanwhile, how does it really make the DNC look to voters in the fall if they won't allow any real remediation for a mistake (huge though it was) made by the state parties. My vote in the primaries counted, but the voters in MI and FL didn't get counted. Since the FL primary was at least held fairly from what I've read, those results could probably stand. MI took Obama off the ballot, and those results can't be counted since not all options were available.

Posted by: mcrochip | March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to biercuk for a well reasoned post. To take a different cut at his comment, the political parties are not part of the Federal government, they can choose their candidates any way they want. This talk of "disenfranchisement" is nonsense. This is a party discussion, nothing more. I even wonder how they conned state governments for paying for the primaries in the first place (as well as those conventions)

Well, I won't change that, but it is pretty clear to me that Ms Clinton is one of the most disingenuous people, heck, she's always been that way, way back when she disparaged people that baked cookies then, after realizing her gaffe, offered up a cookie recipe. Why does she treat us all like we're idiots?

Posted by: jhtlag1 | March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"All primaries on a single day for both parties. No more "momentum," or "Iowa setting the tone" for the campaign. No more ridiculous allocation of resources to early states. If we really care about "disenfranchisement" why aren't we talking about voters in the traditionally late voting states not getting to meaningfully contribute to the process instead (this year is a notable exception)?

How about that?"

---------------------------------------

Just about the most sensible comment yet.

Posted by: vernelle.wiseman | March 20, 2008 03:09 PM
---------------------------------------------
I couldn't agree more. I am a political junkie, and even I am tired of this endless spectacle. We need a national primary. Is there a petition that I can sign?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

And Obama has no qualms about stealing the nomination. Also what about the shenanigans in Texas where his people locked Clinton people out of the caucuses. He is just so darn honest isn't he. Wake up people he is just another slick politician.

Posted by: consignjp | March 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

A national primary would definitely favor the biggest money, most well known candidate since almost all campaigning would have to be done by media.

Obama would have had very little chance against Hillary in such a system since his strengths have been in small settings and caucuses.

There is something to be said for the "retail politics" of Iowa and New Hampshire. It is a test of authenticity when someone has to sell himself in front of small groups rather than as a Madison Avenue product.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of disenfranchisement (of Michigan Democrats stemming from a prior decision of their state officials), does the scheme being pushed by Ms. Clinton allow Republicans to vote who had voted for a slate of uncommitted Obama and Edwards delegates in the previous vote?

Or does it disenfranchise them?

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Now I can see the true colors of the Democratic Party! Since when did the Democrats agree to be bought? Why is it that you Democrats have to give in to Hillary all the time? Surely, are the Clintons the only family that can steer this Party ahead? Don't you really trust nobody? Why are are u allowing Hillary and her bullies to throw you around as if you answer directly to her - I think the rest of us have opinions and legitimate concerns too. We are never going to accept any re-do in Michigan and florida financed by Hillary insiders - What do u predict the outcome to be? Of course all of us know that answer. The Democartic Party should serve all its members equally, and I am definitely not going to accept this forced and twisted presidency of Hillary. And by the way, now we hear that Republicans voted for her in those big states and she won by the Republican margin, and not because she had many followers! Do you really think the Republicans will vote for her over McCain?

Posted by: tintin08 | March 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

scrappyc --

Obama will lose by a landslide in Penn.

If he winds up cheating his way onto the ticket by preventing Florida and Michigan voters from having their votes count, he's even more toast in November.

If Obama wins the battle, Democrats lose the war.

He lies way to much.

Nobody trust him anymore.

Compared to Chicago Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton is Mother Teresa.


Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS...

CNN REPORTS THAT A MCCAIN AIDE OR STAFFER HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR CIRCULATING THE REV. WRIGHT VIDEO TO THE NEWS MEDIA! TALK ABOUT A SMEAR CAMPAIGN!

i hear on msnbc news today, that rev. wright is about to be honored for his legacy of achievements at the school of religion at Texas Christian University....

what does this tell me?...

that the media didn't do justice with this man with their reporting, by only showing 30 second soundbytes out of over 207,000 minutes of sermons and by not looking at his complete history of faith and healing within his church and community ...

i truly respect the washington post for it's in-depth article on rev. wright just yesterday...

3 cheers for the wash. post...

maybe some of the tv critics like hannity, o'reilly, dobbs, blitzer, anderson cooper, campbell brown, pat buchannon, and geraldo rivera ought to do some real investigative reporting on rev. wright's 36 year leagcy as a whole like the wash. post did, as opposed to the continous onslaught of 30 second soundbyte mistakes...or how about just read the article themselves and give this perspective?....but nooooooooo......these reporters/anchors are so blind-sided with the same hatred and rage that they accuse rev.wright with......

obviously the school of religion associated with TCU thinks very highly of this man's overall achievements! because they are ready to officially honor him for his victories on social injustice, faith and healing, despite what the critics are saying ....

SHAME ON THE MEDIA FOR CRUCIFYING THIS MAN without telling the whole story!

SHAME ON MCCAIN AND HIS CAMP FOR THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN!

SHAME ON HILLARY FOR HER SMEAR AS WELL!

if you are going to be a reporter/news anchor or whatever you call yourself, then do your job!...get the complete story...otherwise you are spreading rumors & rhetoric to influence others with your vicious, racist thoughts!,

Posted by: docdwb | March 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is flying under the radar now because there is no democratic nominee."

Cool! Two months from the Demo Convention until Election Day.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 02:42 PM
---------------------------------------------
Do you even have a point here? The obvious solution is for Hillary to drop out, but you don't see that happening, do you?
Or are you suggesting that the candidate who is leading in delegates, popular votes and number of states won should drop out?

Actually, I believe edbyronadams is suggesting that Rush's Operation Chaos is working!

Posted by: flarrfan | March 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Dems are no hope, bunch of in-fighters, I will vote for Senator Maccain.

Posted by: georgefyc | March 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

This whole Michigan and Florida thing is the equivalent of signing up for a golf tournament, being told your tee time is after 11:00 a.m. (in this case, Feb. 5), and then deciding to tee off before 11:00 a.m. anyway without permission. Then, after being disqualified, and seeing that playing conditions are more favorable later in the day, you ask for a later tee time. Well, guess what? You've already been disqualified!
As for this Clinton crony-funded re-vote, it sounds like a political job you would see in Chicago, not in a presidential primary. I'm sure Tony Rezko could find some people to foot the bill for it, too!

Posted by: Scarzo | March 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"All primaries on a single day for both parties. No more "momentum," or "Iowa setting the tone" for the campaign. No more ridiculous allocation of resources to early states. If we really care about "disenfranchisement" why aren't we talking about voters in the traditionally late voting states not getting to meaningfully contribute to the process instead (this year is a notable exception)?

How about that?"

---------------------------------------

Just about the most sensible comment yet.

Posted by: vernelle.wiseman | March 20, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican who thought his candidate would have no chance in November but I'm delighted by the turn of events in the Democratic party that may bring me a present before Christmas.

I do feel a bit guilty from the schadenfruede.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader...he already has it

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Sue82: "The real problem in Michigan is that the Board of Elections - the county commissioners who handle elections there have said that it can't be done."

Good point, unless Clintonites expect to administer their re-vote and then count the ballots.

Hard to imagine anyway how many lawsuits would arise from a procedure whereby private money underwrites an election being pushed by one candidate.

I had thought better of Jennifer Granholm.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The United States is touted as the guiding light on the hill for democracy.

Florida contains 18 million people and 6% of the U.S. population. Michigan contains 10 million people and 3.3%.

This is democracy??!! To deny almost 10% of the population a voice in determining the next Democratic candidate for President of the United States?? !!

To say that they broke the rules and need to be punished is ridiculous. Cooler heads need to prevail to bring these 2 states back into the fold. If not, then we risk handing them to the Republicans in the November elections.

Posted by: David2007 | March 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida didn't just hurt themselves by breaking the rules, cheating and cutting in line in front of rule-abiding states, they hurt the entire nation. Shameful.

Posted by: comments99 | March 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama's history.

There's no way he can win without the white vote.

Posted by: svreader | March 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

It's really pathetic isn't it? All this has nothing to do with WE THE PEOPLE. Instead what I am hearing and seeing is all about WE THE POLITICIANS. This disgusts me beyond vomiting. I was a die-hard Hillary supporter but she's has proven to be as predictably slimy as ever. I am (just about) heartbroken but it appears Hillary has little if any heart, and I shall not sacrifice mine for hers. Senator Clinton: I suggest you just bow-out gracefully to save your own face and political reputation. Sore losers truly suck. And those who cheat know all about cheaters don't they? Hmmmmmmm ....

Posted by: DigitalLazarus | March 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Organized and financed by Clinton supporters, it IS obviously an attempt to provide another chance for her to gain some traction. Not only did she leave her name on the ballot on MI (while Obama opted out), she even claims her MI 'delegates' be seated.

It was the MI Democratic leadership that disenfranchised MI voters, and did so knowingly and defiantly, and created the mess -- a mess that Clinton Democrats are now trying to resolve for her increasingly untenable campaign for nomination.

Unless it IS fair in every way(and people smell a rat here), it ain't going to fly.

If they somehow manage to force something on MI that favors Clinton, I can see President McCain delivering an Inaugural address next January.

Posted by: cantabb | March 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I am all for counting MI and FL but if we are going to count votes or delegates let's have a fair election. Obama did not take part in MI because of the decision of the Democratic party that Hillary Clinton also agreed to.

How sleazy, and underhanded must Hillary Clinton be to now come and want to have FL and MI counted? Does she think we are stupid? If you want to count votes, let' have an election where both candidates are on the ballot!

Can Hillary Clinton possibly do more to turn off any more Democrats with her vindictive politics and attempting to steal an election by overiding the will of the voters?

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: georgefyc | March 20, 2008 02:56 PM
Obama is a coward, dare not to fight with a woman, no gut at all, how are you suppose to be commander-in-chief

blah, blah,blah...are you for real? There is no fight. You have a LIAR...Hillary Clinton...LIAR---FLIP FLOPPER---LOSING so she starts LYING saying that she cares about two states she said she could care less about before. So he is a coward? Are you an idiot? He is trying to follow the same rules he agreed to...something I think that our commander in chief shoud do. What is wrong with you...really?

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary skipped reading 2002 Iraq Intelligence report
May 29, 2007

A new biography's suggestion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't personally read a key intelligence report before her 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq has raised eyebrows, but Clinton was not alone.

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which summarized the reports of U.S. intelligence agencies, but was briefed on it multiple times, a spokesman said.

The book, "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," is by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. It is one of two upcoming biographies of Clinton, the former first lady turned New York senator.

She is one of four current and former Democratic senators who voted for the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to launch the invasion of Iraq the following March -- and were running for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | March 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win!!!!!!!! His lead is too much for Clinton to overcome.

FOR A DIFFERENT AND UNBIASED VIEW OF POLITICS, VISIT THE NEWSBREAK TIMES, THE ONLY NEWSPAPER RUN ENTIRELY BY TEENAGERS!

www.newsbreaktimes.com

Posted by: mcheung05 | March 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain the title of this article to me. "A DO-OVER UNDONE"?
Is there going or not going to be a revote now that the DNC "RULES" are not being broken???
Who cares what Obama says, this is the right thing to do!!!
And I'm sure they can find "PRIVATE" money for Florida. Let's get on with it. IDAHO INDEED!!!

Posted by: harried | March 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody asked Sen. Clinton why she supported DNC rules to exclude MI and FL delegates only to turn around and agitate for their votes. This is a classic act of hypocrisy and desperation and should have no place in US politics. Rules are rules and nobody should be above the law.

Posted by: chuma2 | March 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a coward, dare not to fight with a woman, no gut at all, how are you suppose to be commander-in-chief if you dare not to fight in a revote head-on. Don't hide behide your advisers, don't find any excuses, have some vision and good judgement, otherwise MI & FL will not vote for you, just think about this, in GE republican will definitely say you don't even want MI & FL's vote to be counted, how are you going to get their vote. Don't be a coward!!!

Posted by: georgefyc | March 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is flying under the radar now because there is no democratic nominee."

Cool! Two months from the Demo Convention until Election Day.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 02:42 PM
---------------------------------------------
Do you even have a point here? The obvious solution is for Hillary to drop out, but you don't see that happening, do you?
Or are you suggesting that the candidate who is leading in delegates, popular votes and number of states won should drop out?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing.

Carl Levin, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law.

Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced.

Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.

Hillary voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment -so did John McCain.

When asked on national television why she voted no -- Hillary stated that she thought the Levin Amendment ceded our national rights to the United Nations.

She lied.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | March 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

All this noise about delegates and disenfranchisement seems a little overblown when you consider both FL and Michigan residents will have the right to vote in the general election and any re-do will probably not alter the delegate or popular vote totals signficantly. Instead of bashing Obama Clinton supporters should be angry at Clinton for managing such a poorly run campaign.

Posted by: scottm | March 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why the elected officials in Michigan and Florida are not getting more of the blame for this fiasco. They knew the rules and the consequences and chose to ignore them. The DNC action acted because there was a mad rush by all the states to move their primaries up. Someone had to stop the madness and I am proud of the DNC for standing up. It is the state officials who should be getting the Lion's share of the blame.

Posted by: ps1049 | March 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

fairandbalanced,

you hit the nail on the head. If Hillary does not get a win of 10% or more in the PA primary you can be rest assured that she will pull out all the shamless spots that Hannity is pulling on Obama.

Why, you may ask. Well it certainly will not be for the betterment of the party, but it will help her scare up an nomination.

Posted by: BigB1 | March 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win!!!!!!!! His lead is too much for Clinton to overcome.

FOR A DIFFERENT AND UNBIASED VIEW OF POLITICS, VISIT THE NEWSBREAK TIMES, THE ONLY NEWSPAPER RUN ENTIRELY BY TEENAGERS!

www.newsbreaktimes.com

Posted by: mcheung05 | March 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no one but herself to blame for this (well, maybe the Michigan Dem Committee, too). She agreed to the rules and yet allowed her name to stay on the ballot, unlike Edwards and Obama. Her campaign moves the goalposts at will on every issue in this campaign. I can't believe she said what she said in Michigan yesterday with a straight face. A poster above stated that Hillary has the "moral high ground" on this, which was the single most laughable thing I have read on these comment boards in some time. This position of hers is by far the most desperate and calculated thing she's done yet, and that's saying a lot.

And another fact to keep in mind when accusing Obama of "obstruction": his campaign was designed from the get-go to be a multi-state, delegate-based drive to the nomination, as a way to challenge Hillary's name recognition, so it is patently illogical and downright unfair to change the rules 85% through the game in a way that would most likely benefit the candidate (Hillary) who decided on what turned out to be a losing strategy at the outset.

And one more thing: Let's please not forget that these are primaries. The Democratic Party is a political organization that sets a platform, and then 'members' vote to elect their candidate. To do this, they set up rules and procedures. So for Hillary to use language even remotely related to obstruction or suppression, and to accuse Obama of such, is a pretty disgusting display of political opportunism.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I think ALL of the primaries should be redone. OBAMA is a sham, and hoodwinked the nation. Why should we be stuck with him?

Posted by: mjno | March 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove is criminal in my book.

Posted by: mha31353 | March 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

In agreeing not to campaign in the primaries in FL and MI and now wanting to take the results, Hillary shows her true lack of ethics and that she will do anything (including hitting below the belt as she did before Super Tuesday) in order to win.

FL & MI knowingly broke the rules. Should we reward their behavior by bailing them out now?

Apportion the delegates from both states according to the national vote totals at some date, such as June 15th; save the money and the hassle of a re-vote and be done with it. If FL & MI don't like it, that's the price they pay for refusing to work within the party's rules.

Posted by: uncleross | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Thank you to DB for following the money. Just one little criticism: Rather than buried 9 paragraphs in, this should lead every story about HRC and a Michigan revote:

"Obama, who took his name off the Michigan ballot after the DNC sanctioned the state for violating party rules by moving up its primary to Jan.15. Clinton, WHO KEPT HER NAME ON THE BALLOT and won 55 percent of the vote, with 40 percent going to the "uncommitted" line."

Re: BABucher- "She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue".

Umm, see above. Last November she was interviewed by Russert and when asked why she would not remove her name she hemmed and hawed then finally said "Well you know Tim, it just doesn't matter because those votes won't be counted". She signed the agreement. When she looked "inevitable" she said on national TV they won't count. But now she's desperate so suddenly it's a civil rights issue and her rich friends come out of the wood work. So she was against it before she was for it and that's "moral high ground" ?...

"Well you know Michigan",... the rules were laid out plain and simple for all to see and you were given every opportunity to abide by them, but you didn't (not YOU personally, your state :-) ). All the candidates signed the agreement and all but one abided by it and now her and her supporters want a do-over. Here I paraphrase from a recent Op Ed in a rival paper: "Kids on playgrounds get do-overs. Adults learn from their mistakes and move on". It's time to move on Michigan...

Posted by: abbatrey | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody know if McInsane violated the federal law on campaign limits?

I think he was supposed to release his latest report this week.

It would be humorous if McCain broke the law and ended up bankrupt and in prison.

That's where all Repukes belong.

Posted by: TomIII | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: castells | March 20, 2008 02:32 PM
-----------------------------------------
Thank you so much. That was my impression too.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue." (Posted by: BABucher)

Says who? She agreed, along with all the other candidates, to go along with the DNC's decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Now that she needs those delegates, she is suddenly "concerned" for the voters in those states. Her behavior is absolutely disgusting. She's on no moral high ground here. She's watching out for #1 - Hillary.

Posted by: DogBitez | March 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

These kinds of tactics are exactly what I hate the most about the Clinton machine. She'll kiss a baby while she is stealing its candy.

Posted by: mha31353 | March 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Karl Rove on this one. Obama is the only one that can fix this. He needs to agree that the delegates be seated as it stands. He will still be ahead and he will come out looking like he cares about two very important states in the fall. The dems can't just not include MI and FL and expect the voters to vote for them in the fall. If Obama is such a great uniter and loves this country so much, then he needs to do the right thing. It couldn't hurt him at this point and he needs to do somthing for the party since he has crushed so many young voters with his lies.

Posted by: ontheblvd | March 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

As a supporter of President McCain, once again I thank you billary. You are making as big a mess of this as you did the disaster in South Carolina. Keep up the good work. You are alienating your base, turning off independent voters and wasting valuable time and money hurling invectives at the man who could be the finest president we ever had. Marvelous way to dish a good man in Obama and one who would work to solve some of the mess we are now in, but no--typical power hungry billary wants it all again....you go girl.

Posted by: djudge1 | March 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has no shame; she knows she can't win the nomination fair and square, and is quite happy to overtly cheat to get it.
Not only is she destroying the Democrats chances but she is making her self a laughing stock in the US - and the rest of the world.
Worse still, she has shown herself to be completely without principle when it comes to getting what she wants- and thinks she is entitled to. She has smeared another Democrat with lies and innuendo and doesn't care as long as it may help herself.

Posted by: pathina | March 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is flying under the radar now because there is no democratic nominee."

Cool! Two months from the Demo Convention until Election Day.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

pennsyvia Brothers Black & White dont let Billary fool you ,she will do any thing,to win.

Posted by: mha31353 | March 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Itchy and Scratchy!!

LOL!! Good one. It describes Democratic infighting beautifully.

McSame is gaining on the Dems in the polls.

Chimpy has already brought us to the brink.

If McCrazy wins we are SO screwed.

Posted by: TomIII | March 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite get why Florida and Michigan voters feel their "rights" are being violated. If this is true, would not voters from other states have the same claim if the party nomination was already decided before their state's primary was held? I vote in Maryland. My primary vote hasn't really counted for anything in a long time. The nomination has usually already been settled. My "right" to vote has always come in the general election. Florida and Michigan voters have the same opportunity.

Posted by: BMoreDemocrat | March 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Ok Billary you will not got my vote
will not get my people from PA

Posted by: mha31353 | March 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"The only option is private money. And now the private money is criticized for being biased!!!! Why would private money NOT be biased? That's why elections are funded with public money."

And you fail to see the obvious problem, Huck?

Posted by: thrh | March 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

GeneWells got lost on his way over to Limbaugh's website. Save your hate for the echo chamber, pal!

Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"No worries,"

Just read the trajectory of the latest polls. Project it all the way to August.

Fight fight fight

Bite bite bite.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 02:23 PM
------------------------------------------
Yeah it bites. Look at the polls a week ago. A month ago. 3 months ago. Get real.
McCain seems to have a problem grasping details. Like calling Purim the Israeli version of Halloween.
McCain is flying under the radar now because there is no democratic nominee. Once that is done, and people turn their attention to him, we are going to see more gaffes. Let talk about polls then.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

All you Florida Democrats should know that the REpukes did this to you in Florida.

Your Repuke statehouse and REpuke Governor Crist did this to screw you over.

And they're using it to smear the Democrats.

I saw Crist doing this on TV last week.

He's a real butthole.

Posted by: TomIII | March 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary agreed with and supported the punishment to Fla and Mich. Then once she won the "uncontested" primaries (she was the only one who put her name on the ballot in MI, and she held some "fundraisers" in FL) she suddenly gets concerned about "disenfranchising" all those Clinton votes.

So much so, that she and her backers are going to bankroll a revote... hmm I wonder how that would play out in MI... I Hillary Clinton have single-handely ensured your right to a revote, so please vote for me (but on the issues, no really, not based on the fact that I cast myself as the savior of MI's democratic process)...

These kinds of tactics are exactly what I hate the most about the Clinton machine. She'll kiss a baby while she is stealing its candy.

thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: ssergio | March 20, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Buying the election? This is good?

Posted by: thrh | March 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Enough already, about Rev.Wright. He was Obama's pastor. He isn't running for president. Why is Obama being held responsible for the comments of another. He didn't say those things, Rev. Wright did. What Rev. Wright eats doesn't make Obama sh*t. Rev. Wright should be held responsible for his words, not Sen. Obama. But, that would be too easy, wouldn't it. To be quite honest, a lot of what Rev. Wright said was true. But, America is not ready to come face to face with its ugly past, so again they are willing to destroy the messenger rather than deal with it.

This is another one of Hillary and Bill's divisive tactics. They are willing to destroy the party for selfish reasons. Hillary knows that she can't, and I did say Can't win the nomination outright, so she is trying to pull a 2000 George Bush move. Steal it. If the so called super delegates go along with this power grab, they will pay for years to come, and not just at the voting booth. This primary election is over and Barack Obama should be duly nominated the democratic party's nominee. Case closed...

Posted by: bob_roy_1 | March 20, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't characterize the lack of a solution as being stuck in the political mires of the Michigan Legislature. The Republicans, who only control the state senate here, have made it clear they will not stand in the way of a Democratic plan for what we are calling a "do-over" primary. The problem is that the Obama and Clinton camps won't come to an agreement on a plan. There was even an offer from the Senate to strip out a "vehicle" bill and send it over to the Dem-controlled House for them to fill in the details, thus eliminating one more cog in the works. We've been saying for months that Clinton and Obama created this mess when the Dem candidates 1) pledged not to campaign in Michigan after we leap-frogged up in the calendar and 2) Obama took his name off the ballot. Here's what MI GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis had to say about the matter yesterday.

Posted by: bnowling | March 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

There's a race planned. It gets called of because it's scheduled to be run at 5AM in the morning and all the officials and all the contestants agree that whatever happens, the race won't count. In fact, only one contestant shows up and runs the race against no one. Months laster, the contestant claims it was a perfectly fair race and it should count because it the other contestants could have run if they wanted to. Oh PuhLease!!

Does anyone want several more years of that kind of straight talk?

Posted by: thebobbob | March 20, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The only "moral high ground" in the battle over the Michigan and Florida primary votes is occupied by those who argue that the delegates from these states should be seated at the Democratic convention with their votes divided 50/50 between Clinton and Obama. This is the fair way to seat the delegates and not give either candidate an advantage.

The high handed money-slinging tactics of Govs. Rendell and Corzine remind us that most of the conventional party big shots are backing Clinton. And that despite their support, she is irretrievably behind Obama in popular votes, states won, and pledged delegates.

Dragging out this primary fight with such desperate tactics is harming the Democratic party and the nation itself.

Please stop this, Senator Clinton!

Posted by: dee5 | March 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

As a Florida resident and registered Democrat, I really don't see the supposed anger from state voters. After all, if people really had been angry, we would have been protesting in the state capital before the primary, but no one did anything. There is some feigned anger from Clinton supporters who would not mind a free ride and the automatic rewarding of Clinton delegates (such as state senator Steven Geller, who is happy to scream for any of the local TV stations, or some Democratic fat cats who have threatened to withhold future donations to the party), but I don't think anyone buys Clinton's story that she is so concerned that we have been disenfranchised. After all, does anyone really think that she would be raising the same point if she had lost the primary election? It's pretty obvious that Clinton is trying to help herself, not us, and I would think that both Clinton and Obama supporters would at least be able to agree on that.

Posted by: castells | March 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

To the ethically devoid Clintonistas they are scratching their heads wondering "What's the big deal?" So she buys the election, steals it, lies. So what right Clintonistas? The vapid amoral rationalization and denial that she is the Hillary Huckabee of the democratic primary. She and the MSM cannot accept she is beaten.

Spin on Clintonistas with your laughable rationalizations. Great entertainment.

Posted by: dan3 | March 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's newfound concern for the "democratic process" to go forward in Michigan and Florida looks pretty thin and pathetic when measured against her agreement that those contests "would not matter" and her signing off on the DNC rules with regards to these states. NOW it is deeply troubling to her because she is losing.

All the Clinton supporters need to ask themselves an honest question: If the situation was reversed and Obama was trailing her in delegates, popular votes and states won, would you all be so rabid about pushing this issue of Michigan & Florida? You would all be screaming for him to leave the race, period.

Howard Dean has it right. The Clinton camp needs to grow up already and stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Posted by: marSF | March 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

biercuk

If you insist on using facts and logic, you'll get no where in politics. Thanks for a post worth reading.

Posted by: SueB2 | March 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So, it's all right to sell naming rights to a State's primary, such as "Lockheed Martin Democratic Primary 2008" or "Domino's Vote 2008"? Other states' caucuses and primaries were paid for by taxpayers or voters in those states. Why do MI, FL potentially have different rules? Moreover, do we want a winner of a privately sponsored primary or caucus to have such a unique, corrupting dependency on one or more donors?

Posted by: JosephCombs | March 20, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget. Hillary was for it before she was against it.

Posted by: Cerulean | March 20, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Hillary, for attempting to buy your way into the presidency. Now your failure to bow out when it became apparent you were going down has not only endangered our retaking the White House, it has destroyed the party.

Vote third party, write in Obama.

Posted by: AngryLiberal | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why "disenfranchisement" continually comes forward in this discussion. This is not an election for a federal government post - it is a primary election contest to nominate a party candidate. This is party politics, and nothing more.

That being said, my post should not suggest that I believe this to be unimportant, or that I think it would not be a problem for voters in MI and FL to not contribute to the selection of their party's candidate.

However, Democratic party rules must be obeyed and as MI and FL party officials decided to ignore the rules despite a threat of sanctions against the seating of delegates at the convention, the state parties must deal with the consequences. 50/50 apportionment is the only reasonable outcome at this point as any attempt for a re-vote would be skewed given recent events.

This raises a larger issue, however - one on which I am sympathetic to MI and FL. Why, aside from the obvious benefit to the media, do we have primaries/caucuses spread across a wide calendar? I simply don't buy the argument that there is something legitimately special about Iowa or New Hampshire that makes their primacy in the nominating cycle valid.

All primaries on a single day for both parties. No more "momentum," or "Iowa setting the tone" for the campaign. No more ridiculous allocation of resources to early states. If we really care about "disenfranchisement" why aren't we talking about voters in the traditionally late voting states not getting to meaningfully contribute to the process instead (this year is a notable exception)?

How about that?

Posted by: biercuk | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is using his lawyers to stop the revote in Michigan. This isn't the first time that he has used the courts to stop candidates. In his first state senate race, he challenged the petitions of all four of his democratic primary rivals and forced them out of the race. His name was the only name on the ballot for the democratic primary. He even managed to effectively remove Alice Palmer, the incumbent from the ballot.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Rather than letting the people vote, he made sure he would win by being the only name on the ballot.

Posted by: dc210 | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary may literally need MI and FL. From the stand-point of a citizen, it is not fair that their votes will not count. Clinton has seen better figures online as of late as well, making these votes all the more important;

Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor-

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

fairbalanced: You could have saved a lot of words by saying I want Obama to win so Hillary should quit. You and your name are funny.

Posted by: GeneWells | March 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"No worries,"

Just read the trajectory of the latest polls. Project it all the way to August.

Fight fight fight

Bite bite bite.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The point of this story: She can't win. Media will still keep the election going by saying it's "close" while Dems lose valuable time to consolidate around Obama.

Hillary supporters who don't really care, and should know better, jump on the bandwagon of the Hannity Swift Boat Special Rev. Wright story. Their candidate still can't win, but their competitive side wants to see the other guy bleed anyway, so they help the Wingers push white men toward McCain.

Why won't she just give it up. She used to be a moderately decent candidate but you need to know when to fold 'em. To press on when you can't win just hurts chances for all Dems.

Posted by: fairbalanced | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

While I've heard of politicians buying elections before; they're usually more subtle than Clinton and her surrogates. The real problem in Michigan is that the Board of Elections-the county commissioners who handle elections there have said that it can't be done. They're already working on holding the general election this fall. They can't fit another election in between now and then.

Posted by: SueB2 | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Hill wants a Michigan re-do for just one reason: to narrow the popular vote margin Obama has nationwide.

If she can overtake or match Obama in the popular vote, she will argue to the Supers that she is the most electable.

She knows she can't overtake Obama in pledged delegates, so this is her only hope to steal the nomination.

Too bad for her that Obama recognized her scheme and thwarted it.

Posted by: vmathis | March 20, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

So basically Hillary and her backers have her back so much that they ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR A RE-VOTE. This is complete B.S. YES, its unfavor to not only Barack but also John Edwards. The Clintons will DO ANYTHING to win this nomination and I do mean ANYTHING. When are these three loser governors up for re-election? I can guarantee you they won't be re-elected, especially Michigans governor.

Posted by: bobby20 | March 20, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

This is basic stuff. The Michigan Primary is not just another investment banking deal. Perhaps they should have at least asked Obama's campaign to be part of the money-raising process if they didn't want to look like they were buying a second chance with private cash.

Politics is a game of chess and for as long as Clinton can manipulate the press and make voters think Obama and not the DNC /Michigan Legislators hold the key, Obama is correct to veto the process.

Remember, he is dealing with someone who is changing the rules because it suits her. He is dealing with someone who has spent nearly 3 weeks obstructing the count of the Texas caucuses. The only reason why the Texas issue isn't front page is because Obama hasn't given a press conference about it challenging Hillary in a divisive manner.

They're both sharp lawyers, you can't blame him for being too cautious.

Posted by: asja | March 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

This and the Florida delegation go to a floor fight in Denver. Itchy and Scratchy cut each other up with the rhetoric of disenfranchisement and following the rules.

McCain wins!

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 02:11 PM
-------------------------------------------
No worries, the guy who doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni and yet advocates a 100-year war will probably lose his way to the convention!

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

OK Look, this issue is going to put to sleep once and for all:

Tha fact of the matter is that the ONLY people to blame for the Florida and Michigan situation are Florida and Michigan. If they would have not decided to move their primaries up and test the represussions of the DNC none of this would be happening.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary does not have any kind of high ground. SHe is crying because she and her supporters see this as the only way for them to get the nomination. However, they forget the fact that Hillary agreed to the sanctions on FLorida and Michigan. What she did not count on was Obama beating her in 30 primaries and caucuses. Now, damage control.

She is looking like a desperate candidate. SHe speaks of disenfrachisement, but she was complacent in the sanctions that disenfranchised Florida and Michigan in the first place. Now, because she's losing, she has an epiphany and now wishes to find a way to get the peoples voice heard.

DESPERATE, DESPERATE CANDIDATE

Posted by: BigB1 | March 20, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

This and the Florida delegation go to a floor fight in Denver. Itchy and Scratchy cut each other up with the rhetoric of disenfranchisement and following the rules.

McCain wins!

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama has said he is picking North Carolina to win the NCAA basketball championship because they have Tyler Hansbrough one of the few good white players. Isn't that special - he compliments a white guy associated with North Carolina which has an upcoming primary. No wonder he got into Harvard - but he won't get into the White House. And Michelle - we will hold you to your word that this is your only run for the White House. The Fierce Urgency of Four Years from now just doesn't have a magical ring to it.

Posted by: GeneWells | March 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

One word of advice to the MI and FL voters. Though your anger is real, don't take it out on Obama. He is as much a victim. Blame the DNC which made ridiculous rules that gave Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada special status. Blame your state's democratic leaders who played with the legitimacy of your votes by defying the DNC without forcing them to negotiate. Don't be fooled by a cynical campaign that has suddenly realized that your democratic rights are being trampled

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and the filthy scum that supports her tactics to steal the nomination are beneath contempt. How are these craven, despicable monsters able to keep a straight face? Furthermore, how can any Democrat stand and watch this spectacle without vomiting?

Posted by: shiva7 | March 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

How does Clinton have a moral high ground. She agreed to boycott the FL and MI votes. She didn't care about the democratic right of the voters then. She cynically decided to keep her name on the ballot even though she agreed to boycott it. Once she realized she wouldn't win without forcing these delegates down our throat, she suddenly supports the democratic right of these voters. Talk about cynical manipulation.
And her supporters think she has the moral high ground. Give me a break!

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue."
Posted by: BABucher | March 20, 2008 12:50 PM

Look how low the bar is on integrity after 16+ years of Clinton-Bush-speak.

Last week Mrs. Clinton told National Public Radio that the Michigan primary was fair and the results should count.

This was after;
- senior Clinton advisor Harold Ickes voted on the DNC to not allow MI and Fl.
- the other candidates took theri names of the ballot
- Clinton herself said the results wouldn't count.

Yikes!

Posted by: LouiseFletcher | March 20, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I am glad there won't be a "do-over", and I am glad Howard Dean took a hard stance on the issue.

Michigan Democratic voter should have been all over the Michigan Democratic party a long time ago to make sure they followed the rules that were in place.

Now the best thing they can do is to not blame the candidates or the DNC, but place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the Michigan Democratic Party leaders who made this stupid decision in the first place.

Meanwhile, the DNC should revamp the way the order of the primaries is drawn up for the next election.

I am a Michigan voter, and I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

Posted by: pagun | March 20, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

*** To Hillary Supporters!
*** Where were you guys before Jan 15th.
*** We got no support and even Hillary
*** said it won't count.

Howard Dean is 100% to blame for this mess.

The candidates were effectively blackmailed into signing the pledge, whether they agreed with it or not. The pledge essentially protected the interests of Iowa & New Hampshire. Any candidate that opposed it would be toast.

I think the nation dodged a bullet when Howard Dean made his SCREAM. To think that fool was close to the presidency. HE doesn't have the sense that God gave a goose.

Posted by: HuckFinn | March 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does not have the moral high ground here.

She (and both Michigan and Florida Democrats) all agreed to the rules well in advance of the campaign and then she abided by those rules at least until it became apparent she will lose.

It is the Govenors in both states who should be the target of the voters understandable anger for creating this mess

Posted by: ejnewth | March 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The delegates have to be determined somehow, common sense suggests a revote is the fairest option, an approach entirely within the existing rules.

The DNC refuses to pay for it.

The Michigan legislature won't pay, nor can the local Democratic Party cough-up.

The only option is private money. And now the private money is criticized for being biased!!!! Why would private money NOT be biased? That's why elections are funded with public money.

The Obama campaign, along with their supporters in MI & FL, have worked energeticaly to undermine the revotes. They will win a huge tactical victory. But now they have lost any claim to being above "politics as usual." The bloom is off the rose. I think they calculated wrongly, the Republicans will hammer them in the fall, forget about carrying MI or FL.

Barack Obama: Ridin Dirty in Michigan & Florida

Posted by: HuckFinn | March 20, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

This hurts Clinton because it reinforces the image that Clinton is the choice of big-money political insiders, which runs against the message of change that she and Obama have both campaigned on. It also hurts her because she wants and needs the Michigan delegates, but a re-vote funded by Clinton insiders is extremely unlikely to pass through the Michigan legislature or Democratic Party because it smacks of cronyism.

And the idea that Clinton has the moral high ground in this matter is extremely dubious. If we accept the premise that seating delegates from every state is more important than the rule of law, then, yes, Clinton may have the moral high ground. However, a large number of people out there, and even many people in Michigan and Florida, believe in following rules, and that responsibility should be accepted by those who break rules. Democracy isn't democracy unless people are willing to abide with one another by submitting to democratically decided rules. State party leaders and legislators, who are selected by voters to be their agents in the political process, made a decision, and now these two states have to live with that decision.

What is more, giving a re-vote doubly enfranchises these states, allowing them to have their momentum-shifting votes early in the process and their delegates and more momentum-shifting votes late in the process. No other voters in the nation get this benefit, so why should Michigan and Florida be rewarded with extra influence over the nomination for having broken the rules?

I think the moral high ground in this matter is highly disputable, and Clinton campaign insiders colluding to bankroll a primary re-do with soft money erodes even further any moral stand that Clinton might be able to make.

Posted by: blert | March 20, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The delegates have to be determined somehow, common sense suggests a revote is the fairest option, an approach entirely within the existing rules.

The DNC refuses to pay for it.

The Michigan legislature won't pay, nor can the local Democratic Party cough-up.

The only option is private money. And now the private money is criticized for being biased!!!! Why would private money NOT be biased? That's why elections are funded with public money.

The Obama campaign, along with their supporters in MI & FL, have worked energeticaly to undermine the revotes. They will win a huge tactical victory. But now they have lost any claim to being above "politics as usual." The bloom is off the rose. I think they calculated wrongly, the Republicans will hammer them in the fall, forget about carrying MI or FL.

Barack Obama: Ridin Dirty in Michigan & Florida

Posted by: HuckFinn | March 20, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The delegates have to be determined somehow, common sense suggests a revote is the fairest option, an approach entirely within the existing rules.

The DNC refuses to pay for it.

The Michigan legislature won't pay, nor can the local Democratic Party cough-up.

The only option is private money. And now the private money is criticized for being biased!!!! Why would private money NOT be biased? That's why elections are funded with public money.

The Obama campaign, along with their supporters in MI & FL, have worked energeticaly to undermine the revotes. They will win a huge tactical victory. But now they have lost any claim to being above "politics as usual." The bloom is off the rose. I think they calculated wrongly, the Repubicans will hammer them in the fall, forget about carrying MI or FL.

Barack Obama: Ridin Dirty in Michigan & Florida

Posted by: HuckFinn | March 20, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

To Hillary Supporters!
Where were you guys before Jan 15th. We got no support and even Hillary said it won't count. Now it looks like everyone cares about Michigan. I voted in Jan primary and will never vote again if there is a redo. Why should i waste my time for your political gains.
Even worse Obama and Edwards took their name of the ballot.
Everyone is playing politics with our state. I bet this state will go to McCain in Nov since he is the one who campaigned in the state. Whether people like his policy or not they will vote for someone who respect their state (Personally i will not vote for republicans).

Posted by: texdon21 | March 20, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

It hurts her because a valid opinion is currently, "Hillary can't win without gaming the system." Having one candidate and/or her supporters finance an election certain seems like gaming the system, particularly when viewed in the context of Michigan's inability to ensure the validity of voters. Maybe there's no wrong-doing here, but there's at least the appearance of wrong-doing, which is enough.

Posted by: brianspak | March 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

How does it hurt her? That should be obvious to anyone who objectively read the article. There is the perception that the "re-do" will be an inside job and she cannot have another situation where it looks like her insider status helps he manipulate the process.

Posted by: bfjones666 | March 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I am SURE President McCain approves of your Message to your constituency there Howling Dean! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Granted, everyone knows that the "donation" to fund the Michigan re-vote was certainly from the Clinton team, but how does this hurt her? She DOES have the moral high-ground on the re-vote issue.

Posted by: BABucher | March 20, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company