Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Targets Michigan


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets supporters before speaking at a campaign rally at the Charleston Civic Center on May 12, 2008,
in Charleston, W.Va. (Getty Images)

By Peter Slevin
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Democratic nomination in sight, Sen. Barack Obama will fly Tuesday to Michigan, where he aims to attend to some unfinished business as Sen. Hillary Clinton's chances ebb away.

Obama will meet with leading Democrats and campaign in Michigan on Wednesday, staking a claim to vital general election turf and working toward a compromise that would seat Michigan's disputed delegates at the Democratic National Convention in August.

The Obama campaign has publicly supported a proposal by senior Michigan Democrats to allocate 54 percent of Michigan's Democratic delegates to Clinton and 46 percent to Obama. That would give Clinton 69 delegates to Obama's 59 and end a messy squabble caused when Michigan moved up its primary in violation of party rules.

Clinton and her advisers have argued repeatedly and unsuccessfully that she be awarded a larger share of the delegates, as she had won 58 percent of the vote on Jan. 15. Yet, by agreement, none of the Democratic candidates had campaigned in Michigan and Obama was one of several Democrats to take his name off the ballot.

"Uncommitted" finished second in Michigan, with 40 percent of the vote.

Obama's move is part of his pivot toward a contest against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. After brief visits to West Virginia and Kentucky, which Clinton is expected to win handily, Obama will campaign Tuesday in Missouri -- a likely swing state in November -- before flying to Michigan.

"John McCain has gone unchallenged for far too long," Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki said. "It's important for us to begin laying the groundwork for a general election campaign."

Obama will return to Oregon and make stops in other primary states before May 20. He expects to travel to Florida, site of the other disputed Democratic primary, next week.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 12, 2008; 1:42 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Edwards: 'Obama Will Be the Nominee'
Next: Clinton Running Hard in West Virginia

Comments

Whoever is spamming with those capital letters about who they would vote or not vote for:

We don't care. You are obviously mentally ill, very angry, and need professional help. At any rate, people like you always vote Republican anyway.

Be a good little whatever you are, and please climb back under your rock.

Posted by: Liza | May 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The New Republic:

Peter Keating.


Though it's been clear more or less since Super Tuesday that Barack Obama was going to finish the primary season with more delegates than Hillary Clinton, her campaign has relentlessly tried to move the campaign's goalposts, resetting the thresholds needed for victory as suited their needs. And the media more or less had to go along: when Clintonistas claimed that Obama's caucus victories ought to be less important than Hillary's big-state wins, or that Michigan and Florida should count, or that pledged delegates could vote for whomever they like, beat writers duly noted the new flare-ups, and talking heads chewed them over. The narrative of the horse race following her successes in Texas and Ohio on March 4 became a question: "Is there a way she can catch up?" All of which played perfectly into Clinton's down-but-not-out, scrappy-fighter makeover.

Last week, however, Clinton fell short of the expectations her own campaign had set. As Bill Clinton's sickly countenance revealed during Hillary's half-victory/half-concession speech, their campaign finally ran out of spin.

Finally, we're all on the same page about the math involved in the fight for the nomination. Pledged delegates plus superdelegates plus Florida and Michigan plus zero credit for Michigan's uncommitted delegates and John Edwards' supporters - Clinton's fantasy equation - still add up to an Obama lead. The totals under Hillary's best-case scenario: Obama 1942.5, Clinton 1890, according to Democratic Convention Watch. Of course, hope dies hard, and Bill Clinton has been barnstorming West Virginia, telling voters they "will see the earth move" if enough of them show up to lead a miracle comeback for Hillary in the popular vote.

Hillary has had two motivations for staying in the race. One was prudential: Obama really was about as untested as his opponents claim, and there was always a chance that some surprise would trip him up. Yet even when his closet turned out to be hiding the braying carcass of Jeremiah Wright, Obama buckled but did not crumple. The other was psychological: It was impossible for the Clintons, given their massive sense of entitlement as well as their faith in Bill's political expertise, to believe that Hillary essentially lost this campaign before she was fully paying attention to the rules. But the fact that top Clinton officials are arguing now about whether Mark Penn understood proportional representation last year is just the latest sign that they had an irretrievably bad winter.

For all the finger-pointing within her campaign, there has been a heroic aspect to Clinton's resolve. But to extend its fight, her campaign has thrown around a lot of sand, obscuring two important facts that should become much clearer to everybody in the days ahead.

First, superdelegates were never going to trump an Obama nomination by breaking en masse toward Hillary. Calling superdelegates party elders is just another way of saying they are politicians with long records. They want to preserve their own careers, not trigger riots about hijacking the presidential primaries, and maximize their access to the next president. And that means they are subject to the same public pressures and bandwagon-jumping calculations as any other politicians.

Naturally enough, more than 150 superdelegates endorsed Hillary back when she was leading the national polls. Then, as Obama won primaries and caucuses, superdelegates started hopping aboard his campaign, to the point where Obama now holds a narrow lead in their support. The superdelegates who remain uncommitted today are no great profiles in courage; they're mayors and congressmen who didn't want to guess wrong - or, more charitably, who wanted to let voters have their say. Either way, they are submitting to the legitimacy of the popular will as expressed through primaries and caucuses.

The second reality emerging from the (near-)resolution of the Democratic race is that "momentum" is a function of place as much as time. In the weeks following Super Tuesday, Obama looked irresistible as he racked up one victory after another, but in reality, he was on favorable terrain almost everywhere. Then it seemed like he was faltering as he couldn't knock Hillary out in Texas and Rhode Island. Demographics matter; Clinton and Obama spent six weeks and more than $15 million in Pennsylvania without fundamentally altering the dynamics of the vote there.

Recently, the nominating calendar has given Hillary a boost, as she ruthlessly isolated Obama's weaknesses among working-class Catholics, Scotch-Irish, and seniors. The Clinton campaign has used her success in a series of states that happened to be strung together on the schedule to create the impression that she is strong and Obama weak all across the regions that will matter in November. Result: In comparing Clinton and Obama, the media have focused on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

But it's a big country. Obama leads John McCain in Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin in recent polls, while Hillary is losing those states to the Republican. Obama also outperforms Hillary by seven points in Minnesota and eight in Oregon (where the Democrats are ahead), and by four-and-a-half in Nevada (where McCain leads). He's within striking distance of McCain in North Carolina, as well as Virginia, where Clinton trails by double digits. And scattered polls over the past few months have shown Obama ahead of or close to McCain in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and even Alaska--all states Clinton has no shot at winning. Clinton might make a formidable general-election candidate anyway; her full-throated adoption of right-wing talking points against Obama has been so successful among Appalachians that she could put states such as Kentucky and West Virginia in play. But Clinton always needed to win Ohio and Florida to beat McCain. Obama might not.

Which brings us to the big question confronting each candidate in this new, terminal phase of the nominating race. For Hillary, it's how much she wants to hurt Obama. And when she equated "white Americans" with "hard-working Americans" in attacking Obama last week, she signaled that she's still willing to campaign destructively. As long as Hillary is playing with her knife collection, she can make Obama bleed. Until she puts it away, next-stage questions, such as how the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated and whether Hillary merits a vice-presidential nod, will go unanswered.

For Obama, the big question is just how much he believes that 2008 isn't just a Democratic year but a realigning election. His safe play would be to aim for a replay of the 2000 and 2004 elections with the national baseline a few points more favorable to the Democrats. Under this scenario, Obama ought to put Hillary or a Clinton surrogate on the ticket and focus on bringing traditionally Democratic and swing states into the fold.

But looking at today's electoral map, Obama knows he has consistently polled very well in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, Democratic-leaning swing regions where Hillary's scorched-earth campaign may actually have helped him among progressive whites, and where anti-Bush sentiment is running particularly high. Obama's landslide primary coalitions in Virginia and North Carolina, combined with recent local Democratic successes, could put those states on the table, too. The Southwest and Mountain West trended strongly Democratic in the 2006 elections. And none of these areas is dominated by the kinds of voters who have given Obama so much trouble over Jeremiah Wright. He might well try to sweep them all, dispensing with the calculations and shifts required to win Ohio or Florida and winning with a "new politics" reform coalition of African Americans, white liberals, new voters, anti-war/anti-Washingon independents, and less-enthused Clinton Democrats. Obama's newly-launched voter-registration campaign would play a huge role in this.

That strategy would turn whole swaths of purple and reddish states blue if it works. But it requires a heavy investment in states that aren't used to voting Democratic, and where McCain is currently quite popular. And there probably wouldn't be a Rust Belt to fall back on if it failed.

Which way to turn, and how big a bet to make on fundamental change - that's the argument Donna Brazile and Paul Begala started to have in their televised smackdown last Tuesday night. It's likely to keep us busy all the way to Denver.

Posted by: Elizabeth Gilmore | May 13, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Hi Ann,

Please see Jim Richmonds comment below...now how exactly is it that Obama supporters are throwing around the race card? I've read a lot of these posts and a lot on politico.com and heard HRC speak constantly about the WHITE vote but very rarely have I seen the opposite (by all means please point some out to me cause I've been looking Obama and/or his supporters throwing around the race card). I don't support either candidate(s), they are all snakes to me but such is the nature of the game called politics but honestly I've heard more racial division (whether it's about his race or his name) from the HRC supporters. Also, as an Independent who thinks the whole 2 party system should be done away with (and I have asked this question on many other boards but have yet to get a response) someone please explain to me how it is that you can be an HRC supporter and be so valiantly for her but then turn around and say that you are going to vote for her polar opposite in McCain if she doesn't win? Please explain the logic, to me HRC and Barack have platforms that mirror each other (yes, they may have differnt visions on "how" to get there but they have the same basic destination) so if you believe that much that HRC is the right candidate based on the ISSUES then how can you vote McCain? And it's only HRC supporters (on the Democrat side) that talk about the switch, you don't really hear Barack supporters saying that which tells me they are more for the issues AND the person and not just for the person. This same thing is going on on the Republican side as McCain has yet to unify his own party.
And someone please explain to me how the whole Michigan Florida thing is Barack's fault again?!? I don't understand that logic either...as I recall ALL the Democrat candidates agreed to those rules at the beginning when it was widely thought that HRC was a shoe in for the nomination but now that she is losing it's Baracks fault???? I agree that it is unconstitutional to deny people of their right to vote and I wouldn't have a problem with the fact that HRC wants to have those votes counted other than the fact that she didn't seem to mind when she was in the lead that those votes didn't count now all of a sudden it's this big issue??? How about blaming the people that cost you the votes/delegates by breaking the very rules they agreed to play by??? Hold your elected officials in the states of Michigan and Florida accountable for putting you in this position, not the candidates who are only playing by the rules they were given. BUT SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER ME THE QUESTION I ASKED B/C I HAVE BEEN POSTING ON VARIOUS SITES FOR 2 DAYS NOW AND NOT ONE HRC SUPPORTER WHO SAID THEY WILL VOTE MCCAIN HAS RESPONDED AND I'M JUST REALLY CURIOUS. I have had responses to my posts but they always leave out the answer to the main question I am asking!

Posted by: Deeze | May 13, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I would vote for Death before I'd ever cast a vote for Senator Hillpatine.

Posted by: Me | May 13, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before last week's primary. Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes. Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation? So get over yourself already, haughty spirit, Michelle Obama. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford. If you really want to be First Lady, try smiling for once. It's a lot cheaper.

Posted by: Bill | May 13, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

everybody knows that people from west virginia are all stupid racist rednecks. i wouldnt got there if my life depended on it. nobody there has a college education. i wouldn't set foot in that racist state. nobody wants that witch hillary to be president and everyone is sick of stupid, old, white men who just want to start wars and kill people. and if obama doesnt get elected the people will riot in the city streets everywhere. the time for change is NOW in the us of kkk a

Posted by: ja' donna | May 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

To JoyN:

I was wondering the same thing. I want to know why Mrs. Clinton was taped several times in total agreement that Florida and Michigan would not count and now Obama is to blame because those two States violated DNC rules? I wonder how receptive some would be if Mr. Obama was working desperately and shamelessly at all cost to change the rules in the 9th inning. Also, why is it that it is okay for her to reference the fact that she is a woman fighting like the women who used to fight to vote. Wow, what a double standard Mr. Obama faces. He would never use that analogy during his campaign, he couldn't. I really liked Mrs. Clinton until she began this woman, hard working White Americans talk. I am a hard working black American woman and am really offended that she would continue to say things that divide this party and this country. That is really too bad.

Posted by: RWM | May 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

and, "derrick" - 'substance' like what?

His Muslim childhood?
His association with the Chicago underworld?
His longtime close friend who is a veteran of the Weather Underground?
Maybe his history as a cocaine user and dealer?

All of these have been PROVEN NOT TO BE TRUE.
Sadly, I know that all who want to believe them will continue to do so, and that tells me all I need to know about their judgment.

I do NOT believe that it is "elitist" to think that in order to vote, a person must make sure that he/she is as well-informed as possible and UNDERSTANDS the issues he/she is basing his/her vote on.

I do NOT believe that it is "elitist" to think that an intellectual, who was educated at good schools and speaks correct English, should not need to adopt local mannerisms/accent/tastes in order to win the support of people in one location or another.
Guess what - the candidates, ALL of them throughout history, are EXTREMELY unlikely to be just like you and your neighbors.
For one thing, they are usually from different parts of the country. For another, they are all, without exception, much wealthier than you are. They don't need this job for the money. So if hearing one of them speak your local patois, and seeing him/her wear a T-shirt from the local high school or fire station, and having him/her serve chili in a parking lot for 15 minutes surrounded by Secret Service personnel is going to convince you to vote for that person, maybe you need to rethink your criteria for elected office.

I am an intelligent person, as are many of you, and many of the people we know. It is not elitist to want the president of the United States to be one of the smartest people available. I would ask the folks standing in line for chili in the parking lot - don't you think that other countries, both allies and adversaries, try to make a point of electing/selecting/appointing/installing/ whatever the most capable person available? These are the people that our president has to impress, not Joe Bob at the VFW. It is not elitist to say that.

The fact that some - even some on this board - are defiant, even proud of their lack of intellectual curiosity, should be a cause for despair.

Posted by: bokonon13 | May 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Useful information from newJeffCT - thank you - that I thought was worth another post. Please understand, Clinton supporters, that is NOT OBAMA who decides whether or not to seat delegates at the convention. Look who the "decider" was in 2004:

"Back in 2004, Michigan was going to move their primary as well. Then DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe said that if Michigan moved their primary, there would be no way their delegation got seated at the 2004 Democratic convention. McAulifee is now the chair of the Clinton campaign and is arguing the opposite."

Posted by: bokonon13 | May 13, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The way Republicans will beat Sen. Barack Obama is by making the election a referendum on him -- by exposing his dangerous agenda and radical record. There are signs that the GOP intends to do exactly that. The media and Democrats will charge that it's taking the low road, but with GOP nominee John McCain intent on taking the high road, someone has to confront Obama's sweet talk with substance.

Posted by: derrick | May 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

you rock Obama!

Posted by: devin | May 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I live in Michigan and I'm puzzled to see people blaming Obama for Florida/MI. Anyone who knows the inside workings blame party officials, especially state officials. I know Clinton (and supporters) keeps saying Obama is at fault but that's a game.
Yes we voted but people deciding to vote or not knew it didn't count, it was an optional beauty contest.
In MI it was vote Clinton or not Clinton (uncommitted) and of course more Clinton supporters would turn out, especially with our governor, ex-governor and a US Senator holding rallies for her and filling airwaves and papers telling us to vote Clinton.
In Florida there was a huge turnout because there was a property tax cut on the ballot, property owners cared.
Those weren't valid outcomes. Then they couldn't agree on revote, but that was state and legal issues more than either campaign. Now it's Clinton who said no to what the MI party had finally agreed on.

I was ready to support either candidate and will work hard for Obama.
Someone rings up one of Obama's staffers (actually Rob Malley, an informal advisor) had met with Hamas in the past. True and they broke ties when they found out. But I knew who Rob Malley was part of President Clinton's negotiating team at the Camp David talks. He is also known as a commentator on Middle Eastern issues. Malley works for the "International Crisis Group" which surely explains why he is and expert and also why he'd meet with sides in crisis.
I'm sure the republicans will use it but Sen Clinton hardly can!

Posted by: JoyN | May 13, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Why is Obama being blamed for "the race card" which is only being perpetuated by media? The last time I checked, the purpose of his campaign was to unite America, not divide it among racial, gender, educational or any other lines. He has never initiated any type of racial discussion, but merely addressed divisive comments made by those who oppose him and previously supported him. Everytime I watch commentary, all I hear is that white working class won't vote for him. The last time I checked however, blacks are still the minority in America which means even if he won 90% of the black vote, he would still need a significant number of whites and others in order to carry a state. Check your state and city demographics, with the exception of cities like ATL, Chicago, Detroit, and a few others which you can count on one hand, blacks are 20% or less of the population!!!!! Who's playing the race card?! Whites are voting for Obama! GET OVER IT! STOP BEING A SHEEP! THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Posted by: Ann | May 13, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

One more comment and I am done here. I need to get to bed to get up early tomorrow for my minimum wage job (which I am thankful to have)(also be sure to tell Obama I have an accounting degree but cannot find work in Michigan, perhaps he could help me out with a reference or two). See I am educated and poor where do I fit in?????

anyway my point is that Clinton supporters are not racist, it is the Obama supporters who throw the race card in any chance they get. With any disagreement that is their only answer.

If the race was between Clinton and Edwards I would still vote for Clinton. Race has nothing to do with it except from your perspective.

If the race was between Clinton and Richardson I would still vote for Clinton. Race has nothing to do with it. (he's hispanic you know, so are my husband and children)

Posted by: michiganian33 | May 13, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Good point from 'none in 08'. Another example of the media hype for Obama. Clinton is desperate for wanting a solution in Michigan and Obama is what? Oh yeah, trying to unite, sure as long as it is in his favor. Which most everything is as far as the media is concerned. Does anybody in the media read these notes we write? Probably and having a good laugh at our expense too.

Posted by: michiganian33 | May 13, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

As a voter from Michigan I think all of you from Michigan who are saying we are "all" behind Obama need to retract that statement. A large majority of us are NOT for Obama, never have been, never will be. He wasn't on the ballot in the beginning, he doesn't deserve to be now. So do not speak for me or those of us who are for Clinton and do not assume because you are from Michigan and for Obama that the rest of us are. They are many, many who are for Clinton.
Experience speaks!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: michiganian33 | May 13, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

It is Obama who pulled his name out. It is Obama who doesn't want the Michigan vote to count even though Michigan had a record turn out. I don't think Michigan and Florida people will forgive Obama if you insist on not counting their votes. What can you do to save your face? It puzzles me how he got elected, but its ok. As soon as he is nominated, I am switching party. I can't stand blacks whining all the time any way.

Posted by: Jim Richmond | May 12, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

As the election nears, it has become quite evident that the Republican Party is in its' final throws and is totally incapable of presenting a candidate with the leadership abilities to lead America in a new direction.

Posted by: hammerdown | May 12, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

As, we learn more about Obama it is evident that he is not ready to be President. He may have a Harvard degree but I want my candidate to be smarter than a fifth grader. During a speech in Oregon, he stated that he had visited 57 states and there were 2 he would not visit.

It was reported today that one of Obama's staffers met with Hamas.

I believe, Obama has promised Hillary something if she stayed in the race until West Virginia and Kentucky. Think about it, if Hillary had dropped out after Indiana, how would it look to the Superdelegates if Obama lost Kentucky and West Virginia and the only competition was against himself

Posted by: tdl62 | May 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Considering 40% of Democrats still showed up to vote for "Uncommitted", just imagine how Obama would have sweeped the state had he been on the ballot. He carries black voters by 92% to Hillary's 8%, and I can tell you that SE Michigan, which is heavily black, is what makes us a blue state. Hillary is pathetic.

Posted by: D Alpaugh | May 12, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR IVAN THE TERRIBLE.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: ROBERT | May 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR ROSEMARY'S BABY.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: LATISHA | May 12, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR O.J.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA

Posted by: NARGISS | May 12, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR PEEPING TOM.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: DUNEK | May 12, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I WILL VOTE FOR FRANKENSTEIN.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: DOMENIKA | May 12, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR REV-WRIGHT.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: Mark | May 12, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR ROBERT MUGOBE {ZIMBABWE}
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: Valerie | May 12, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR KIM JONG-IL
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA

Posted by: RENSTROM | May 12, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR KING KONG.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: joelop | May 12, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR GENGHIS KHAN.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: PATRICIA | May 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I WILL VOTE FOR JOSEPH STALIN.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: newof theday | May 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR POL POT.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: niceday | May 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR MAO TSE TUNG.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: LILA | May 12, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR IDI AMIN.
BUT NOT FOR OBAMA.

Posted by: SHRIN | May 12, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I live in Michigan and OBAMA IS LOVED ALL OVER MICHIGAN!

Posted by: Ka | May 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why some people on here are claiming that Obama has "disenfranchised" the voters of Florida and Michigan. Secondly, I am even more confused as to why there are those who think it is unfair for Obama to agree to allocate 54% of the Michigan delegates to Hillary rather than 58%.

Michigan and Florida broke the party rules by holding early primaries, and thus the delegates from these states - in accordance with party rules - will not be allocated in proportion to who won the state.

All of the democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida since they were in violation of party rules. Thus, Obama took himself off the ticket and Hillary had a plurality of the votes in the two states.

At the beginning of the campaign, Hillary did not give so much of a whisper of dissent about the two states not being counted. Yet, now that Obama has an insurmountable lead, she is claiming Florida and Michigan should be counted.

In response to her claim, Obama's camp is offering to give Hillary 54% of the Michigan delegates. This is generous considering she would not even receive that much if her appeal is rejected.

Also, even if Hillary receives the share of Michigan/Florida delegates she claims she is entitled to, she would still be behind in popular vote, pledge delegates, and possibly superdelegates.

Based on these facts, how did Obama disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida? He is not the one who broke the party rules nor did her encourage Florida and Michigan to do so. If anything, one could argue that Hillary was complicit in the Florida/Michigan violation since her name was on the ballot despite the fact the candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. However, rather than make this case against Hillary, the Obama campaign is offering her a majority of the pledge delegates in Michigan when it is very likely her appeal will not be accepted anyway. Yet, Obama is "disenfranchising" the people of Florida and Michigan?

It's good that we are all civicly minded and support a candidate - But please, let's try to look at the facts before we make sweeping accusations.

Posted by: Kya | May 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Well, here's one working, hard working, white voter in the city of Detroit who can't wait to welcome Obama to Michigan. I am yet to meet a single democrat that is mad at him for following the rules the DNC imposed.

The folks who are posting they will vote for McBush are not democrats, so don't bother arguing. They're not Clinton supporters either. Just republicans and racists trying to game the election.

Obama (sans Clinton) '08

Posted by: Detroiter | May 12, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

To Crat3: I think the outrage should be over the michigan politicians who disenfranchised millions of MI voters by changing their primary date. Obama simply followed the rules and took his name off the ballot in support of the national party. Too bad Hillary didn't play by the rules as well.

Posted by: Alan | May 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

To Protests are Planned: We see in clear view how the Democrats eat their own. The short-sighteness of protesting the presumptive nominee over him following the rules as set out by the DNC. Your outrage is silly and misplaced. Get on board for a victory in November, not a choreographed "back turning" at the convention.

Posted by: Alan | May 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I will go further than Ronn. I believe what Bush did for the American people is demonstrate once and for all that the Republican party has sold out any values it may have once had. It may have once stood for Libertarian principles but not in my lifetime. The Republican Party has become the party of Royalty. For all its rationalizations Bush has shown the true colors. If you are the rich elite 4-5 % of the population every action we take is for your benifit. We overrun safety and environmental laws not for econnomic growth and standing up to tree huggers but because we don't care if corporate policies cause future death and environmental destruction as long as our friends with all the money benefit and support our party. We don't care if we invade and kill thousands of innocents as long as the oil companies are happy and support us financially. We don't care if our policies cause job loss lower wages and a loss of the middle class we will continue to give tax breaks to the people who put us in power: the top 5 % of the [population (and those gullible enough to fall for the Madison Avenue campaign they buy with all that money) The fact that the entire Republican party sold out 95% of Americans for the 5% is now obvious. Sure there are 15-20% of the population who still will vote for them but they refuse to admit they were wrong, but hopefully the infamous short memory of Americans will last a couple generations

Posted by: dave | May 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

With less than 48 states, Obama clearly shows that he does not understand the word" integrity". He may bend his way the Dem rules but if ever he is the nominee he will be bent to a new rule. We will have the last word. I sure will not vote for a guy who can not look straight to your eyes. It does not matter if the next President would be a Dem or a Republican or an Independent, he or she should be reliable and dependable. Obama has chosen to have tactical wins in Michigan and Florida by ignoring their vote count in the primaries and now he comes back trying to woo them. Next, he will try to woo Hillary's suporters. But enough is enough.

Posted by: Sam | May 12, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I lived in both Michigan and Florida and I can tell you that we's got get behind McCain cause he's gonna be a good president just like George W! We love George Bush and think he's been the best president ever! Yes siree Bob, that George Bush is great! That's why we're voting for McCain. It'll be just like another 4 years of George Bush and that's what this country needs! Higer gas prices while the Oil companies rake in record profits, endless Iraq war for Dick Cheney's Halliburton frinds, the Housing Crisis where millions of folks are losing their homes, Enron scandals... the list goes on... fools...

Posted by: Ted, Fort Meyers FL | May 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

As a Michigan citizen, I'm proud to say that myself and many of my acquaintances fully support Sen. Obama. Even those who preferred Hillary are ready now to throw their support behind him, because they know as any true Democrat knows - John McCain is the worst possible choice for our country right now.

Posted by: Alex | May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if all those claiming Michigan voters hate Obama, etc. actually live here?

I do, and blame Hillary for all the trouble, not Obama. He went by the rules, that Hillary agreed to abide by, but then she wants to change them. I, for one, saw through her "pandering" and would not vote for her, no matter what. Obama will receive a warm reception in MI, and I am looking forward to his Presidency!

Posted by: MI Dem | May 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Florida LOVES Obama!!! The fall strategy meetings have already begun!!!

Posted by: Gloria | May 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Too little, too late!! Friends in Michigan hate Senator Obama. He will not get alot of votes, they will go to McCain!!

Posted by: kt | May 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Great idea! No matter what happens, Michigan and Florida were dooped in terms of seing the candidates campaign, so naturally they would be disappointed about that. It's a good idea to begin campaigning there first and let them know that the democrats will actively campaign for their vote in the fall. No matter who wins the nomination, the Dems need to spend time with the votes of Florida and Michigan instead of focusing on the delegates. If Clinton is interested in the voters in Florida and Michigan, as opposed to just winning, she should consider doing the same.

Posted by: kat1park | May 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Floridans are planning to NOT attend Obama events. Those who do attend, are planning to turn their backs to Obama while he speaks.

Posted by: Protests are Planned | May 12, 2008 3:35 PM
_____________________________________

Shame on you for organizing a protest against Senator Obama. Why not protest against the state legislatures or file a petition for a vote of lack of confidence and competence and force those legislature out of office who are responsible for this mess.

Maybe the Clintonites should move to a third world country where people get killed if their leader does not win. In America, we abide by rules and laws. Where law/rule ends, anarchy begins. Your candidate is losing, please accept it.

God Bless America and God Bless Obama. God will guide and protect Senator Obama during the election cycle.

Posted by: elitist | May 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Oil spiked $4 Friday on new evidence of Venezuela's deep involvement in terrorism. There's no glossing over such news: Hugo Chavez intends to destabilize the region. The U.S. will need to take action. It's an ugly picture for the U.S. We must either de-fang Chavez soon, or watch democratic neighbors collapse to his vast dictatorship. If that happens, oil prices will rise as high as his ambition. Meanwhile, Obama, who had a Che Guevara poster in one of his campaign offices doesn't mind if Cuba, with Chinese assistance, explores for oil 45 miles off Florida while U.S companies are blocked from further Gulf of Mexico production.

Posted by: Shawn | May 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I simply can't believe how people actually believe that Obama has been trying to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. Something that must be understood is that those two states did not follow the guidelines set forth by the Democratic Committee that oversees the voting process. States that don't abide to the guidelines are held accountable and result in split-sharing the delegates. Simple as that.

If Hillary wasn't trailing behind Obama, guaranteed she wouldn't be screaming out loud about it. People involved in the voting process should be smart enough to understand the facts. She's simply distorting the situation to rattle enough people's cages and overturn what simply shouldn't be overturned. Remember folks, Hillary was fine with it when the two states first failed to adhere to the guidelines. It's only in the past month or so that she's been constantly and I mean constantly talking (aka belly-aching) about it.

Posted by: gatti | May 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Anyone want to make any guesses why Clinton is still running?

I say it's either to save face, given her claims that she's "in it til there's a nominee" or...

Clinton Deadline Looms for Recouping $11 Million Personal Loan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080512/pl_bloomberg/as5a58ks7ky8

Posted by: jencm | May 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"It's still early," Clinton said last Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

Posted by: larry | May 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins. He wins, he wins.

So suck it Lanny Davis!

Posted by: DS | May 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Obama wins. He wins, he wins, he wins.

So suck it Limbaugh, Hannity and the other fanatical right wing tools. ha ha. See ya in 8 years!

$1,000 cash back!
Obama 08

Posted by: DS | May 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

There's only one remaining chapter in this fascinating spectacle: negotiating the terms of Hillary's surrender. After which we will have six months of her stumping the country for Obama, denying with utter conviction Republican charges that he is the out-of-touch, latte-sipping elitist she warned Democrats against so urgently in the last, late leg of her doomed campaign. The Republicans have already won this election.

Posted by: Max | May 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I cannot begin to describe how infuriating this article is. This POS refused to let the votes primary votes count and is being coronated with the vote of 48 states. I hope the Clinton supporters in these two states do the right thing and protest all his appearances. How pathetically disgusting this man is!

Posted by: XDem | May 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Joe - you say that Hamas supports Obama, but we already know that Al Qaeda loves McCain. Their #2 guy - Ayman al-Zawahiri - came out last week and endorsed McCain.

Back in 2004, Michigan was going to move their primary as well. Then DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe said that if Michigan moved their primary, there would be no way their delegation got seated at the 2004 Democratic convention. McAulifee is now the chair of the Clinton campaign and is arguing the opposite.

Posted by: NewJeffCT | May 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Its funny to see the Republicans are already getting so bitter and upset. Haha. Obama is one of the most liberal members of congress and he is going to coast to a general election victory thanks to the current neo-con leadership as well as all the fools who backed him, twice. The world you created is collapsing in on you Republicans, either join us for a more progressive society or wallow in your own self pity and ill feelings. Its funny how you attack Obama while you have the current president with a 26% approval rating. Look in the mirror Republicans. Your war, your leader, your economy. Take some responsibility and stop crying.

Posted by: Lucas | May 12, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

It is a sad spectacle to see the power hungry and racist Clintons trying to destroy the only Democratic candidate that could actually win in November. But much of the blame must go to the scared superdelegates who were frightened of the Clintons' revenge and hesitated too long to speak their mind.

Posted by: Bodo | May 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It's not Obamas or the DNCs fault MI and FL weren't counted. It was the states fault. Cry to your republican governors and congressman for throwing an intentional monkey wrench into the primary.

If it was reversed, Clinton would be saying they don't count - oh, she did when it didn't matter to her.

Posted by: DS | May 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Floridans are planning to NOT attend Obama events. Those who do attend, are planning to turn their backs to Obama while he speaks.

Posted by: Protests are Planned | May 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama sure is popular these days. Even Hamas supports him.

Posted by: Joe | May 12, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary attempted to reach a solution on Michigan she was called "desperate".

Now that Obama is attempting to do the SAME thing, what is it?

Posted by: None in 08 | May 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

If MI did the vote over today, Obama would command more than 40% of the vote. She should take the 10 points (though the popular vote can not be counted as Obama wasn't on the ballet).

Posted by: DS | May 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to Obama Wonderland, where Democrats hike taxes only on evil corporate executives and fulfill pledges of tax cuts for the "middle class." It's the same baloney Bill Clinton promised in 1992. sked by Blitzer to "define middle class," the much-admired orator conceded that "the definitions are always a little bit rough," mentioned a possible $100,000 threshold, but also threw out numbers from $50,000 to $75,000 to $200,000 and $250,000. So who should worry about having their taxes hiked by a President Obama? "I will raise CEO taxes. There is no doubt about it," the eloquent senator told CNN. Obama's spending agenda -- exceeding $307 billion a year -- dwarfs that of Bill Clinton a decade and a half ago. And he would be sure to run into the same immovable mathematical obstacle faced by the last Democratic president. Taxing the handful of CEOs and other fat cats won't be enough. The big money Obama wants will have to come from the many millions of middle-class taxpayers.

Posted by: Mike | May 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

crat3, Obama sabotaged nothing, your state democrats did. You should not believe what the Clintons say. They WILL say anything to garner the power of the Whitehouse. Why don't you google it, and find out for your self? With a choice of Obama/McCain, what will you do?


You won't hear anything more about Rev Wright, when the Hagee/Parsley ads hit the media waves! Talk about LUNACY, and McCain publicly introduced Parsley as his "spiritual guide". If Americans want out of the war in Iraq, they won't be able to vote for McCain in November.
This is why McCain wants to stay in Iraq:

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:
There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.
The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."
At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Posted by: Martha Davidson | May 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The candidate who will bring all our troops home soonest will get the vote of this still undecided independent. Everything else is secondary.

Posted by: Spud | May 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh now he wants to recognize the people of Michigan. I would tell him to take a flying leap. He's the one who was working behind the scenes to disenfranchise them... I hope the people of Michigan see him for what he really is....

Posted by: LAMM01 | May 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

As the campaign winds down, rather than exhibit continued negative behavior, and further seperate the DNC, WHY is it that the Clinton Clan cannot just graciously accept "NO". NOT 4 MORE YEARS IN WASHINGTON. The country and Washington are tired. Period. We need a NEW face in Washington. Hillary would just be Bill in a different body.

And poor Monica Lewinski cannot get a decent job even to this day.

We need a change. And Arkansas doesn't want' em no more.
WHITEWATER. Jennifer Flowers.

And we cant forget the summers galavanting on Long Island with the Baldwins. The GOOD OL DAYS...LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO Baldwin/Bassinger Family.

CLINTONS GO HOME!

Posted by: DonLorenzo/NM | May 12, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama should be booted out of MI. He sabotaged all attempts to count FL and MI votes, and they are still not counted today because of him.

Protests should be organized at his appearances in MI for his disenfrachisement of millions of voters.

Posted by: crat3 | May 12, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary sure is looking more like Saddam Hussein every day. She wants to obliterate Iran just like Saddam. Now she wants praise for winning the votes in Michigan, where she was the only candidate on the ticket. When Saddam used to hold elections, he was the only name on Iraq's ticket. When he would win, he'd parade around the country bragging about how all the people loved him. It makes you wonder why she voted to invade Iraq.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

With the campaign winding down it is time to start focusing on the major issue to the American people: This country has been moving in the wrong direction for too long. The Republican Party's blind adherence to principles like the markets always get it right has been getting us in trouble. The housing bubble and the mortgage crisis resulted from that blind belief.

Another blind belief was that American military might was so great that it could solve problems that needed a political solution. The ideology also said that we did not need allies in our endeavor. These basic premises of the Republican Party are being promoted by John McCain.

America stands for free enterprise and for every citizen to have a fair chance at the American dream. It is not the American way to bail out Bear Sterns and give billions to JP Morgan Bank and to simply ignore home owners. It is not only the home owner who defaults on his mortgage who suffers but also the other owners living near that abandoned home who suffer. I am not advocating the present Democratic bailout package as much as I am advocating a change in government policy more consistent with American values and less on blind adherence to the failed ideology that the Republicans have stood for.

This is the message that Barack Obama needs to bring to the people of Michigan and to the people of this country. The former community organizer is eminently qualified for that task and John McCain and the Republican Party are clueless.

Posted by: Ronnn | May 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company