Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Heads To Michigan Next Week

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will make a stop in Michigan next Monday, less than 48 hours after an expected ruling by the Democratic National Committee about the fate of the Wolverine State's delegation to the party convention in August.

Those familiar with Obama's schedule insist the trip is not designed as victory lap in anticipation of a favorable ruling this weekend at the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting or an attempt to kick-start the Illinois senator's general election campaign in the state.

Still, the symbolic import of Obama stopping in Michigan soon after what may be the final ruling about the seating of the state's delegates should not be underestimated.

By traveling to the state for the second time in the last month (former Sen. John Edwards announced his endorsement of Obama in Grand Rapids in mid-May), Obama is sending a clear signal about the importance of Michigan in his general election calculus.

The last three Democratic nominees for president have carried Michigan -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) won it with 51 percent in 2004 -- but recent polling shows Obama in a dead heat with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the state.

Democrats have privately fretted for months that the ongoing battle over the seating of delegates selected in the Michigan and Florida primaries could endanger their chances of winning the states in the fall.

A quick recap: Florida and Michigan moved their primaries too far forward in the nominating calendar, according to the DNC, which subsequently stripped both states of their delegates. As a result, none of the candidates actively campaigned in either state and Obama went so far as to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan.

Obama's trip last week to Florida -- he spent three days in the Sunshine State -- coupled with his planned visit to Michigan show he is seeking to assure voters in each of the two states that he believes both are essential to his path to the nomination and they he will cede neither one to McCain.

Republicans, on the other hand, are seeking to use the delegate imbroglio in Michigan and Florida to convince voters that Democrats have written them off. Told of Obama's trip next week, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis said that the Illinois senator had "ignored" the state, adding: "He will have to do more than make the obligatory photo op stop here to explain his position on bashing the domestic auto industry."

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 27, 2008; 5:25 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: DCCC's Van Hollen Assesses the Obama Effect
Next: Hillary Clinton and the 'Told You So' Calculation

Comments

SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT:


NOW the story is this: both the media AND McClellan knew the TRUTH all along, but they were not telling us


The ENTIRE problem was Bush was lying the whole time.


1) McClellan never "went along" with it for his own self-interest -


2) The New York Times never "went along" with the story by printing some stupid story about aluminum tubes


3) The press knew the truth all along, but somehow the administration was such a good liar that the press was helpless


4) The democrats "went along" with the war when it was in their own self-interest in the 2002 and 2004 elections


5) The democrats "went along" with the war by FUNDING it for years and years because a few people in the Bush administration were such good liars.

Is that their story now???


My comment is this: all these people let down the American public - they are all no good and rotten.


For the democrats now to say - oh it was all because Bush was a liar - that is a deception and a lie.


THE REASON BUSH WAS ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT IS BECAUSE ALL THOSE PEOPLE KNEW BETTER - SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER - AND WENT ALONG WITH IT FOR THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST - THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SOLD OUT AMERICA.


YES THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY.


IN LIFE, THE SELL-OUTS ARE THE ONES WHO TIP THE BALANCE.


IF ONE ELIMINATES THE SELL-OUTS, THE BALANCE IS NOT TIPPED.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 29, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I am a Democratic voter of over 20 years. I agree with the other poster. IF they do not count all votes in full by both FL and MI, I will dump the Democratic Party and vote for Independents. Obama is an OBAMINATION that has PUPOSELY thwarted democracy by stampeding ON voters rights in these states. OBAMA DISGUSTS ME. I am not concerned about Obama becoming President because this country will not elect a racist black man. Whites will vote just as racist as blacks do and there are far more whites than blacks. Bradley effect any one? What concerns me is the fools in the DNC, that would in concert with NObama, make the mistake of trampling on 2 million Democratic voters and think that this sits well with Democrats. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?

Hillary Clinton run Independent. You will win.

Posted by: Sal | May 29, 2008 4:38 AM | Report abuse

Again... I am missing something.

Florida was controlled by the GOP and as usual... they determined when the general election was.

OBAMA AND CLINTON had a level playing field.
Both on the ballot.. BOTH could do no campaigning in that state. Popular and delegate vote should stand. And guess what..HUSSEIN could not BUY the votes by out spending Clinton.

MICHIGAN... that is a tough one.. Democrats controlled that state.

Both candidates WERE on the ballot. HUSSEIN took his name OFF the ballot??? Why we will never know.

Popular votes stands based on the votes for CLINTON... and good old 'crooked lawyer' Hussein gets the others.

NOTE that HUSSEIN is taking a low profile approach to the rest of the campaign. The less he says, the less likely hood that he will REVEAL the true Obama.

Keep VIPER WRIGHT, MICHELLE OBAMA and HUSSEIN off TV and he can coast.

Note two things in the news..

The new book about GOD BUSH's Administration.

Now McCain is constantly in the news..

MAIN STREAM MEDIA... is ATTACKING both of these guys... and letting their 'golden boy' hide in the wings.

Who says that KING OBAMA does not have a bunch of angels/despots looking over his shoulder... aiding him in his campaign.

Posted by: miller51550 | May 28, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

hilary & obama were on the ballot in fla just count fla votes as is.
mich has the regular primary for all offices except pres in august anyway-why not just add the pres candidates to the regular primary ballot.
if mich goes GOP obama is in deep trouble and Mich will be close. If hillary is vp mich will go dem. I have 40 years of experince in mich politics and will be on the ballot this fall again, dont send mich to GOP

Posted by: warren | May 28, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

If Barack Hussein Obama does not DEMAND that the Democratic National Committee seat ALL Florida delegates WITH FULL VOTES REPRESENTING THE RESULTS of the Florida Primary, then I will consider the Democratic Party FALSE to the IDEALS of the makers of America and will do EVERYTHING in my power to defeat Barack Hussein Obama and EVERY Democratic Party candidate from now until the Democratic Party is abolished and replaced by a political party with ideals akin to the ideals of true Americans. Please note that I have been a Democrat for forty years though I have ALWAYS voted according to my convictions.

Posted by: dgf | May 28, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I am a 49 year old woman who supported Hillary, until she start all the craziness. I knew Bill was a liar (remember Monica and the impeachment?), but I thought Hillary was stable. She's crazier than Bill. If she destroys this election for Barack, what makes her think that those who support him will forget and support her the next time. We like a team player not a destroyer...I'm sad to be a woman witnessing these women play the victim role. I'm a single parent, from rural Arkansas (yes, they were my governor and 1st Lady). I pulled myself from poverty through education, the military, hard work and prayer. I will not be defined by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton and no other self respecting woman should.

Posted by: Zela | May 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"DEMONIZING HILLARY: Every woman in this country should be outraged by the treatment Hillary Clinton has received as a presidential candidate. She is a victim of sexism, discrimination and media onslaught in proportions this country has never seen before. Male dominated media including some veteran journalists have lost all sense of fairness and balance when covering Hillary. They caricature her unfairly, quote her out of context, magnify her shortcomings, want her drop out of the race halfway through the race, belittle her lifelong service to this country, and ignore her service on behalf of children."

Yet, despite all these barriers to her getting the Democratic nomination, the general election would be smooth sailing because she is clearly the superior candidate, becuas eobviously sexism will be less of a problem in the general election than it will be in the Democratic primary.

More stellar Clinton logic for you...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

DEMONIZING HILLARY: Every woman in this country should be outraged by the treatment Hillary Clinton has received as a presidential candidate. She is a victim of sexism, discrimination and media onslaught in proportions this country has never seen before. Male dominated media including some veteran journalists have lost all sense of fairness and balance when covering Hillary. They caricature her unfairly, quote her out of context, magnify her shortcomings, want her drop out of the race halfway through the race, belittle her lifelong service to this country, and ignore her service on behalf of children. I think all these are because of her gender. This makes one wonder how these seasoned politicians and payed spin doctors of the silver screen treat women in their own lives. Even some of the Democratic Party leaders who cried foul in 2000 with the Florida election fiasco are so eager to suppress millions of votes of Florida and Michigan to deny Hillary the nomination and to fix the election. That is hypocrisy. We should never allow this to happen in this country.

Posted by: Independent | May 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

MICHIGAN,
Obama ran up to Michigan WITH LAWYERS IN TOW, when your state legilators were meeting to hold a new Primary. Obama wanted it STOPPED! He also NEVER had to take his name off your ballot! IT WAS AN OPTION! And inexperience! And a Primary!

HE does NOT want a new vote in Michigan!
He just wants to USE YOU NOW so he can get your vote in November!
DO NOT BUY INTO THIS!
He was not qualified during your Primary and he is NOT qualified now!
And what kind of a "Democrat" DOES NOT want to count every vote?
NOOBAMA!Not now and NOT in November!

Posted by: DEM to IND | May 28, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

It's ironic that your two posts before and after this feature
Before: The head of DCCC talking about how effective Obama's coattails will be in November
After: Bill Clinton blowing smoke about how Obama is unelectable.
One of them is wrong.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 28, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Make Howard Dean VP and see how well he carries Michigan.

Posted by: John | May 28, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Put Howard Dean as VP and see how well they do in Michigan.

Posted by: John Mc | May 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Will he take his name off the ballot in the genral election?

Posted by: John Mc | May 28, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"Beside the legal arguments, the political ones are important."

At least you're giving up on the legal arguments, realizing you have none...

I agree, there are political implications, which is exactly why Obama has shown willingness to compromise on the seating, and exactly why they will be seated, just not the way Clinton and her protesters will be militantly insisting.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"The Rules Committe should declare the original rule favoring Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida to be in violation of Voters' Rights of Equal Protection. The Rules Committee should further vote to state that the national party is bound to respect the Equal Protection of Voters in the primary election calendar no matter in which state they reside."

And national primary, here we come! Giving us a process that would put all power in the hands of the big states and urban areas, which is where candidates would focus their campaigns, as opposed to this election cycle where all 50 states got up close and personal views of the candidates and the candidates responded directly to their views for at least a 1 week period.

Your argument fails on several grounds. First, it presupposes going first is better (this campaign season has shown pretty clearly it is not); second, it disregards the well established traditions of the primary process; and third, it fatally misunderstands the equal protection clause, which again applies within a state, not between the states. There are numerous occasions both constitutionally and within federal law where citizens of different states are subject to unequal treatment (In the Electoral College, for instance, California gets 54 EVs for 36.5 million people, while Wyoming gets 3 for 515,000; so the votes of a citizen of Wyoming in the presidential race are worth 6 times as much as a Californian!), the 14th Amendment and the voting rights act guarantee the states must treat all of their people equally and the federal government, when viewing people as a whole, must treat them equally, but when things are subject to federalism, things are different. The parties had the authority to set that rule, and nobody's rights were violated in the process. If you don't like it, run for a seat on the DNC.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I've noticed this meme arising as well. At the very least, it flies in the face of Clinton's repeated promises to fully support the Democratic nominee. I suspect that such support will be paired with the "I told you so" strategy in order to position for 2012.

It's a shame. This is no doubt a difficult time for Clinton--but she can use it to turn away from such strategies, and devote this energy to even more strongly advocating for crucial Democratic issues in the soon-to-arrive general election. A difficult choice for her at this time--but the right one. One such issue, hot off the press, and a crucial Democratic wedge issue that will also cut against McCain's "service support" arguments:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/spike-in-rates-of-ptsd-in-2007-iraq.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I feel a 50/50 split is the only fair way in Florida. Since Obama's name was not on the ballot, many might have voted for Hillary that would have voted for Obama. We have no way of knowing.

Hillary voted the the DNC penalty and now wants that vote disregarded. So to make it fair, 50% of her votes in Michigan should be ignored and given to Obama. How can you vote one way and when you find it did not work the way you planned, vote another way? People have gotten to know and like Obama after seeing and hearing him. By not campaigning in Florida and Michigan, his message did not get heard. Split the votes 50/50 in Michigan and 60/40 in Florida where his name did appear. Any other decision would be unfair to Obama but this is fair to Clinton since his name wqas on the ballot in Florida. Either way, Obama still has the lead. The DNC needs to revamp the way it works in order to avoid a repeat down the road.

Michigan and Florida need to appeal to the DNC after the election in order to get their thoughts on the record. The rules they set for this election were alreeady voted on. Then the DNC needs to work out a plan like the Republicans have. Maybe we should all just vote Republican to get our point across.

Posted by: Val Hays | May 28, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

wORTH REPOSTING..

Michigan in the house-

First of all, the lack of knowledge that most of you have concerning our state would be quite hilarious if it wasn't such a sad state of misinformation and idiocy. Please, come for a visit and really find out who we are - we could use the tourism - ha ha.

Now on to the question raised by 'bsimon'. Yes, most of Michigan is quite disgruntled with Dem. Gov. Granholm and, in turn, with the democrats. But we are also an educated, northern state with strong ties to the unions so, for the most part, the state is still a liberal state. As for whether the current Dems in our state govt. (who are the real ones to blame for this primary fiasco - not Obama) get re-elected....well, that is probably where the backlash will strike. Not in the general election.

As for those of you saying that Obama rejected a revote. Are you nuts? It was no revote - it was a setup by the Clinton party. You do realize that we have open primaries, right? And that means we can choose our ballot on the day of election without ever having to join a party or declare a party (a lovely idea). Well, since our incompetent state government (led by fierce Clinton supporters) screwed our primary and we were told our votes didn't count, how do you think that affected the results? Many people did not go to the polls, others crossed over and voted on the republican ticket - where their votes would count, and a full 40% of the Dem. vote count was uncommitted. That means thousands of people took time out of their day to come to the polls to vote 'anyone but Hillary' in an election that didn't count.

Now, fast forward to the revote suggested by Hillary. She wants a revote but only those who voted on the democratic ticket the first time! What? My dear friends, that is disenfranchisement! First we are told our votes don't count, then we are told that if we voted on the democratic ticket only, we can vote again. Don't you see how unfair this is? What it means is that all of the people who voted for Hillary the first time are welcome to come back to the polls and vote for her again. Everyone else who may have stayed home, crossed over or just went fishing that day are not allowed to participate. What???

Obama's denouncing that revote plan was the just decision for the electorate of Michigan. Everyone should be allowed to come to the polls and revote because that would be the only fair election. What is Hillary afraid of to have the entire state vote? Sounds to me like she is the one who is opposing a fair revote - not Obama.

So I end my long tirade by saying, "Please stop spouting such inane misinformation and threats." We here in Michigan can take care of ourselves. In fact, have you heard a large uproar from Michigan complaining of disenfranchisement? I haven't. So drop it and move on. We have.

Posted by: iris jones | May 27, 2008 11:40 PM

Posted by: Vance | May 28, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Santiago


the tone and the style of your comments really did change - you must have had your friend at the Obama campaign write this last post for you


It is deceptive to say that Obama was helping Hispanics find jobs in Chicago on several levels - most of which because it is untrue.

Obama was far away from the hispanics

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Clinton gets another blow.
demconwatch.blogspot.com is reporting DNC lawyers say it's illegal to seat all Florida and Michigan delegates in a 38 page ruling issued late Tuesday night.
It's over, Senator Clinton. Time to keep your promise and work your heart out for Senator Obama, the Democratic nominee!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Frieda,

Your comments are of no substance. Big whoop if he got the name of the camp incorrect. The story is accurate and true.

Posted by: Brad | May 28, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

To May 27 (or will you be May 28 tomorrow as you were May 26 yesterday?!):

Thank you for correcting me. But the US Congress also consists of two legislative bodies similar to the British form of parliamentary democracy, though correspondingly, the functions and powers of these two different form of legislative chambers may differ. I was only trying to emphasise that, unlike in a dictatorship or other form of authoritarian rule, in our system of democracy it is not uncommon for a candidate to woo the votes of people belonging to different ethnic groups. One must not read too much into it.

In your myopic view, anyone who speaks the inevitable truth has to be a member of the Obama campaign! I am no one's campaign mouthpiece. I was an ardent admirer of President Bill Clinton and I still am. Compare to the idiot that we have now in the White House, Bill is one of the best presidents we have had in recent history. Does that make me a person from the Clinton campaign? Get a grip of yourself man (or is it woman!) Goodness gracious me, who are you?

You also engage shamlessly in character assassination by claiming that Obama was
pretending to be a Law Professor. Can you quote one instance where he claimed that he was a Law Professor? He certainly was a senior Law Lecturer teaching constitutional law in the University of Chicago Law School. So, my friend, which part of that resume is whacky?

You were again wrong in saying that it was a fantasy of mine to assert that he helped hispanics find jobs. His service as community organizer was not restricted to the African Americans. He was a community organizer in some of Chicago's poorest communites that included the Hispanic community as well.

So don't try to give your two cents worth of cynicism with a heart filled with hate and prejudice. Be objective, fair and truthful in your comment.

Posted by: JISantiago | May 28, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Purplelord

The Rules Committe should declare the original rule favoring Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida to be in violation of Voters' Rights of Equal Protection. The Rules Committee should further vote to state that the national party is bound to respect the Equal Protection of Voters in the primary election calendar no matter in which state they reside.


************************************

I understand your potential objections - that somehow a primary vote cast in January is the same as one counted in June.

Well, we all know that is not true.


I understand that it may take one a minute to see that the national party should not be favoring Voters in one state over Voters in another state - however that is the demands of Equal Protection.

Perhaps some lottery system for the primary calendar would meet the demands of Equal Protection.


Perhaps a system of rotation among the states would meet the demands of Equal Protection.

A haphazard plan which evolved over decades perhaps might be subjected to Equal Protection scrutiny.

However, a national plan of a national party which deliberately seeks to favor the Voters of Nevada over the Voters of Michigan and Florida - that is subject to Equal Protection scrutiny.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 28, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

The only place elitist liberal loser phony
empty suit Barack Hussein Obama needs to
head to next,is back to Chicago and Obama
being his pal Chicago Slumlord Tony Rezko
Errand Boy again.Obama will never be elected President of the USA! No Way Obama!

Posted by: Sandy5274 | May 28, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

It may appear curious to advocate that the Rules Committee declare the original rule UNCONSTITUTIONAL, thereby accepting a constitutional limitation upon itself however it is wise.


It is wise because we are all Americans who should uphold the Constitution and its principles without having a settled court case in front of us.


It is wise because it is the smart thing to do politically right now.


It is also wise to place the 2012 discussion on the right footing - all citizens in the United States are on equal footing.


We can not allow a situation to develop in which a bunch of Washington insiders sit in some obscure party committee meeting and decide which states' Voters have more influence on the process of selecting a President.


Or in this case, have a bunch of fat cats influenced by Harry Reid seek to place the political consultants of Nevada on the inside track to White House appointments, and the Voters of every other state could go jump in Lake Michigan.

As Americans, we follow Constitutional priniciples because we believe in them, not because we have a court saying we have to - the party is not really seeking to avoid a legal battle, but a floor fight which is worse.


The Rules Committee should recognize that Constitutional principles do play a role in the primary process and vote to bind the national party as such.


The Rules Committee perhaps never voted a restriction on itself - or the equivalent of a Marbury decision - however such a decision is appropriate and is the easiest way to solve this dispute which is clearly way out of control.

Thus, the rule placing Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Michigan and Florida should be held void, as should the penalties.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 28, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

The poster at 10:37 is probably David Axelrod, who is responsible for the underhanded nature of most of Obama's campaign this year.


You may be happy with yourself now.


However time will show that you have harmed race relations in this country, perhaps setting the country back decades.


History may show, that along with the lying of the Clintons, you have destroyed the democratic party, which may not be a bad thing after all.


Axelrod has run the most REPULSIVE Presidential campaign since the Jim Crow era.


There is only shame on Axelrod and the Obama Campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

AJ


Please go to the doctor to deal with your blood pressure because if you are going to continue to support Obama, you will not have a calm summer and fall.

The easiest way to ease your blood pressure is to support McCain, who will make you assured and calm.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

AJ


Please go to the doctor to deal with your blood pressure because if you are going to continue to support Obama, you will not have a calm summer and fall.

The easiest way to ease your blood pressure is to support McCain, who will make you assured and calm.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Comments by people like lylepink get my blood pressure up! Hillary made the worst major political gaffe of this campaign season. You need only to watch the video of her comments and demeanor to see that she was staying in the presidential race expecting something bad to happen to Obama. I mean come on, "My husband didn't win the nomination till June...and RFK was assassinated in June" are pretty self-explanatory.

For those who defend Hillary's "dark" state-of-mind shows a lack respect and humility.

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it has sunk in yet, to the
DNC, the super delegates, and the media, that when the primary is "given" to the amateur Barak Hussien Obama, that the real power of the Democratic Party will emerge. Not just women, not just Hispanics, not just blue collar voters, (all of whom are being portrayed as second class citizens by the press and the talking heads), but every person who stands
for fairness, for excellence, for the BEST
person for the job of president(Hillary), will go the polls in Nov. and vote for John McCain.
I confess I will have to grit my teeth when I do it but I can assuage my crossing over by voting for all other Democratic candidates on the ballot. The Congress will
be solidly Democratic and McCain will not be able to pass anything that the Dems don't want passed. I'd rather see McCain in the White House, he is after all an American War Hero, than the "converted" Muslin(by his own words) and someone who has never served his country, except in the graft ridden politics of Chicago to aid him in his quest for power.(Gosh, the American Dream.) When Obama said Wright "converted" him into the Church of Christ I finally understood just where he was coming from. People who are "converted "are going from one religion to another, not to just join a Church, and the Muslim part that the media is so incensed about begins to make sense.
Hillary is the person who would put this country back on a path of prosperity, respect among ourselves and other countries. Its time the DNC, who for too long have wielded the power over the convention and the outcome of the election ,know that- we the people -are a force to reckon with and to be taken seriously, not as a joke among the pols and media, who seem to think the voting public is a silly little nuisance to be given lip service ,but in the end brushed off as no more than a minor irritation. We have a duty to select the person best able to represent all the American people, not to cave in to the media types who have led the parade to Obamania and who want to
tell us who the next President of USA should be.

Posted by: Kavanaugh l | May 28, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

lylepink


Everything I say makes perfect sense read it again

What don't you understand

I will be happy to re-explain it.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 28, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

37th & O Street: Please try and make at least a little sense whenever you comment. Apparently you do not watch NBC/MSNBC and most of the other Media to see how biased it is for Obama. These past five [5] days have been filled with "Analysis" of what Hillary said about the length of the campaign. The AP first reported {FALSELY} on the "Assination" of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, as somehow Hillary was staying in the nominating process expecting this to happen to Obama, then The Obama campaign was calling every News Orgination to continue the story, led by Mr. Axlerod and other supporters. This was done, and to their delight, it continues despite Bobby Jr.s statement about the incident and the family appreciating the concern Hillary has for Ted and the entire Kennedy family as most Americans have expressed. This is about as low as anything can get from his campaign.

Posted by: lylepink | May 27, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

The poster at 10:37 is probably David Axelrod, who is responsible for the underhanded nature of most of Obama's campaign this year.


You may be happy with yourself now.


However time will show that you have harmed race relations in this country, perhaps setting the country back decades.


History may show, that along with the lying of the Clintons, you have destroyed the democratic party, which may not be a bad thing after all.


Axelrod has run the most REPULSIVE Presidential campaign since the Jim Crow era.


There is only shame on Axelrod and the Obama Campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse


iris jones


The truth is that the democrats in Washington abandoned over the people of Michigan by voting for the Free Trade Deals.


The democrats in Washington took all sorts of campaign money from lobbyists and other interests pushing the Free Trade Deals.

Bill Clinton even last year was arranging lobbying contracts for his friends in Columbia, South America, even with his wife's campaign underway.


So, when it comes to Michigan - the Washington democrats who left the workers of Michigan high and dry do not want Michigan to have an influencial voice in the nomination process for President of the United States.


The Voters in Michigan might vote for someone who is against the Free Trade Deals or someone who wants to overturn the Free Trade Deals.

You see, Michigan the Washington insiders did this to you and they are now afraid that Michigan Voters will react - the democrats in Wasington don't want to hear from you again.


That is how they operate - the Washington insiders will do you in, and when you attempt to negotiate a proper deal, they will run from you.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

iris jones


The truth is that the democrats in Washington screwed over the people of Michigan by voting for the Free Trade Deals.


The democrats in Washington took all sorts of campaign money from lobbyists and other interests pushing the Free Trade Deals.

So, when it comes to Michigan - the Washington democrats who screwed Michigan over do not want Michigan to have an influencial voice in the nomination process for President of the United States.


The Voters in Michigan might vote for someone who is against the Free Trade Deals or someone who wants to overturn the Free Trade Deals.

You see, Michigan you are screwed and the democrats in Wasington don't want to hear from you again.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Santiago


Im sure you are a good guy, however we do not have a parliamentary democracy.


Also, please check out the news reports today. Obama was in New Mexico attempting to gain support among hispanics.


Lastly, your assertions about Obama in the hispanic neighborhoods of Chicago is completely wrong - I really do not want to say that you are intentionally creating a deception. However Obama never worked in the hispanic neighborhoods - he worked in the black community and the projects - and ended up in a Black Liberation Theology church.

If you are from the Obama campaign, which I still suspect, your efforts to falsify Obama's resume are not a good idea.


With Obama already pretending to be a Law Professor and other resume wacky statements, your assertion of his long hard years helping hispanics find jobs is really a fantasy the Obama campaign could live without.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Michigan in the house-

First of all, the lack of knowledge that most of you have concerning our state would be quite hilarious if it wasn't such a sad state of misinformation and idiocy. Please, come for a visit and really find out who we are - we could use the tourism - ha ha.

Now on to the question raised by 'bsimon'. Yes, most of Michigan is quite disgruntled with Dem. Gov. Granholm and, in turn, with the democrats. But we are also an educated, northern state with strong ties to the unions so, for the most part, the state is still a liberal state. As for whether the current Dems in our state govt. (who are the real ones to blame for this primary fiasco - not Obama) get re-elected....well, that is probably where the backlash will strike. Not in the general election.

As for those of you saying that Obama rejected a revote. Are you nuts? It was no revote - it was a setup by the Clinton party. You do realize that we have open primaries, right? And that means we can choose our ballot on the day of election without ever having to join a party or declare a party (a lovely idea). Well, since our incompetent state government (led by fierce Clinton supporters) screwed our primary and we were told our votes didn't count, how do you think that affected the results? Many people did not go to the polls, others crossed over and voted on the republican ticket - where their votes would count, and a full 40% of the Dem. vote count was uncommitted. That means thousands of people took time out of their day to come to the polls to vote 'anyone but Hillary' in an election that didn't count.

Now, fast forward to the revote suggested by Hillary. She wants a revote but only those who voted on the democratic ticket the first time! What? My dear friends, that is disenfranchisement! First we are told our votes don't count, then we are told that if we voted on the democratic ticket only, we can vote again. Don't you see how unfair this is? What it means is that all of the people who voted for Hillary the first time are welcome to come back to the polls and vote for her again. Everyone else who may have stayed home, crossed over or just went fishing that day are not allowed to participate. What???

Obama's denouncing that revote plan was the just decision for the electorate of Michigan. Everyone should be allowed to come to the polls and revote because that would be the only fair election. What is Hillary afraid of to have the entire state vote? Sounds to me like she is the one who is opposing a fair revote - not Obama.

So I end my long tirade by saying, "Please stop spouting such inane misinformation and threats." We here in Michigan can take care of ourselves. In fact, have you heard a large uproar from Michigan complaining of disenfranchisement? I haven't. So drop it and move on. We have.

Posted by: iris jones | May 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

purplelord


This is hilarious actually, the outrage is all over the country.


The Credentials Committee has it next.


Obama would be wise to give Hillary all the delegates and attempt to become the nominee on that basis - the other path for Obama is horrible.


The worst scenario is Obama is still attempting to block Michigan delegates from being seated during a floor fight in late August.


I find it hilarious that Obama has not already acted to avoid that situation entirely. It actually calls into question Obama's ability to be President. Anyway, sometimes I feel as though I am the only person in America who is thinking clearly on this subject, or am I ???

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Alan Sawye,

Are you really that stupid? Your rants make no sense. If you are mad, you should be mad at Obama who took his name off the ballot. How can Clinton steal your vote when Obama didn't offer you a choice to vote for him? Obama and Edwards supporters voted uncommited. Apparently you were not well informed.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Hello Sanchez (if that is your real name!), if everyone who stand by the truth and on the side of sanity and decency are
Obamaniacs, I'm proud to be one.

By the way, Santiago is my real surname. JI are the initials of my Christian and middle names. I am a Roman Catholic and I am proud of my heritage. So, Sanchez, be assured. I'm not some cowardly creature hiding in a pseudonym.

Your claim that this week the so-called Obamaniacs are attempting to appeal to hispanic voters is so preposterous. In so saying you are trying to infer that someone else has the sole right and claim to Hispanic voters.

May I remind you that in a parliamentary democracy, it is the inalienable right of every candidate to woo the voters of every race, color or creed, as long as they are Americans. Period! I don't see how only McCain or Hillary can claim sole right to Hispanic voters.

For your information, Obama spent much of his time in voluntary service on the south side of Chicago helping jobless and homeless Hispanics find jobs and shelters.
But he is not making that as a case for his right of claim for the Hispanic voters.

People vote for a candidate based on what he or she stands for and how best he or she serve them and their country. No voter of any particular ethnicity is the sole property of any one candidate. That, my friend, is the reality. Get it!

Posted by: JISantiago | May 27, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet:

Honestly, I thought that you were above making patently tautological arguments.

I asked you to provide evidence of your legal position and you did not because it does not exist regarding this specific matter.

Alan Sawyer's position highlights how complicated this debate has become.

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

purplelord


It may appear curious to advocate that the Rules Committee declare the original rule UNCONSTITUTIONAL, thereby accepting a constitutional limitation upon itself however it is wise.

It is wise because we are all Americans who should uphold the Constitution and its principles without having a settle court case in front of us.

It is wise because it is the smart thing to do politically right now.

It is also wise to place the 2012 discussion on the right footing - all citizens in the United States are on equal footing.


We can not allow a situation to develop in which a bunch of Washington insiders sit in some obscure party committee meeting and decide which states' Voters have more influence on the process of selecting a President.


Or in this case, have a bunch of fat cats influenced by Harry Reid seek to place the political consultants of Nevada on the inside track to White House appointments, and the Voters of every other state could go jump in Lake Michigan.


As Americans, we follow Constitutional priniciples because we believe in them, not because we have a court saying we have to - that is what we are seeking to avoid actually.

The Rules Committee should recognize that Constitutional principles do play a role in the primary process and vote to bind the national party as such.


Thus, the rule placing Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Michigan and Florida should be held void, as should the penalties.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse


Hillary is leading the popular votes and electoral votes

Hillary is winning Ohio and Florida against McCain. Obama is losing badly to McCain

Michigan to Obama: thanks but NO thanks

Posted by: Hillary all the way | May 27, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's have no talk about Obama trying to steal the election. I'm an embittered Michigan voter. I voted in the Michigan primary by absentee ballot. I used the space clearly provided for write-in votes to vote for Barack Obama. Lo and behold, and after the fact, when the primary results were announced, it was also announced that write-in votes were not counted. MY VOTE WAS STOLEN AND IT WAS STOLEN BY THE CLINTON MYRMIDONS IN THE MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY ORGANIZATION!!!!! I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, EVEN IF SHE MANAGES TO STEAL THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION. She is no more worthy of my respect than Fidel Castro or Valerie Putin. If you can't tell, I am spitting mad!

Posted by: Alan Sawyer | May 27, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet:

Again, you are mixing opinion with legal argument. The MI and FL proposal will inevitably end in a negotiated settlement. Any outrage should have been expressed last year when the rules and sanctions were established. I hope that you took the opportunity to write the DNC and your local congressperson then.

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Purplelord


Obviously there is no specific case or there would be no discussion, right?


If you look up the cases, the courts have ruled that the national parties ARE not entirely private entities, they are subject to some CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES such as the protection of VOTING RIGHTS based on religion and race.

The position is that those CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES extend to EQUAL PROTECTION thus the national parties are bound respect the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE VOTERS IN THE PRIMARIES.

I have heard your counterargument from others, that is one vote is one vote no matter when it is counted.

However, again, the very existence of the dispute proves that there is a material difference.


If there was no difference, and your position was correct, there would be no dispute and we would not even be talking about the subject.


So there is a material difference, there is a massive dispute, people are fighting over something that you claim is nothing.


So the existence of the fight disproves the point.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

purplelord


I remember that article when it came out about the Michigan compromise proposal.

All I have to say about that is


What about the voters??


So, let me get this straight, to appease Obama, the Michigan Democratic Party has agreed to change the election results?

Actually, the Michigan Democratic Party has decided to MAKE UP THEIR OWN ELECTION RESULTS.

If those "make-up" numbers reflected actual polling, then maybe those numbers could have some justification rooted in the desire of the Voters.

However, just to MAKE UP NUMBERS OUT OF THIN AIR because it might satisfy the objections of one candidate or the other, well that is just about as soviet-style as PREVENTING A RE-VOTE BECAUSE ONE MIGHT LOSE.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

By position, I mean as it specifically applies to the scheduling of presidential primaries.

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet:

While your opinion is interesting, no court has determined that your opinion is aligned with their own. Can you name a settled case that affirms your position?

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

purplelord


The series of postings from last week did include a discussion of precedents.


The courts have ruled that the national parties have a "right to exclude" based on opinions, such as issue differences.


However, the courts have also ruled that the national parties' "right to exclude" in the primaries does not extend to Constitutional protections such as race and religion.


As such, the national parties' "right to exclude" does not extend to the protect of Voting Rights and Equal Protection.

Hence, the original rule selecting Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida is unconstitutional.


The rule is void, so is the penalty and all the attempts to enforce it.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The poster at 10:37 is probably David Axelrod, who is responsible for the underhanded nature of most of Obama's campaign this year.


You may be happy with yourself now.

However time will show that you have harmed race relations in this country, perhaps setting the country back decades.


History may show, that along with the lying of the Clintons, you have destroyed the democratic party, which may not be a bad thing after all.

Axelrod has run the most REPULSIVE Presidential campaign since the Jim Crow era.


There is only shame on Axelrod and the Obama Campaign.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet:

You've posted a lengthy series of posts that do not acknowledge accepted precedent. Hence, Ickes and the campaigns (Obama, Clinton, etc.) support in August and earlier in 2007 of the DNC's right to sanction MI and FL. Primaries prior to 1984 had more and not less opaque regulations. Regardless, this is problematic and, in my opinion, is not best practice. That being said, it is hardly a violation of equal protection. This has already been decided in DiMaio v. DNC.

I agree, however, with your political insights regarding the necessity of appeasing the MI and FL delegations. Fortunately, the Clinton campaign is not supporting the MI delegations suggestion for seating their delegates: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awDl.IEqNQFA&refer=us

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

The poster at 10:37 is probably David Axelrod, who is responsible for the underhanded nature of most of Obama's campaign this year.


You may be happy with yourself now.

However time will show that you have harmed race relations in this country, perhaps setting the country back decades.


History may show, that along with the lying of the Clintons, you have destroyed the democratic party, which may not be a bad thing after all.

Axelrod has run the most REPULSIVE Presidential campaign since the Jim Crow era.


There is only shame on Axelrod and the Obama Campaign.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

erichayes


Please review previous postings for the reasonings before you start talking about the history of railroads.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

To the poster at 10:37 PM

Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION


LET US BE CLEAR.

First, he played this game by pretending to be the post-racial candidate and then he turned around and pushed race in South Carolina like no other Presidential candidate in recent memory.


Obama is attempting to STEAL THE ELECTION by pretending to be "offended" by comments by Bill Clinton, and then again by Gerry Ferraro - and others.

Obama was never offended by any of these comments - these are false charges.

Third, Obama is attempting to STEAL THIS ELECTION by playing the race card with the Superdelegates - again this is out of bounds and serves to divide this nation even more.


Obama is actually sacrificing the work of many people - white and black in recent decades - in order to run this kind of campaign.


It is a joke that Obama would try this.


Perhaps if Obama actually had a history of slavery and Jim Crow in his family, he would be more in touch with these issue.


However Obama does not have that family history, he is from an immigrant family who is basically carpetbagging on the Black Liberation Theology radical section of the Black community.

Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION.

However, the way his is attempting to the steal the election is even worse.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Don't the schools teach history anymore? Prior to the 20th century, virtually all nominees were selected by state caucuses, whose delegates consisted of state legislators--there were no elections where people voted directly for a candidate. The final candidate was selected at the party's national convention. This whole system was the direct result of a lack of safe and swift transportation.

By the latter part of the 19th century, the railroads allowed people to traverse the country in relative safety, and much more quickly than by horse. The telegraph also allowed news to go from point A to point B in an instant, rather than at 25 miles per hour. Slowly, the caucus system gave way to direct elections, but the final candidate selection was *still* done at the convention, itself. It wasn't until the 1960s that we started seeing the caucuses disappear and be replaced with primary elections.

The Constitution doesn't have a goddam thing to do with how either party selects candidates, so quit distorting the facts.

Posted by: erichayes | May 27, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

10:36 p.m. post:

"Look at me, the Translator Translator. As retarded as this is, it is the only thing I have ever posted that has not been ripped-and-pasted from somewhere else.

He has deprived me of my 1st Amendment rights to freedom of assembly. This is where my alter egos congregate, and he is disrupting me by righteously and humorously poking holes in my 'arguments.'"

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 27, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

DNC Message on the Rules Committee Meeting


Hilarious !!!!

We are sorry but we have reached our capacity Please read below about limited same-day registration.

A meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will take place at 9:30AM on May 31, 2008 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. This meeting is open to the public, however due to space constraints, guests are being asked to pre-register their attendance.

Pre-registration has now closed but limited same day registration will be available. Same-day guest credentials will be distributed on a first-come first-serve basis and are limited to one (1) per person. Individuals with a same day credential will be permitted into the meeting room as space permits.

In order to maintain the decorum of the meeting, banners, posters, signs, handouts, and noisemakers of any kind are strictly prohibited. Also, please be advised that the agenda for the meeting does not include time for questions from the general public.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's have one thing clear - Obama is NOT trying to steal the election. He is LEADING. If anything, Clinton is looking for a way to steal the nomination. It shows how desperate Clinton supporters are getting that they feel that it's Obama trying to steal an election that they think was Hillary's by right! Obama has run a good campaign and ignored the constant Clinton attacks, picked up grass roots support and money from small donors, and put a message forward to the voters, who have given him the clear delegate lead, as well as the popular vote if you count ALL THE VOTES, INCLUDING CAUCUSES. I know that Clinton supporters are reality-averse, but it takes an incredible disconnect from both reality and common sense to suggest that Obama is trying to steal the nomination. You should blame those VOTERS who didn't go and do what you kept telling them to and voted for Barack Obama. It's the VOTERS who are stealing the nomination from Hillary!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Translator is out again, simply to harass and mock other posters.

Translator has no point of his own.


Translator is probably kruez missile or bonjedi or all three are one person.

Translator is in violation of the terms of service of this board by harassing other posters.

That is also unAmerican, as it does not respect the First Amendment rights of other posters.


.

Posted by: Translator Translator | May 27, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

purplelord


The states control the primary elections. Public funds are used, therefore Constitutional Protections must apply.

You can say the national parties are wholly private entities, however that is not entirely true.

If the national democratic party wanted to run its own primary and pay for it, so be it, however the national party insisted on other people paying for the primary.


That kicked in certain Constitutional provisions, like Equal Protection.

I tend to doubt the national parties, given their integral role in the election of the President, are wholly private entities in any event. They are performing a Constitutional function in a Constitutional Process. Equal Protection applies.


Please check out previous postings.

there is more detail there.


.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

10:25 p.m. post

"I left hear licking my wounds after my looney outburst that Obama is disenfranchising people in Florida and Michigan. While I was gone, several of the voices in my head have come up with the idea that it is in Obama's best interest to let people continue to clumsily cheat him from what he has rightfully earned and the overwhelming majority of Democrats want.

Since the Translator has helped other people understand what I am saying, I wonder if he can help me understand what he is saying? Help!"

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Lanny Davis owes me some credit or at least a commission on the ideas in his article today.


Just as kreuz_missile


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 27, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


I guess you quit the discussion before because you got pounded.

Beside the legal arguments, the political ones are important.


Specifically, Obama is better off supporting the seating of the entire delegates of Michigan and Florida.

Obama is better off on two counts.


One, he takes the issue from Hillary, and cuts off an avenue for her to go to the Convention, which is the worse case scenario for Obama. Second, Obama can begin to save himself from his stupid move of seeking to prevent the revote in Michigan.


Michigan is important for Obama.

So CLEARLY the endorsement of the superdelegates Obama has received over the past few weeks may have given him a cushion enough - Obama made a massive mistake seeking to stop the re-votes and he can only hope to save himself.

Hence, Obama would be wise to follow this course of action.


In fact, his entire campaign rests on this decision this week.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Lanny Davis's take on MI and FL and how the votes should count:

http://www.thepoliticaljerk.com/2008/05/wtf-of-week_23.html

Posted by: sweetie hearts obama | May 27, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sweetie hearts obama | May 27, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Did anybody get to see that lady screaming for Hillary in Florida?

She took the podium next to Hillary and tried to initiate a Chant.

Problem was... She was saying, "Count Ow-Vah Votes!"

I think that threw the Clintonistas off a bit.

It would have been much more effective if she had just said, "Count Our Votes!"

But she didn't.

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Count Ow-Vah Votes !

Posted by: Count Ow-Vah Votes ! | May 27, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"Ha. I get it. Obama is like Will Smith because he is African American too."

Nah, he couldn't have meant that, could he?? After all, it's the Obama campaign that's been running on racism, sexism, and negative campaigning. He's getting a boost because he's black, while Clinton is a victim of her gender, right? I mean, isn't that's what all the exit polls are telling us? I mean, if we can't trust brilliant folks like Geraldine Ferraro and Lanny Davis, my whole belief system just might fall apart!

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 27, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Dyinglikeflies:

Ha. I get it. Obama is like Will Smith because he is African American too.

You're a genius. Do you have any sweet points related to this thread?

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Criticism of Obama regarding his family's participation in saving the Western world is unfair. Don't you remember in Independence Day, when he went into that spaceship and infiltrated the alien mother ship with Jeff Goldblum? That was awesome

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 27, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Several points:
1. The machinations of primary races are not delineated in the Constitution. The political parties determine their nomination processes. While the DNC might have made a mistake in punishing FL and MI too harshly (I think they did), they certainly had the "right" to do so.

2. Michigan is currently polling FOR Obama. Real clear politics has very convincing evidence.

3. Clinton's supporters would be crazy to vote for McCain IF they actually support the Senator's positions. McCain is very far from HRC almost across the board. McCain is anti-choice, anti-health, pro-rich, and now supports aggressive xenophobic immigration policies.

Please don't choose to ruin this country by supporting McCain because Mark Penn had a goofy political strategy and lost the race for HRC.

You are not punishing me, but punishing future generations.

Dems in '08.

Posted by: purplelord | May 27, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

"The far left wing should be kept as far away from the White House as possible."

NEver mind that, of all the issues where Clinton and Obama differ, it's Hillary taking the socialist position on healthcare. Don't let facts get in your way. Anyhow, by next week it'll all be moot anyways; the delegates will be seated, Obama will be the nominee, and America will be far better off. Obama knows it, all the sensible folks, including high profile Clinton suppers know it, and that's all that really matters anyhow.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 27, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

In addition, Obama probably stands in a better position with the Superdelegates if he supports the seating of the entire delegations from Michigan and Florida.


Why?


Because Hillary's people are going to be on the phone with the Superdelegates telling them that Hillary deserves those delegates anyway. It is FAR BETTER for Obama to remove the entire debate from the discussion.


Obama then has a convincing argument to tell the Superdelegates to endorse him and end the fight.


The alternative is to give Hillary a basis for bringing her case to the Convention - which is a worse case scenario for Obama. Obama has hurt himself enough by playing politics with this issue - it is a subject he never should have engaged in, and he should have supported the re-votes.


He would probably be the nominee right now with re-votes.

I have serious doubts about the Obama people because we are here right now discussing this.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The "Obama effect" has been one of racism, sexism, media bias and dirty politics.

CLINTON VOTERS ARE OUTRAGED

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN VOTERS ARE OUTRAGED

We have seen our candidate get trashed by the media. We have seen blacks vote like racists and Obama camp falsely accuse Clintons of racism and assassination. The Clintons, who have always fought for civil rights for all types of people. We have seen Obama attempt to disenfranchise two states of voters. We have seen the first ever female Presidential candidate get gender bashing by the male media pundits. We have seen the DNC leaders attempt to push the Clintons out. We have seen the hatred and ugliness of the Obama voters. We have seen Obama's racist church.

SORRY BUT THERE IS NOTHING CLINTON COULD DO TO GET CLINTON VOTERS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA!
*
*
*
NOBAMA EVER

Posted by: Sal | May 27, 2008 8:52 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

lylepink


lylepink you are 100% correct


The far left wing should be kept as far away from the White House as possible.


Maybe we could get them to move to Canada.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


what does that mean?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The way things are going, at the present time, the Dems are seeing a loss of 20+ seats in The House. This, IMHO, is due to the BLIND supprt of Obama by most of the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem party that are HELL BENT on destroying the Party by nominating Obama. He cannot win, and myself along with others are going to help you out by voting for anybody but Obama, and most of us will vote for McCain. This should be a banner year for Dems, but THANKS to the Liberal wing, we are going to LOSE BIG TIME.

Posted by: lylepink | May 27, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc


I state my case, you state your case, hopefully someone from the Rules Committee is reading this.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

"I actually question Obama's intelligence over that move."

He's still smarter than yo mama *OH SNAP*

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

In addition, Obama probably stands in a better position with the Superdelegates if he supports the seating of the entire delegations from Michigan and Florida.


Why?


Because Hillary's people are going to be on the phone with the Superdelegates telling them that Hillary deserves those delegates anyway. It is FAR BETTER for Obama to remove the entire debate from the discussion.

Obama then has a convincing argument to tell the Superdelegates to endorse him and end the fight.


The alternative is to give Hillary a basis for bringing her case to the Convention - which is a worse case scenario for Obama. Obama has hurt himself enough by playing politics with this issue - it is a subject he never should have engaged in, and he should have supported the re-votes.

He would probably be the nominee right now with re-votes.


I have serious doubts about the Obama people because we are here right now discussing this.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

DNC sanctions to MI for trying to jump the line will not cost the party its support in November.

Any more than the other times that they tried to do the same thing and were sanctioned. Candidates have been pulling out of the MI primary since 1980.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 27, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Let us analyze this situation just a bit - the democrats would be BEST OFF if they seated the entire delegates of Michigan and Florida.


Why???


Because it would end the issue for Hillary - there would be no rational for a Convention fight beyond the end of June.

Obama would be wise to support the seating of the ENTIRE delegates.


Obama would actually by that act save himself in Michigan - not a bad deal for a candidate who could lose Michigan in the fall election.

This whole thing has become bizarre.

Obama has already performed the amazing feat of stabbing HIMSELF in the back by being unable to resist opposing the re-votes in Michigan and Florida - this was not a smart move and offended Michigan voters which he needs in November.


I actually question Obama's intelligence over that move.


To be honest, I can not believe how bad the mistakes of the Obama campaign have been this year - they have actually taken a lead in spite of themselves.

Getting back to Michigan, Obama CLEARLY has more to gain by seating the entire delegations than he stands to lose.

The nomination is not worth much without the realistic chance to win Michigan in the fall.

I don't think Obama is smart enought to realize how subtle and compelling these thoughts are.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

My friend, I believe the other poster is attempting to say you made up the name Santiago - because they believe you are from the Obama campaign - and this week the Obamaniacs are attempting to appeal to hispanic voters.


It is funny actually.

I really do not believe the hispanic voters will go with Obama - McCain is from Arizona and has been with the hispanics on many issues over the years.

Good luck Santiago if that is your real name.

.

Posted by: Sanchez | May 27, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is attempting to steal this election by holding Michigan and Florida off the books - and by racebaiting the Superdelegates with racial motivations to support Obama.


Come on people - are you all adults or are you just fooling yourselves???


The truth of this race has been stark - Obama is guilty of the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC ACTS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.


Obama's soviet-style tactics to PREVENT elections were very much like the Soviet Union's efforts to delay elections in Eastern Europe until he could secure his position.


The Superdelegates are now being told to have a race-based motivation to go with Obama - hardly the stuff of "vote for the best candidate."


Wellllllllll

Clearly, Van Hollen has HIS OWN HYPOCRICY TO CONTAIN - so he isn't too worried about Obama and how Obama will keep his numbers up to be credible.


Van Hollen is focused in on about 30 Congressional districts - less than 7% of the country - Obama is focused in on about 10 states.


That is how we hold national elections in this country unless anyone cares to know what they are talking about.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I stand by my earlier barb that Van Hollen should concentrate on His Own Hypocrisy and hope that too many democrats do not realize that although the Congressional democrats were handed the majority - they have failed to stop the funding for the war.

What is wrong with them??


Apparently that is what the Congressional democrats were elected to do - except when they took some more overnight polls, they found out that perhaps they should have cold feet.


NOW which is it?

I see a gap between the words of the Congressional democrats and their actions. Van Hollen should worry about that same gap as it applies to Obama - however the gap of his own caucus is probably worse.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Curious Constitutional Arguments


I challenge the right of the national parties to be able to dictate to Presidential candidates that they should ignore certain Voters.


This is curious.

Hello


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

May 27 or is 26 or 25 or whatever!

What's wrong with my name? At least I'm bold enough to identify myself? What is your name?

Posted by: JISantiago | May 27, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

BrianRF


I supposed your position rests on the idea that the national parties have authority over the states - I dispute that idea.

If you look at the sequence of events here - the parties do not have authority - and they are seeking compliance through means which are unprecedented in American history.

Thank you for informing us how smart you are. I just wanted to tell everyone just in case they missed your earlier remark.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

JISantiago


What motivated you to create a name like that? New Obama strategy ???


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Some people work nights - they can't get off for a few hours without missing an entire day's work - that is not right - it is much easier to vote in a voting booth on a break or on the way to work.


You should have respect for people who can not afford to miss work.


In addition, some people have child care responsibilities - a few hours at a caucus means paying for a babysitter.

You must be some latte liberal completely blind to the general population if you do not understand this without even thinking about it.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how anyone can blame Obama for the current malaise caused by the debacle in Florida and Michigan.

It was not Obama who pushed the primaries in both the states forward in defiance of the party rules. It wasn't Obama who ruled that the results of those primaries won't count. It was the DNC who made those decision to punish the defiance of the two rouge states. All presidential candidates, including Senator Hillary Clinton accepted the DNC rule and pledged to abide by it.

Now her recalcitrant behaviour smacks nothing more than selfish indulgence! Why? She desperately needs the invalid votes of the two states to make up her deficiency in the delegate as well as popular vote count.

Now, Hillary in her twisted mind comes out with another outrageous demand: Obama's caucus victories should not count!! So wicked and vicious is this deranged woman, that if she doesn't get the nomination she will leave no stone unturned to make sure Obama doesn't win the election.

But, you know what; little does she realise that she is treading a path not only to self-destruction but also to obliviousness of the Clinton legacy, which, by the way, isn't as bad as some might make out to be, barring Hillary's pugnacius, racist polarising campaign!!

Posted by: JISantiago | May 27, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the Obama campaign acted to prevent the re-votes in Michigan and Florida is a violation of DNC rules - the Obama campaign acted to prevent those two states from complying with the rules.


There must be a penalty assessed against the Obama campaign for playing politics with democracy.


The Voters are the ones who did not break the rules - apparently you are comfortable leaving the Voters out of the process which is an integral part of electing the President.


If the DNC was so intent on a different date, it should have paid for its own re-votes and made sure they happened.


At this point, we are left with only one vote and the Voters of those two states have to count someway.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Curious Constitutional Argument which the Obama people are attempting to defend

The national parties are essentially private entities which are free to:


1) Dictate to the States when and how to hold their elections


2) Remember other state offices are usually on the primary ballots - so the expenditure of funds for primaries usually is for an entire list of offices


3) The national parties, as private entities, can somehow intimidate Presidential candidates from exercising free speech rights to certain states which comply with the rules of the private entity.


4) This is why pledges are required.


5) The officials of states which were selected by the national party to go first somehow contributed to this intimidation by stating that if the Presidential candidates did not go along with the plans, there would be some penalty or retaliation in the states that were selected.

Curious how democracy is to be run now.


Very curious how Constitutional principles have been subverted by Washington insiders.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Why is it such a bad thing to give a vote only to those people who are willing to actively participate by sacrificing an hour or two of their time to debate the merits of the candidates with their neighbors?"

The major problem with this is that it is not how the general election works. Yeah, the more informed and motivated people will probably pick the best president, but might not pick the one who is the most electable.

That's the argument that Clinton is making. While it is definitely self-serving and disingenuous, that doesn't mean its wrong and I definitely don't think the rules should be changed. Clinton should probably be calling for revotes in them if she truly wanted all50 states to count in her absurd popular vote scenario.

That being said, if the Democrats did away with caucuses, I wouldn't complain.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th & O:

Fellow Hoyas know the address... but thankfully some of us are smarter than you are.

You want someone to blame? Blame the state parties for disenfranchising the voters of their states by breaking very concrete, published, widespread rules. They chose to ignore them. Now they pay the consequences.

I understand that being a hardcore Clinton supporter (as you obviously seem to be), it's a difficult pill to swallow when your candidate doesn't win the nomination. I get it... but look at Clinton's remarks last fall where she said that Michigan and Florida don't count. They broke the rules. Their delegates won't be seated. All of a sudden, she needs the numbers to work in her favor and she's done a 180 on her position. Not uncommon.

If you're looking for someone to blame about the Clinton sinking ship, blame the Clintons; if you're looking for someone to blame about Michigan and Florida, blame local officials for their inability (or refusal) to understand the clear rules. If you're looking for someone to yell at, try the mirror. I'm guessing that's the only person that would care to listen.

Posted by: BrianRF | May 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Michigan to Obama:

"GET LOST!"

Posted by: gman | May 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

the bullet dodgers are attempting to steal the nomination. To bad they are broke in ideas and money.

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | May 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is attempting to steal this election by holding Michigan and Florida off the books - and by racebaiting the Superdelegates with racial motivations to support Obama.


Come on people - are you all adults or are you just fooling yourselves???


The truth of this race has been stark - Obama is guilty of the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC ACTS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.


Obama's soviet-style tactics to PREVENT elections were very much like the Soviet Union's efforts to delay elections in Eastern Europe until he could secure his position.


The Superdelegates are now being told to have a race-based motivation to go with Obama - hardly the stuff of "vote for the best candidate."


Wellllllllll

Clearly, Van Hollen has HIS OWN HYPOCRICY TO CONTAIN - so he isn't too worried about Obama and how Obama will keep his numbers up to be credible.


Van Hollen is focused in on about 30 Congressional districts - less than 7% of the country - Obama is focused in on about 10 states.


That is how we hold national elections in this country unless anyone cares to know what they are talking about.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

JD


Sorry if you did not catch on to the sarcasm - what was meant was, gee, JD you really know how to lose an election


************************************


JD

did you work for the Gore and Kerry campaigns ??? sounds like you know what you are talking about there

Posted by: | May 27, 2008 6:28 PM

Yes, I was a fundraiser for both. Lately, I've worked on the Kucinich campaign, when I'm not coordinating meet-ups for Move-on, ANSWER, and occasionally the AFL-CIO and AFSCME.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

glowing_plasma


Its not just that your state has caucuses, its that they are red too.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Seneca


The Voters should be supreme - not anyone that you listed. The truth is Millions of Democrats went to vote AGAINST THE DNC RULES - the democrats are idiots to continue to say the votes do not count based on a few weeks.

You have to count the two states somehow -


The DNC should have paid for new primaries and everything would be OK now.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

What a mess. Obama had NOTHING to do with Michigan being stripped of its delegates. He played by the rules and refused to campaign there. Now suddenly it's his responsibility and his burden to assuage the feelings of disgruntled MI voters who voted for Hillary?

Where are the DNC leaders? They should be on the front lines, accepting responsibility for this mess and vowing to make amends, not Obama. It wasn't his fault.

And for the record, the following is what Hillary wants from the Rules Committee: 1) don't count the caucus states Obama won, 2)count FL, 3) count MI but do not give Obama the uncommitted votes, and 4) seat all the delegates at full vote. If Hillary does not get EVERYTHING she wants, she's taking her fight to the convention. She is not prepared to compromise, and she is not prepared to help the Democratic nominee until the last possible second when it will be too late.

Posted by: Seneca | May 27, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

As someone from a caucus state, I must say that I'm getting pretty pissed off by all the talk from the Clinton campaign and its supporters about of how the results from caucus states are somehow less legitimate than results from primary states.

Why is it such a bad thing to give a vote only to those people who are willing to actively participate by sacrificing an hour or two of their time to debate the merits of the candidates with their neighbors?

Given the utter lack of even the slightest disapproval of the caucus process before Clinton finished 3rd in IA, this line of argument is patently self-serving and offensive to those of us who have no other means of voting for our preferred candidate.

Posted by: glowing_plasma | May 27, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

JD

did you work for the Gore and Kerry campaigns ??? sounds like you know what you are talking about there

Posted by: | May 27, 2008 6:28 PM

Yes, I was a fundraiser for both. Lately, I've worked on the Kucinich campaign, when I'm not coordinating meet-ups for Move-on, ANSWER, and occasionally the AFL-CIO and AFSCME.

I left Dennis K's campaign after he sold out, went too corporate for me.

Posted by: JD | May 27, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

tiredofit your posting at 6:50 was very well said.

I agree 100%


It is time the country starts to think clearly.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Why would any Michigan or Florida voters care if Obama thought their votes were important in the General Election? He did not think they were important enough when it came to deciding who was going to be the Dem nominee. Michigan could have had a revote that was totally paid for and Obama was to cowardly to allow it because he knew he would lose. Don't want NObama in the White House. Hillary or McCain, but NObama. By the way why does Obama wear his wedding ring on his right hand?

Posted by: tiredofit | May 27, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Someone please answer my question


WHY can't we vote in January before SuperTuesday ??? We ALWAYS VOTE BEFORE SUPERTUESDAY. The Democratic party can go jump in one of our Lakes for all I care.

then tell me why it is so important that the DNC went to such lengths to say "our vote does not count"


The DNC has attempted, and failed, to get control over the primaries, an authority it never had, and never will have.

The democrats have sold Michigan out with the free trade agreements - and now they do not want a prominent primary here.


What a worthless bunch of people.

.

Posted by: MichaelinMichigan | May 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Unless Obama is coming to say that he has finally agreed to a Michigan and Florida revote, there is no need for any visit. He will all ready have 90-92% of the black votes and the remaining 8-10% plus Hillary supporters and the white Republican votes will go to McCain. We don't want NObama that was too cowardly to go along with a fair revote. He stole the nomination with his caucus states and states like NC that gave him an automatic (NON-RACIAL) 1/3% of the vote lead. (Then the MSM acted like it was a super unexpected major win) (What kind of a chance did Hillary have when 1/3 of the non-racist voters were committed to Obama?) Obama will be another weak Kerry in November and the Dems will be whining that the election was stolen, when in fact there were enough signs that he could not win. Wish Hillary would say screw the Dems and run as an independant like Joe Lieberman did. After the way the Dems have slandered and bad mouthed Bill Clinton's legacy the Dem party no longer deserves any loyalty. They tore apart one of the best presidents this country has had in years just to try to get Obama elected. They must really be planning some big chit with Obama. The Dems and the MSM need to start playing fair and the superdelegates need to keep in mind that over 17 MILLION Dems want Hillary for our next president.

Posted by: tiredofit | May 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Someone please answer my question


WHY can't we vote in January before SuperTuesday ??? We ALWAYS VOTE BEFORE SUPERTUESDAY. The Democratic party can go jump in one of our Lakes for all I care.


then tell me why it is so important that the DNC went to such lengths to say "our vote does not count"


The DNC has attempted, and failed, to get control over the primaries, an authority it never had, and never will have.


.


Posted by: Michael | May 27, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

With due respect for all this frothing, gnashing of teeth and other nonsense - about some miraculous recovery by a candidate who cannot possibly pull out a win in this primary - and the dire predictions of a certain defeat of the Democrat in November if we do not nominate one of the most distrusted candidates ever to run for national office -- there are a few other things that we need to be thinking about - including:

A continuing war in Iraq that has cost our nation more than 4,080 young kids killed and moreover, nearly 30,000 wounded grievously wounded. While we are witnessing a Republican candidate who claims all is going well in Iraq: we just have to stay the course - occupy the country like it was Korea - "Muslims will have to deal with it;"

That same continuing war in Iraq that is costing our treasury about 10-12 BILLION dollars each and every month with many other hidden costs - including the incalculable loss of our respect and honor in the world community;

An attenuated effort in Afghanistan - curtailed by the drain on our armed forces and treasury of an ill-conceived and hopelessly mismanaged effort in Iraq. AlQaeda is in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan - Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden is there...remember him?

A housing mortgage collapse that is driving down the value of all of our homes - for most of us our home is our greatest investment and we are losing money everyday;

And a credit market collapse that dwarfs the mortgage industry problems, and is threatening the very foundation of our capitalist society - here and among our allies.

Gasoline prices at the pump predicted to rise past $4.50 per gallon by the end of May - with our trucking industry on the verge of a national strike due to diesel fuel predicted to surpass $5.50 per gallon by mid-summer. Wonder what that will do to our economy?

Additionally, we see tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs every month while new jobs are not coming on line and the nation teetering on the edge of a very serious recession which will bring industry closures and hundreds of thousands of layoffs. 80,000 jobs lost in March and THREE AIRLINES declaring bankruptcy in one week.

And, you claim that McCain is going to win in November???

The Republicans are responsible for the mess this country is in. Yet, they are the ones on these discussion boards who want to talk about everything else. Let's face it - their leadership is terrified by the thought of Barack Obama becoming our President. Absolutely in a total panic! Silly Republicans! They are toast in November. They are holding the Bush legacy in their arms and it is ticking they do not like it.

November 2008 is going to be an electoral disaster for the Republican Party - thanks in the most part to the guidance of Dick Cheney, the ineptitude of Don Rumsfield, and the blind stubbornness of their "boss" - the Dunce of D.C.

Furthermore, take a moment and look around. Examine the total voter turnout in the 47 primary and caucus states who have cast ballots thus far. -- Notice anything?

I've noticed an overwhelming number of new voters and "recovered" voters rising from their "couches" and making the trek to the polls to cast a vote.

They are voting Democratic by more than a 2 to 1 majority.

Why?

"It's no mystery," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He's just killed the Republican brand."

Well, the diehard "Bushies" chorus - "...just you wait for John McCain."

Well, "my friends" - the old Republican warrior has once again accepted the challenge to serve his country -- and he will throw himself on the "live grenade" of the George W. Bush legacy. And, as the vetting starts, he will be forced to explain some of the "dinosaur" skeletons hidden in his Arizona closet. Ask an Arizonan - any Arizonan.

So - to all the angry Bush apologists, desperate Hillary devotees and fatalistic McCain admirers watching this disaster slowly unfold before your eyes - you are now experiencing what we felt when the neo-cons duped the dope into invading Iraq.

We are going to have a Democrat in the White House and huge majorities of Democrats in both houses of the Congress. Huge majorities!

Obama will crush McCain in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and may beat him in Georgia and New Mexico. Democrats, Independents and many centrist Republicans have had it with any more Bush/McCain "policy fixes."

To those of you having a hard time keeping up - you had better take a deep breath and try to figure how you are going to survive the next 4 years -- because in your hearts, you KNOW this -- you are going to do it with Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Gandalf the Grey | May 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

What difference does it make?


Posted by: bsimon | May 27, 2008 6:07 PM

It only matters if an R says something silly. Dems get a pass. they are expected to say silly things.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

eight minute abs - how about 7 minute abs?

50 state strategy - how about a 57 state strategy?

Posted by: snObama | May 27, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

do you think his new way of winning involves all 57 of the states he is campaigning in?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm reading some of the comments on this blog and I can't believe it.


If you think Obama will win Michigan, dream on.


Obama says he has a 'new way' of winning the Electoral College - it sure ain't going to involve Michigan.

People in Michigan are sick of the democrats.

WHY can't we vote in January before SuperTuesday ??? We ALWAYS VOTE BEFORE SUPERTUESDAY. The Democratic party can go jump in one of our Lakes for all I care.


.

Posted by: MichaelinMichigan | May 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

JD


did you work for the Gore and Kerry campaigns ??? sounds like you know what you are talking about there


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Sure bsimon, the democrats go around all year telling the people of Michigan their votes do not count, then Obama's people come in and do everything they can to PREVENT A re-vote.

The DNC appears perfectly happy to have a nominee without the people of Michigan and Florida counting.

UUUMMMMM The people of Michigan just might find that a bit offensive. Funny coming from the Obama people who seem to find "OFFENSIVE" in rather innocent remarks.

.

Posted by: MichaelinMichigan | May 27, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Broccoli Obama reminds me of those three monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil , speak no evil.

He sat in the church for 20 years and didn't hear the evil.

He considers Iraq and terrorists and sees no evil.

He doesn't understand when Amajornutjob says he wants to kill us, that he intends to - yet Obambi believes that no one who speaks evil means it - speak no evil.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

37th&O writes
"Do you people really believe that after this DNC dispute the voters are going to go vote for Obama ???"

Yes. Why wouldn't they?

Posted by: bsimon | May 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

DCexpat -- In one way, you are right about the many differences among the electorate in Florida. North Florida is pretty much a southern state -- very conservative, but socially and religiously. The west coast of Florida has a lot of transplanted midwesterners, many of whom are conservative. Even the Democrats are somewhat conservative. Southeast Florida has a lot of transplanted New Yorkers and folks from New Jersey, in addition to the large Hispanic bloc. The older Cubans support the Republicans, but some of the younger ones are switching parties. I have read that the non-Cuban Latinos are trending Democratic. The large Jewish vote in south Florida has traditionally been Democratic, but I understand that some of them are worried about Senator Obama and may trebd Republican this year. Even though the state legislature is dominated by Republicans, I think the presidential election is up for grabs -- unless McCain chooses Crist as VP. It's going to be interesting.

Posted by: marmac | May 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree, a huge headwind for GOP makes Michigan pretty safe Dem territory this Nov.

I don't expect Mich has a real immigration problem, and they don't have enough people making real coin that a reduced spending/reduced taxes campaign will mean all that much.

Traditionally, the down-and-out will vote Dem (and their promises of free spending, healthcare, etc). Seems to me that Mich has more than their share of economic misery these days.

Posted by: JD | May 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

freida-
Don't you think you're nitpicking a bit? I don't recall which islands my grandfather was heading for on his LST when their battle group was told to 'stay the course' in the face of a coming storm. Relaying the order was the last time he spoke to one of his buddies, who was a radio operator on another vessel in the group - that sank in the storm. Family legend has it they were going to Iwo Jima. Or maybe it was one of the other ones. Is it really that important?

Obama told a story - a family legend - about events that happened over 60 years ago - before he was born, and you're getting your panties in a bunch about mistaking Buchenwald for Auschwitz? What difference does it make?

Posted by: bsimon | May 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA CAN WIN. BUT NOT NOW. NOT THIS YEAR. BILL CLINTON HIMSELF SHOULD TAKE HIM ASIDE AND REALLY TELL HIM WHY.


If Obama makes it to the White House, he will be either co-opted or effectively destroyed by the entrenched forces on both sides of the political spectrum. Forget the merits of his argument for a moment; he simply cannot win because he's too new on the scene, too inexperienced, too outmatched by the intransigent realpolitik of the established order.

If he were smart, he would find a way to cede his campaign to a third candidate with whom his politics is compatible (such as Al Gore). Then he could put in his time and earn his executive stripes as VP and let the country get to really know him. As it is, much of the country feels as though they're being force-fed Obamamania, and they don't like the feel of coercion.

This talk on MSNBC today about Obama potentially choosing Hillary as his running mate, citing statements made by Obama in Florida this weekend, only makes Obama look weaker. The more he praises Hillary the more he reinforces the notion that he's a hopeless compromiser singing a single tune of "Kumbaya."

Mr. Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln enlisting the aid of a cabinet of rivals -- not at this stage of the game, at least, despite what Doris Kearns Goodwin may say.

It does appear that Obama is something of a narcissist with a martyr complex. He needs a dose of "the audacity of maybe not now, but maybe later." Can't he see that the very forces that he seeks to lead simply will not accept his leadership at this time, at this stage of his very young career?

Bill Clinton should take Obama aside and schools him on the dangerous intrigues of national office and why it is impossible for Obama to succeed unless he takes a more calculated and circumloquitous path to the pinnacle of American power.

We're talking survival here. If Obama is to succeed, he first must preserve his political viability. That will be gone if he becomes the nominee and fails to make it all the way to the White House.

Obama is gifted, but extremely naive. He really thinks he can have it all after only three years on the national scene. He has a choice. He can become a historical footnote, yet another legendary dreamer who never made it to the mountaintop; or he can measure his steps on the path to power and delay his need for poltitical gratification until he can get it the old-fashioned way -- by paying his dues and earning it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Michigan is going for McCain this year. Do you people really believe that after this DNC dispute the voters are going to go vote for Obama ???

I mean that thought is a little out there.

In addition all McCain has to do is run some commercials (which would be true) stating that the REAL REASON the DNC wanted to keep Michigan from voting early was to AVOID the issue of job losses in Michigan.


Carl Levin made that argument to the DNC and it was rejected.


The nominee of the DNC is so vulnerable in Michigan it is hard to see them recovering.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"Obama went so far as to remove his name from the ballot..."

Check me on this, but didn't all the Dem candidates *except* Clinton remove their names from the ballot in Michigan?

I've seen this line several times recently, and it seems a strange, almost Clintonesque emphasis. I'm just sayin...

Posted by: nitpick | May 27, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Is Obama going to attempt to PREVENT the November election in Michigan as well ???

Lets' see - Obama needs to stop a few states from counting this fall.

So if he figures out a way to stop the Electoral votes from Texas, Georgia, Florida and Michigan - perhaps North Carolina too from counting, Obama should be able to win.

Obama needs to find a way to have 225 Electoral Votes be enough to win.

Chris I do love irony, I really enjoy satire as well - not sure which one is my favorite though.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile Obama's so called "mistakes" continue to pile up!

NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. (AP) - Barack Obama's campaign says the candidate made a mistake when he said a great uncle helped liberate the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz during World War II.
Obama said Monday that his uncle was among the first U.S. troops at Auschwitz. But Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet forces.

The campaign said Tuesday that he named the wrong camp. They said it was actually Buchenwald.

Aides said his grandmother's brother, Charlie Payne, helped liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp in April 1945 as part of the 89th Infantry Division.

Critics had been questioning Obama's original comment mentioning Auschwitz.

Posted by: frieda44 | May 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The polls are probably distorted by intra-Democratic resentment right now. In the heat of the Obama - Clinton endgame, a lot of Clinton partisans are probably polling as McCain voters. That resentment will presumably diminish once this thing is settled and the party professes unity... at which point one might expect a measurable dip in McCain's numbers against Obama.

Posted by: Clem | May 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Do we have any Michiganders in the house? Some on the ground insight would be appreciated.

DC expat makes a plausible argument that the GOP doesn't seem to have a lot to offer Michiganders right now, but I've also heard that many blame Dem Gov Granholm for some of the state's woes. If that's true, could MI be a surprise state for McCain this year?

Posted by: bsimon | May 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

What happens in Florida will be strange -- I think we can expect that. I've spent enough time in Florida and know so many completely different-thinking people who live there, that I can't say the state really HAS a political bias in either direction.

Michigan, however, is very likely go solidly Democratic. John McCain and the Republican party as it exists today has nothing in common with Michigan voters, and no particular "hope" to offer unless they have some economic magic potion to serve up we've not heard about.

Posted by: DC Expat in Durham NC | May 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Why are GOP strategists so down right now? By all accounts, up to 40% or so of Clinton's supporters intend to vote for McCain... at this time. Logic would say that number will decline as the election grows near. That means that Obama is likely polling at the lowest he will this election cycle.

He is still leading McCain in almost all national polls. This is McCain's zenith, and he is still losing.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company