When Hillary pushes seating the MI delegates, she loses respect among intellectually honest people.

[dorkulon]

Florida is one thing. But to act as though it would be the fair thing to do to seat delegates from an election wherein she was the only name on the ballot--no decent human being could support that. It is completely shameless. Saddam Hussein used to have elections like that.

Seriously, Hillary supporters: How can you justify this personally? How do you not cringe to hear her push this illegitimate, dictatorial proposition as if it were a matter of human rights? How can you support someone with the political dignity of Putin or Musharraf?

How on earth can you support seating the delegates from a one-candidate primary (I know Kucinich was on the ballot too, but you get my drift)? Is it an "end justifies the means" thing? I'm just having trouble imagining what it's like to hold such an obviously ant-democratic position. It's not just cynical; it's an insult to democracy.

[Birthmark]

1. Agreed.

Michigan didn't have anything *close* to a fair primary. Seating the delegates would be a farce.

[Rageneau]

2. Nonsense! The reason hers was the only one on the ballot is the others DROPPED OUT

ALL the candidates had their names on the Michigan ballot. Then, when the DNC flap hit, most of them tried to curry favor with Iowa and New Hampshire voters by piling on to disenfranchise the Michigan Deomcratic Party.

Obama was very, very happy that the DNC penalized Michigan, because it worked to his great advantage. He knew he couldn't win there anyway. By joining the boycott, he doesn't lose to Hillary as he otherwise would have. Meanwhile, he uses that boycott to delegitimize any vote that Michigan Democrats DO come up with.

Effectively, Obama is winning the Dem Nomination not because he earns the most delegates or most popular votes, but ONLY because two of the biggest Democratic States are being denied their say-so.

If ALL Democrats voted, Obama would lose. So 'fair-minded' Obamaniacs sure can't let all Democrats vote, can they? Florida, especially, must NOT count!

Shades of 2000.

[dorkulon]

4. Regardless of whether you think

Obama (and all others) pulled out of the primary as a strategic move, the fact remains the MI vote is useless as it is. It was not a functional primary and does not reflect any accurate representation of the public will at the time.

[slinkerwink]

11. uh, Michigan went against the DNC rules, thus they deserved the action from DNC

[dansolo]

69. And unlike Florida, they can't even blame the GOP

[against all enemies]

17. In other words, Hillary was looking out for herself, while the others were

being good Democrats. That sounds like the usual deal.

[Rocky2007]

61. get a grip --

such BS:puke:

[Andromeda]

70. That's exactly right!

Obama is afraid Hillary will take MI and FLA (she already has) and that's why he doesn't want a re-vote.

Obama is dissing ALL MI and FLA voters because he's afraid he'll lose. AND HE WOULD!

All is not lost yet and the convention is going to be very, very interesting.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Her interview yesterday on Faux has caused her to lose any shred of credibility

she still had. That interview was vile.

[JVS]

5. That group already doesn't support her.

[Apollo11]

6. Hillary is happy to have a do-over primary in Michigan. But Team Obama is preventing it.

For you to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

[dorkulon]

7. Again,

whether you think Obama is strategically avoiding a do-over, it doesn't change the fact that the MI results as they stand are completely worthless.

[Apollo11]

8. Not really.

Even knowing that Obama and Edwards were also seeking the nomination, 55% of Democrats who took part in the Michigan primary voted for Hillary.

If people wanted Obama to be the nominee, they knew they had to go out and vote uncommitted.

The Obama campaign was actively encouraging people to vote uncomitted in the Michigan primary.

[Barack_America]

18. 55% of of people voted for the only name they recognized on the ballot.

Shocking. :eyes:

Actually, what's shocking is that she ONLY got 55% of the vote.

And the uncommitted option was not as well-advertised as you claim it was. MANY Michiganders walked into the voting booth not knowing what that was all about. And many others who knew about it thought, "what's the point" and stayed home.

But the point is moot as the original primary was declared unconstitutional and, therefore, never happened.

[Romulox]

19. That's both insulting and untrue; Hillary wasn't the only Democrat on the ballot. nt

[Barack_America]

24. RECOGNIZABLE

Was she the only widely recognized name on the ballot?

Yes.

If you're not going to bother reading the entire post, please don't bother responding.

[Romulox]

26. "Recognizable" is a weasle word here--*I* recognized the others

Am I only one? Not terribly likely. Which means your statements are overly broad.

[Barack_America]

28. Yeah, especially after all that campaigning they did in Michigan...

I'm sure that Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd were household names.

Oh wait...

[Romulox]

33. Thankfully, we benighted residents of Michigan have things called NEWSPAPERS

and websites.

[Barack_America]

39. Oh yes, the media, which equally covers ALL candidates...

As has been the case throughout the primary season.

And websites, readily available to the poorest and oldest of Michiganders.

:eyes:

[Romulox]

41. This is a particularly weak argument, considering the two best bankrolled

and most media adored candidates remain in the race.

"And websites, readily available to the poorest and oldest of Michiganders."

Thank goodness you're looking out for Michigan's old and poor by suppressing their votes! :crazy:

[Barack_America]

44. Interesting that you understood the sarcasm in one statement, but not the other.

And thank goodness that you're looking out for the votes of the 55% (or less) of Michiganders who were actually able to vote for their candidate of choice.

So then your attitude towards the other 45% (or more) is, essentially, "fuck 'em"?

How noble.

And, FWIW, I am in favor of repeating the primary (particularly considering the first was declared unconstitutional and the results of which can in no way be honored)...AS LONG AS everyone is allowed to vote, including the Democrats who participated in the Republican primary.

Don't pretend you're in favor of letting everyone vote, when you're really picking and choosing whose voices are allowed to be heard in an effort to "game" a new primary for your candidate.

ETA: But thanks for proving my point about Hillary and "recognizability".

[Romulox]

46. This is what out of state cheerleaders don't get: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR CANDIDATE

It's about the fact that Michigan has the WORST economy in the country, and no Democrat will come here to talk about it.

The DNC isn't preventing Obama from coming to Michigan to talk us about the economy (and the primary be damned.)

So for you, it's "RAH, RAH, RAH!"; for me, it's about my state dying in front of my eyes. :eyes:

[Barack_America]

50. Um, Michigan IS my state.

Born and raised, buddy. Shoot me for going to school out-of-state. But my family is all back in Michigan getting screwed. So don't tell me that I don't care about Michigan.

[Romulox]

53. Then you need to fight for your state to be heard, not silenced.

Repeat: there is NOTHING stopping Barack Obama from coming to Michigan to patch things up with the voters and lay out a labor/industrial policy to repair some of the damage from his NAFTA flap.

I won't hold my breath, however.

[Barack_America]

54. Lol.

"His NAFTA flap". Umm, didn't you hear that it was actually Hillary's campaign that gave the ol' *wink wink* regarding NAFTA? And haven't you seen that her released First Lady records prove that she advocated for NAFTA?

And didn't you see above where I said that I support a primary in Michigan, as long as ALL Democrats are allowed to vote? (which, by the way, is EXACTLY what the Obama campaign has said) It's Hillary's campaign who is picking and choosing who should be allowed to vote.

So I'll be waiting for Hillary's call to allow ALL Michigan Democrats to be heard.

But I won't hold my breath.

[Romulox]

55. They were BOTH involved. The difference is, Hillary has addressed Michigan voters. Barack won't.

"And didn't you see above where I said that I support a primary in Michigan, as long as ALL Democrats are allowed to vote? (which, by the way, is EXACTLY what the Obama campaign has said) It's Hillary's campaign who is picking and choosing who should be allowed to vote."

This is a condition which you know cannot be met. Moreover, there is no obvious reason why someone whose vote has already counted in the Republican primary should be allowed to vote for a second time in the Democratic primary. This isn't a good faith proposal, or an argument rooted in fairness, but a merely a dilatory ploy.

[Andromeda]

71. Hillary isn't picking and choosing who will vote.

Why are you perpetuating that blatant lie? She wants ALL Democrats to vote. Obama doesn't want ANY Michiganers to vote---again. Because he knows he will lose and that's it in a nutshell.

Explain that to me because what you're saying is crazy.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Four of the candidates were on the ballot in MI

the ones who weren't CHOSE to remove their names.

Clinton ran in that race and won it - that others chose not to run doesn't mean she didn't win.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Why is a black man supporting the disenfranchisement of so many black voters in MI & FL?

Is Obama really so petty he'll wipe his $600 loafers on the Rights of so many just because they didn't vote for him? What a sad and disrespectful attitude toward Civil Rights Obama is displaying.

[Romulox]

20. I was told by an Obama supporter that it was because Michigan is an "overwhelmingly white state"

:rofl:

[Lucky 13]

34. Why are you blaming Obama?

I haven't heard him say a damn thing on the subject. If you feel the need to place the blame, place it where it is due... squarely on Hillary and the DNC. THAT is who the fight is between.

Why did she sign the pledge? Why did she publicly say she knew the primary would count for nothing?

SHE AGREED to it. SHE AGREED to "disenfranchise" voters as you say. If she had raised this issue BEFORE the vote... while they were all agreeing on the rules... I'd give you (and her) some leeway. But she had ZERO problem with it before she thought it might help her. Suddenly it looks like counting Michigan might be her only way in... so she goes back on everything she promised months ago? How do you defend that?

And your dig about $600 loafers? I assume you are trying to imply that he's a super wealthy, latte-drinking, elitist that doesn't get the "little people"? That's how that bullshit comes off anyway. Need I remind you that Bill&Hill are worth something ridiculous like 40 TIMES his net worth. But I guess we don't know that for sure until she releases her TAXES. If anyone should be accused of being rich elitists it's THEM.

[Romulox]

47. Dude, EVERY post can't rehash all the facts. Obama torpedoed the revote. nt

[40ozDonkey]

12. It's the only strategy she can come up with to get 65% of the vote.

Wyoming and Mississippi didn't get the memo on the "momentum shift" that was supposed to happen after she won Ohio and Rhode Island. Now she needs to win 65% of the remaining states to make it look like a contest.

Time to craft a lie and fake some outrage.

[TahitiNut]

13. There ARE NO "Michigan delegates." The primary was ruled unconstitutional ... null and void.

From a legal standpoint, the primary never happened. This is, of course, another wrinkle in the FUBAR ... the pretense of unringing a bell. All that's left is the crack.

[Romulox]

21. My quick reading is that the practice of turning over the voting list

to only Republicans and Democrats while denying it to third parties was held unconstitutional.

It had nothing to do with whether Obama was on the ballot or not, and theoretically, that portion of the vote should still stand, as far as Michigan's courts are concerned.

[TahitiNut]

27. Wrong. The legislation had a 'nonseverability' clause ...

... making the overturn of ANY part of it necessitate the overturn of ALL of it. Thus, the legislation that was the SOLE basis for the early Presidential Primary, including the special registration and all balloting, was voided.

When there's a 'nonseverabilty' clause (usually the result of horse-trading) there's usually some notion that the legislation has constitutional flaws, as I see it.

So ... no matter how you examine the entrails ... reading the 21-page summary judgment yields the same result. The Primary, from a legal perspective, NEVER HAPPENED. It's moot. It's null and void. Period.

[Romulox]

29. Do you have a link to the text of the opinion? nt

[TahitiNut]

32. Yup. Here it is ... it's a PDF file.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/greenparty_v_land.pdf

[Romulox]

36. Danke schön. nt

[TahitiNut]

49. Bitte schön.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Nonetheless

it doesn't mean the results are meaningless:

"Edmunds (the judge), the ACLU lawyers who won the case and the state's top election manager all agreed that the ruling had no practical impact on the 2008 presidential campaign. "Nothing I'm going to say or do" affects the results of the Jan. 15 vote, Edmunds said. "That's the political reality."

"That election is on the history books, and it doesn't disappear because the law that created it is off the books," said Brewer (the party chairman).


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

[Romulox]

40. This is the operative language from the opinion

While it is arguably a common sense reading that the legislature intended the vote to be "invalid, inoperable, and without effect" by the plain language of the text, a few questions remain open:

First, since the court passed on the severability clause, is additional action needed to give it effect?

Second, even if the vote is ruled a legal nullity, is the fact that the Green Party didn't receive voter addresses a good excuse to disenfranchize Michigan voters?

Seems more like a "gotcha" type argument rather than one sounding in morality or reason...

D. Severability

PA 52 contains a nonseverability clause:

If any portion of this amendatory act or the application of this amendatory act
to any person or circumstances is found invalid by a court, it is the intent of
the legislature that the provisions of this amendatory act are nonseverable
and that the remainder of the amendatory act shall be invalid, inoperable,
and without effect.

See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.19 “Historical and Statutory Notes.” Both parties assert that the Court’s ruling does not require the Court to address the issue of severability. (Def.’s Resp. at 22; Pl.’s Reply at 4.) The Court agrees that the issue of severability is beyond the scope of the claims raised by Plaintiffs in this motion. Accordingly, the Court makes no ruling regarding the constitutional validity of the remainder of PA 52.

[TahitiNut]

48. While there's little point in dissecting a FUBAR (fiasco) ...

... the fact remains that Michigan voters' rights were collateral damage in a political insider power game. This Primary Election was NEVER handled in a reasonable and responsible fashion. Never. Not in ANY regard.

What I find of more than passing interest is the fact that National Democratic Party rules (as in "all of the rules are equal but some of the rules are more equal than others") effectively prohibit Open Primaries, and require that voters in a Democratic Primary are registered Democrats. (That's a major part of the rationale for imposing a special 'registration' process on voters in the January primary.) HOWEVER, many states have strong privacy statutes and constitutions and prohibit disclosure of voters' political affiliations as a condition of voting in any way. Conveniently enough, the Democratic Party doesn't disenfranchise primary voters in such states ... as they did in Florida and Michigan.

So ... I guess *some* state laws are superior to party rules ... and some aren't. How convenient. :eyes:
(It's the kind of authoritarian shit that makes me glad I'm an independent liberal.)

[TahitiNut]

51. You just keep on pawing through that pile of dung trying to find something tasty.

Good luck. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

60. dung?

it's a quote from the JUDGE and the plaintiff's LAWYER saying the ruling doesn't impact the results. It's in direct opposition to your assertion.

[harun]

43. The constitution has nothing in it about Primaries, because a

political party can choose its nominee however they want.

[TahitiNut]

52. Nonsense.

Sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Try reading the summary judgment.
:eyes:

[harun]

56. Link ? (n/t)

[TahitiNut]

57. See post #32 above.

:shrug:

[harun]

58. That judgement deals with the Michigan Secretary of State providing

parties with the political party affiliations of the voters.

Doesn't have a thing to do with the Constitutional rules of Primaries, because there are none.

[Vinca]

14. Can the Hillary people explain why she thought the DNC ruling

was a good thing before, when she expected to wrap things up on Super Tuesday, but now it's a bad thing? Why did she sign the agreement with the DNC? It was disenfranchising voters then, too. In addition, why is she so hot to get Obama's pledged delegates to switch to her, which would, of course, disenfranchise everyone who has already voted for Obama? For the record, I bitched about the DNC ruling before the primaries ever got going and a whole lot of people here disagreed. Your rabid desire to make Iowa and New Hampshire irrelevant has come back to bite you in the rear.

[Lucky 13]

37. CRICKETS... and that's likely all you'll get...

That's my thing with this too...

If, during this rule/punishment process before the primary, she had said, "No. Under no circumstances do I believe voters should be disenfranchished because MI party leaders broke the rules." IF she had said that, I could understand this whole argument.

But she signed the pledge, was fine with the decision, and even spoke publicly about it!

Changing her mind, conveniently when it's to her benefit is UNSEEMLY at best.

Makes it really hard to be sympathetic to her argument.

[susankh4]

15. No Democrat should be willing to concede MI to McCain

Period. If Obama is willing to move forward without their input... then he is as anti-democratic as they come.

[Romulox]

22. I'm afraid it's a planned strategy to throw labor overboard

Obama doesn't want to campaign in Michigan, because he doesn't want to make a commitment to manufacturing and labor.

[susankh4]

23. That is a serious contention

and it deserves attention from Labor Unions everywhere. I hope they will do their homework.....

[dorkulon]

67. Ridiculous.

There is no likelihood whatsoever that either MI or FL is more likely to vote Republican because of this. That's a canard.

[OzarkDem]

16. Quite the opposite

And dragging Saddam Hussein into your argument tells us a lot about who you really are.

[OzarkDem]

25. Why do Obama supporters want to deprive Dems of their vote?

Good luck on spinning this. Public opinion is not in your favor.

[Barack_America]

31. Why don't Hillary supporters respect the constitution?

The Michigan primary has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FYI...ironically, for hindering the ability of people to vote for third parties.

So why are Hillary's supporters demanding it be upheld?

No respect for the national and state constitutions?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

42. Please read my sig. It applies in this instance. Your responses to this individual are fruitless.

:shrug: Sad but true.

[Barack_America]

45. Meh. I've given up on them.

I just like to have a little fun sometimes. Their arguments are so weak that I can't help myself.

[Lucky 13]

38. Why did she agree to it?

WHY did she sign the pledge?
WHY did she not voice these concerns in the rule/punishment discussions?
WHY did she speak publicly that these elections would not count?

If she had, at ANY point before it became apparent it would BENEFIT her, expressed concern that voters would be disenfranchised, I'd be much more sympathetic to your arguement.

What's your response to the questions above? It's hard for me to see how you justify this, but I'm open to listening...

[wileedog]

59. Because they broke the rules.

Why do Hillary supporters want Superdelegates to overturn the Pledged Delegates, depriving EVERYONE of their vote?

Wy are you fighting so hard to get votes counted that you just want to be taken away by SDs?

[dorkulon]

66. A vote in which only HC supporters had a voice?

Jesus, just listen to yourself.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Trying to Convince Pledged Delegates to Change Was The Last Straw For Me

Well, one in a long series of last straws. The camel's back broke a long time ago.

[OzarkDem]

62. How can you deny fellow Dems the right to have their votes counted?

[scheming daemons]

63. Hillary had no problem with it.... in October..... why is that?

...

[joshcryer]

64. Because Obama and Hillary didn't think they'd matter, and were going to seat them anyway.

Now that they matter Obama is changing his tune.

[dorkulon]

65. Yeah, and after all, those 99% of Iraqis who voted for Hussein in his sham elections

shouldn't be disenfranchised, right?

[rodeodance]

72. Stick to the OP and be a constructive discussant.

[mckeown1128]

68. Kick. nt