2008 Fair’s Fair
posted by on April 27 at 12:09 PM
As I said before, I think it was totally goofy for Clinton supporters to run as “uncommitted” delegates in Michigan (where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot). As several commenters from Michigan pointed out, a lot of people who were paying attention decided not to vote in Michigan’s meaningless primary, just as I decided not to vote in Washington’s meaningless primary. For them to be reenfranchised after the election makes no sense and is incredibly hurtful to the party’s base in Michigan. (Imagine if Dwight Pelz suddenly announced, months after our results had been announced, that Washington wasn’t going to count results from the caucuses but would instead count the primary!) Howard Dean got on Meet the Press this morning yapping about respecting Michigan’s voters, but in this special case, you really have to respect Michigan’s clued-in nonvoters as well. They were the ones who trusted the DNC to stick to its promised penalties.
That said, Iowa had its congressional district caucuses this weekend, and some totally legit maneuvers deprived Obama of a delegate that had been expected to go to him. Here’s the thing: Caucuses really are like representative democracy—individual voters pick the person who they trust to represent their interests in platform creation as well as to vote for their chosen candidate through multiple successive caucuses. From the Des Moines Register:
But Obama received three of his total Saturday in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where he was expected to receive four, based on projections from the county conventions.Obama slipped by one delegate because Edwards had sufficient support in the district, where he was not expected to receive any delegates.
[…]
The shift was aided by Clinton supporters who agreed to support Edwards at the convention. Clinton had dispatched veteran Iowa organizer Teresa Vilmain, who ran Clinton’s third-place Iowa caucus campaign, to the convention in Dubuque.
Crawford said Clinton supporters crossed over to boost Edwards’ totals and deny Obama the fourth delegate.
Caucus delegates are empowered to do whatever they need to do strategically to help their candidate. If they want to switch and vote for Edwards to keep Obama from getting a delegate, that’s fine. In fact, I love it. Too bad Edwards dropped out before Washington got to vote.
In primary states like Michigan, however, prominent people in the state party are running to create a national delegate slate that mirrors the proportion of votes the candidates received. Individual voters have no say in who represents them at the national convention—it’s really more like the electoral college than a representative democracy.
As I’ve pointed out before, it doesn’t take a mind reader to figure out what voters were thinking when they looked at Michigan’s bizarre ballot, which included only Hillary Clinton, uncommitted, Chris Dodd (who’d already pulled out of the race), Mike Gravel (who joined the Libertarian Party a couple months later), and Dennis Kucinich (who had tried to pull his name from the ballot and failed). The Michigan Democratic Party had urged supporters of Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama to vote “uncommitted” instead of writing in a name. Given these circumstances, you can be pretty sure that people who checked the box for “uncommitted” weren’t simply signifying that they hadn’t chosen a candidate. They were trying to indicate that they either had chosen a candidate who wasn’t listed on the ballot, or hadn’t decided among the candidates who weren’t listed. But they had decided to vote against Hillary Clinton.
Is it technically permitted for Clinton supporters to become uncommitted delegates to the national convention? Sure. But the DNC has a very strong, rational argument for why those delegates especially and the delegation in general should not be seated. Nothing about the Michigan primary was free or fair. Michigan voters were disenfranchised during the primary, and they were disenfranchised again when national delegates were chosen. Its delegation does not have a legitimate claim to represent the will of its voters.
Sorry, you totally lost me about halfway through. All I know is, any election that takes that long to explain can't possibly be legit. Michigan and Florida were ruled out. Done and over with.
But let Hillary go on with her convoluted justifications for why we are supposed to pick a nominee according to her own very carefully chosen (and ever-changing) criteria. It makes her look conniving, and even more people will dislike her. Perhaps if she doesn't quit and join Lieberman's party, she will have to be kicked out.
(Also, Annie, is your first sentence what you meant to write?)
I just can't wait to hear the Clintonistas scream when Obama uses TOTALLY LEGIT strategies to keep Hillary from seating her pet delegates from Michigan and Florida. To do anything other than deny any representation to Fla and Mich is to make a mockery of the entire primary process.
I can hear the whining already.
YES. Again, as a Michigander, when told the primaries wouldn't count, I voted in the Republican primaries, and my wife refused to participate. Neither one of us would have voted Clinton, and at least I would have voted Obama. So you can add at least two (and we are far from alone) to the anti-Hillary crowd in Michigan. Do NOT sit "Hillary's" delegates from MIchigan is all I can say to the DNC.
The Obama campaign supported a revote that would allow everyone to participate. The Clinton campaign opposed such a primary. I understand they were even opposed to including people who had registered since the beauty contest.
And that's why there's no revote.
Sen Clinton is still playing chess.
Too bad the game is poker.
As an Obama supporter, I say, let the Clinton campaign continue to try to make non-binding votes count, let the Clinton campaign continue to try to claim legally delegates that are not theirs morally. As an Obama supporter, I say, let this thing play out.
At some point, this monstrosity that has become the Clinton campaign is going to collapse under the weight of its own self-righteous illegitimacy.
1. Interesting details on MI but:
Obama lobbied against a revote that would've been paid for by others, and totally prevented a full and fair solution, so he and his supporters have no moral claim to talk about what's fair or right. Obama has consistently worked to deny the right to vote to millions of innocent MI voters. Meanwhile, I still do not hear Obama saying we should seat FL...so the problem in MI isn't lack of being on the ballot...If that was the problem, it's not in FL, and he ain't saying seat FL. So it's a p-r-e-t-e-n-s-e. A.k.a a lie. Coupled with a strong dose of holier than thou arrogance by Obama and some of his supporters desperate to explain why denying millions to the right of representation is (a) okay and (b) impossible to remedy.
2. do not look at this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-killerspin27apr27,1,2764345.story
It is not news. I often asked hey what did he actually do as a lawyer turns out he is a specialist in corporate law raking in fat retainers form highly politically involved corporate owners! How sweet.
3. A one on one debate with no moderator. Cool! Change !! A new kind of politics -- direct and honest and not bought by special interests!
And Abe Lincoln, another Ill. lawyer, had the guts to do it.
Obama? Nope. No balls there. Total coward. Totally not into a new kind of politics.
4. "He's a politician, he says what a politician has to say" -- Rev. J. Wright.
If Obama was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would drop out now. Yep, gand it to Hillary. If she wins in November, great. Whoever gets in is going to have an un-Godly hard time cleaning up Bush's mess, and probably won't last more than one term. If she loses to McCain, then he'd be in an even stronger position in 2012.
@8 The only problem with that is that he's already stated that he won't try again. He made that promise to his wife.
@9, you are right, I have heard him during a couple of interviews if he does not win there will not be another Obama run for the White House.
Is it 2009 yet?
The country is a mess right now and getting worse by the day. What a nightmare the next president is inheriting. Regardless of how good a candidate's plans there's going to be a transition time and it'll take time to implement new policies.
p.s. 5280 I talked to my sister in Denver yesterday and she said some people are renting their houses out for $50,000 for convention week. And apparently there are some willing to pay that. Wow.
@7 - glad to see you support a third term of McCain/Bush 08 with a TRIPLED DEFICIT from the second term of GWB, unPC - why do you hate America so?
Great post, Annie. I only take issue with a couple underlying presumptions.
First, abstaining Michiganders "relied" upon the vote not being counted and counting it now without representing their will would be unfair. Yet, by all accounts, supporters of those candidates who withdrew their names from the ballot were strongly encouraged to vote "uncommitted." Considering the record turnouts in both the FL & MI primaries, I think there's sufficient state representation without attempting to account for the political inaction of those that opted to stay home.
Second, the argument that "Uncommitted" votes are synonymous with "Anyone but Clinton" (and that electors must not therefore cast their vote with her) rests upon the presumption that Hillary was no one's second choice. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination that various Edwards, Biden, & Richardson fans would've deferred their vote to Clinton over Obama had they known their first choice candidate would ultimately drop out. Electors have to make that determination for themselves on behalf of those they represent.
In deciding whether or not to remove their names from the ballot, Clinton, Obama, & Edwards each made a wager that carried a degree of risk. By taking themselves off the ballot, Obama & Edwards waived their opportunity to claim a decisive win, while simultaneously availing themselves of the potential embarrassment of a significant loss. Clinton took the gamble of keeping her name on the ballot and it paid off, earning her a very credible percentage of the vote as a result. Had he known the direction the campaign would take, it still behoved Obama & Edwards to stay off the ballot, thereby shorting Clinton the victory.
In summary, always vote, electors need to think of the big picture, and finally, presidential elections are filled with gambles & unexpected outcomes (see 1796 & 1800 for a start), c'est la guerre.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm hoping for Clinton/Obama '08. 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Barack would be a pleasure).
@7.
Riiight, because that would have been a good cause to spend millions on... It's not Obama's fault that Michigan broke the rules. Also, why would he want Fla seated? You make no sense. Besides, Hillary was against seating Michigan and Florida before she was for it, and that sure sounds familiar.
I certainly don't want someone as short-sighted as Hillary as the DNC nominee. Between this fiasco, her decision to run against Obama on "experience" (How will that work against McCain?), and her argument that "the big states matter" (and therefore the ones she lost don't?), she would have no hope. I'm done with her.
@13: Obama and others withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot because they, like Hillary, signed an agreement, the Four State Pledge, not to participate. (Before you ask, Florida law prevented the same from happening there.)
And then, of course, Hillary broke her word and participated anyways. (Looking forward to the "she didn't 'participate', her name merely 'appeared on the ballot'" parsing from Susie.)
There's no "wagering" involved; just candidates capable of keeping their word and a two-faced liar who can't.
As for the turnout, just about anything would've been a "record turnout" given that they haven't had real contests in years past. The real indicator is that out of all the contests, Florida and Michigan are the only two states where Republican turnout exceeded the Dems'. That alone should tell you a shitload of people stayed home.
Not to worry though, the DNC will ultimately vote to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in their entirety... Just as soon as Hillary gives her concession speech and releases all her delegates.
@ PopTart: It's true, it's true - every hotel room within a 20-mile radius has been booked for months. It'll be fine if the nominee has been decided by August, in which case we'll only have the anticipated 30,000 visitors to town. If not, then it will be more like 50,000, and therein lies the rub.
An unmoderated debate would be awesome. But it's just too late. Clinton should have proposed this brainstorm earlier to get credit for being a big thinker. Obama can debate or not as he sees fit and I think he's OK.
I used to be obsessive about debates and disliked candidates who dodged them. But then again I never thought we'd have *21* debates in a primary season. Even among the politically interested, informed, savvy how many have been watched?
BTW, "no balls"? "coward"? That's good stuff!
I see you an unmoderated debate and raise you an unmoderated naked debate! Over a pool of hungry 'gatas! With flaming gasoline! Or not! Anything. Whatever you like. Please? Fight me. Be my friend. Love me?
foot tramp stamps are just as fuckin stupid. heads up to the hipster girls thinking about them.
But the DNC has a very strong, rational argument for why those delegates especially and the delegation in general should not be seated.
Really Annie? The DNC has a strong argument for why they disenfranchised Michigan voters? I understand that seating the delegates right now is a problem (which is why the DNC SHOULD have paid for a revote out of their own pocket) but seriously, this is the DNC's fuck up in the first place.
They had no rational reason for announcing that the delegation wouldn't be seated. It was all pandering to New Hampshire and Iowa.
As much as I want a Democrat in the White House in 2009, I refuse to send the DNC money on principle. I'll send money directly to the candidate, but the DNC has seriously disappointed me.
Rev. Wright now making fun of JFK's accent, mocking it. He imitates him 3 or 4 times saying he said "Eeyask not what you can do" then saying "How do you spell 'eeyask""?
His point is that people picked on black children for not speaking English well since about 1961 and only picked on black children.
Um. Not. Going. To. Help. Obama. With. Archie. Bunker. Swing. Voters.
Or. Um. With. Catholics.
Making fun of JFK?
If he wants to have a good discussion of racism in our nation and education, I'd suggest that he say say yes, African American children need more education, and yes, they and everyone does need to speak standard English, and yes, they were picked on sometimes needlessly and we should't do that, nor should we pick on the Irish Americans or a Boston accent or any accent. I'd suggest he address factors other than racism, too, like the fact that AA families need to promote education more, too. The way Bill Cosby talks about it.
But I'd really like to further suggest he stop making fun of Boston accents, Irish American accnets, the Kennedy accent, JFK, and kindly go away and shut the fuck up so he doesn't totally blow it for our likely nominee, Sen. Obama, who has a glaringly weak electoral path to victory as he seems intent on dismissing these voters as well as lying about his prospects in Pa and OH and btw he's totally ignoring FL. In MN WI IA yes he does better, this hardly outweights FL OH PA MO MA etc. VA CO NC --out of reach, stop joking, please.
In fact the 270towin site if I'm not mistaken shows an average of three polls and says in MA Obama is only tied with McCain, while HRC of course is ahead, so again Id like to suggest to all the Obama supporters that they write their man Obama and tell him to tell this idiot Wright to go stifle himself insulting people like JFK who are sort of you know....liked? in Massachusetts.
Not sure why it didn't make the same news but when the Obama supporters in the 5th district heard what happened in the 1st they paid Hillary back by having enough of their supporters move over to Edwards to also make him viable there, which took 1 of Hillary's delegates away. So Hillary and Obama each lost a delegate in Iowa on Sat, both of which went to Edwards. Absent an endorsement of Hillary by Edwards it seems very likely both delegates will be Obama supporters at the convention.
No, unPC, the wonderful Rev. Wright is NOT going to shut up. He's a Grade A Kook, and you've seen enough of them on Slog to know that they don't just shut up and go away. Especially if they're being fed, and the media is having a field day feeding him right now.
The first thing I thought of when I read the title of this post was the 80's classic "The Legend of Billie Jean." Annie, if you get a Joan of Arc haircut and make a video to express your "Fair's Fair" message, you can win the public over to your side (and Binx will get a new scooter).
Good Lord. Honestly, how on earth do you manage to say this and keep a straight face while Hillary is off trying to override the popular vote with superdelegates and "turning" pledged delegates? What did you get in return for your soul?
Did all the slog posters turn off their computers today? So sad.
@25,
It's amazing watching Clinton supporters twist themselves into knots over this. On one hand, this is about not disenfranchising voters. On the other hand, who cares if Michigan voters stayed home? Who care if two of the three front-runners weren't on the ballot? Earlier today I saw one Clintonista posit that Michigan voters who didn't go to the polls (since their vote supposedly didn't count) were just stupid and don't deserve to have their voices heard.
So much for enfranchising voters.
>>They had no rational reason for announcing that the delegation wouldn't be seated. It was all pandering to New Hampshire and Iowa.
No rational reason except to keep the primary calendar from turning into a free for all making it impossible for campaigns to plan and staff.
Michigan and Florida had their chance to change it in 2006. Florida didn't even *try* to get an earlier spot and both ultimately approved the calendar... and the attendant penalties for breaking the rules. The MI and FL parties have no one to blame but themselves.
This isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
Someone up there commented that, "Obama lobbied against a revote that would've been paid for by others, and totally prevented a full and fair solution,"
It would not have been a full and fair solution. Anyone, like me, who voted in the Republican Primary (because we were told that the Democratic Primary didn't count) would not have been allowed to vote in the do-over. There was also no plan, as far as I'm aware, of how to pay for a do-over primary.
Interesting speech by Rev. Wright at the NAACP event.
While there is much to agree with he spent a lot of time saying blacks and whites are different saying whites learn with their left brain which is orderly and logical and object oriented (you learn from objects hanging above your crib; later, by reading a book in an isolated study carrel in the libe) while blacks are right brained which is creative and subject oriented -- they easily memorize complex rap lyris & learn from people telling stories -- they are more aural oral and people oriented in their learning. He lcearly seemed to say this was an innate difference, I thought. He also said blacks hear music on the 2 and 4 while Eurowhites hear it on 1 and 3 etc.
Isn't a lot of this wrong? Because there are no innate or DNA diffs. in how races learn, think or hear music.
It seems very wrong and divisive to me, and certainly if a white educator started saying blacks aren't so hot at learning fgrom books or objects like computers, well you can imagine the outcry.
(Of course there can be cultural differences, and if you are prevented for centuries from learning to read, don't have wealth, don't have access to laptops as much, or are subjected to shitty schools due to political system racism then there will be many diffs. along racial lines, but this doesn't mean they are innate diffs.)
(Personally I prefer the stress on 2 and 4 not 1 and 3, but then I've never checked my own DNA, so can't say if this confirms his racial theory or not.)
Different types of intelligences for different races--hmmmm is that right? Is that where we want to go?
Can white people now start saying that and taking it where it will lead?
Or is my whole binary division of "scientifically right" and "scientifically wrong" an object oriented, limited, left brained partial glimpse of the truth in a world in which there are multiple truths for differently brained people and for the different races?
I mean since we really should talk through all this race stuff.
If Florida and Michigan aren't going to be counted, then the delegates from states with caucuses should be adjusted by the same percentage of difference as in Texas to adjust for the voters that were disenfranchised by the caucus process as opposed to the more broadly encompassing and Democratic primary process. Talking about the un-Democratic nature of counting Michigan now pales in comparison (at least to me) to the vast difference in Hillary's success in caucus states versus primary states.
Also, just to be clear, although I'm a Clinton supporter, I think that counting Michigan as it is would be dumb, especially because if the vote were to be held today, I think Obama would beat Hillary by a few points, though it'd be closer than the results of Wisconsin. Maybe something like 52-48 or around there.
If Florida was counted though (or had a revote), it'd be a blowout for Clinton (duh).
So unPC you think Obama has control over Wright that he's not exercising? Good to know where you're coming from.
You're stretching. Obama's not going to have some debate about DNA and race and music. He's already distanced himself from Wright. If you don't think he's moved far enough vote for McCain, ask him if gooks are genetically different. Who would vote for a ball-less coward anyway (apologies to Clinton.)
Determining the rules of an election after the votes are counted is extremely bad. Expecting the candidates to determine the rules is equally bad. Let's consider that last point: Clinton gets brownie points for doing something that benefits her? Not in my book, that's the whole issue, I don't want to know what candidates think should be the rules of an election after it's clear what effect those rules would have on the results.
Besides this isn't a real election anyway. It's a primary. Real elections take place at the same time everywhere.
The democratic party pooched this one up. They can't fix it because, again, it's not a real election (there's no reasonably independent power structure in the party like our famously neutral Supreme Court.) C'est la vie, no one ever said Howard Dean was a genius.
That said, the Obama camp also gained delegates in the Iowa district caucuses using totally UNLEGIT procedures. In my district, multiple "Clinton alternates" who had been elected at the county convention as alternates under the guise that they were Clinton supporters were seated, and then immediately switched to Obama. If these were people who had genuinely changed their minds in between the county and district conventions, that would be one thing. But when they openly brag about the fact that they were instructed by campaign workers for Obama to lie and get put on records as Clinton alternates, they are obviously playing dirty pool. Additionally inappropriate interactions happened when the woman running the caucus, an Obama delegate, repeatedly harrassed Clinton delegates throughout the caucus. When she felt the caucus was too noisy, she directed the Clinton and Edwards groups to move to other rooms in the convention center. After people left, she sent a representative to notify the Edwards group that official business was being voted on, and that they needed to return. But, she never sent someone to the Clinton room. When a Clinton delegate was asked by the catering company if people would be staying later, she raised a point of inquiry to this woman and asked if people would be interested in buying food at a later time. The woman's response? To yell "if you would just shut up, we wouldn't have to be here any longer, would we?". My mom later approached the woman to say that her comments had been inappropriate and rude, and was told to go screw herself.
So, I think it's interesting that the Obama camp warns their followers to watch out for dirty tricks from the Clinton follwers, and then engages in the same tricks they claim to abhor.
That's too bad, if it happened, but it is perfectly legit. Precinct caucus voters have the responsibility to vet the delegates and alternates they're electing. They should vote for the person they trust to stick to the same candidate all the way through. If they elect a turncoat, they elect a turncoat.
But running as a turncoat is an incredibly stupid strategy, because there's no guarantee you'll get elected as a delegate (or seated if you're elected as an alternate), and if you don't, you've given one more precinct-level vote to the opposing candidate. I highly doubt Obama's campaign instructed people to act in such a potentially self-destructive manner in the very first caucus. But believe what you like.
Rude people, on the other hand, are everywhere, and it is a fact that some supporters of both Obama and Clinton are rude. That proves nothing.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).