I think somebody missed a memo...

Obama needs to clear this up ASAP>

well that's just stupid. Plouffe needs to get on the phone and impress message discipline.

I've said it once and I'll say it again - as long as Clinton surrogates are drawing unreasonable lines in the stand, so should Obama surrogates (Obama himself can take the high road). If Obama negotiates from the 50-yard line and Clinton from the end zone, the ultimate settlement will favor Clinton. Better to each start from the goal line and settle at the 50.

There would be no need for such grandstanding if the Clinton people were good faith actors. but it is what it is.

50/50 split? What's Plouffe been smoking? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

This is mistake #2 for Obama (#1 dismissing the VP spot and upsetting the Dem Party);

Hillary will have a ball with this one. Obama looks scared. He's on a winning streak and is afraid that MI and FL will break it. Not smart. A winner wins no matter what.

We will look back after he has lost the nomination and realize this was the second mistake that cost him.

He's turning PA into a firewall, instead of an opportunity. Cheating MI out of voting will be broadcast all over PA and NC. Watch. MI and FL will revote - without a doubt - and they will not forget this. Four states to loose.

Mark my words - this is point that things change.

CalD,

If you actually read the post you're responding to you would realize that the 50-50 split comment wasn't even made by Plouffe.

I for one hope this is off message. FL is one thing but MI really needs a real vote. And I'm not sure why they wouldn't want one. He would at worst lose by a little and maybe even win it.

I know it doesn't jive with what Obama said just last night, but I've been surprised that the Obama camp has gone along with this re-vote business in Michigan and Florida in the first place.

The "big picture" campaign strategy happens long before the primaries get under way (e.g. Hillary's Big State/ Super Tuesday strategy). When the campaigns formulated these strategies and allocated resources accordingly Michigan and Florida were off the table. If they were in play, Obama's entire strategy and planning might have been different from the start.
THERE IS NO FAIR WAY NOW TO DO RE-VOTES.

If the tables were turned, the Hillary camp would be fighting them tooth and nail.

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

It really doesn't matter. Whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates going into the convention (super delegates don't matter until the floor vote) controls all committees and the agenda of the convention. Basically, whoever wins the most delegates is the presumptive nominee going into the convention. If a 50-50 split is what they want, that's what will be done in the credentials committee.

This is sad and stupid. Sad because it shows that they don't care about the voters, despite their claims. Stupid, because either Obama can't manage his campaign yet again or he doesn't get it.

On top of all this, his campaign now says DOJ has to review FL mail-in vote before they agree. Wow!

Talk about stalling...

Obama supporters are adamant (and I happen to agree with them) that there should be no backroom deals overturning "the people's choice" in the primaries. They are referring, of course, to having the pledged delegates lead the way for the superdelegates based on the states' primary votes.

Follow "the rules" everyone says.

Well here's where "the rules" fall apart for the Obama supporters - that is, if "the people's choice", based on the total popular vote in the primaries, happens to end up being Hillary Clinton. It's conceivable (not likely, I know, but conceivable) - that Hillary could win enough popular votes in Pennsylvania, and enough in the revotes in Michigan and Florida, to squeak out a win in the final tally of popular votes.

In this case, "the rules" which allow superdelegates to vote their conscience, would definitely allow them to vote right out in the open (not in any backroom)for Hillary Clinton as "the people's choice" - since she won the popular vote.

You either are for "the rules" or you're against them. Superdelegate personal preference is part of "the rules." Right?

am i alone in the entire Democratic base in thinking that Michigan and Florida can just go to hell? the DNC laid down the rules and the penalties for breaking those rules. the states agreed. the Florida and Michigan legislatures then broke those rules, and are now paying the penalty.

can someone point out any injustice here?

if the voters in Michigan and Florida had really wanted to vote in the Democratic primary they should have A. been informed and B. lobbied their representatives to make clear that because of these decisions they, the voters, would be punished and would punish the relevant lawmakers in turn in the voting booths. should we encourage ignorance and laziness and a disengaged citizenry, or promote it simply by enforcing the rules?

The whole thing about how to do a re-vote is complicated and there seems to be no good answers. Mail-in primary is fraught with possibility of fraud and minority groups fear that there votes won't be counted this way, and thus are unlikely to participate. While Oregon does have a great mail-in system, it took them years to get it right...

Things seem to be getting even MORE complicated. This is what Marc Ambinder said..
--
Would Bush's Justice Department Have To OK New Florida, Michigan Mail Primaries?

In order to get them in and have 'em count by June 10, lawyers for Barack Obama say the answer, unequivocally, is yes.

Here's the reasoning: while a federal judge last year upheld the DNC's right to interpret the rules of its own primary -- even if those rules meant the technical disenfranchisement of an entire state of voters -- the ruling did not touch on the form of the election itself.

When a party decides to change its rules in midstream, five counties in Florida and two counties in Michigan must ask the Department of Justice's Voting Section to make sure that the new rules do not violate the rights of any aggreived minorities. Alternatively, they can ask a federal judge to bless the new rules, but that would take, at the very least, six months.

According to the Obama campaign, voting rights act provisions that govern pre-clearance requirements apply to primaries. So the Florida Democratic Party and the Michigan Democratic Party would be required to submit to the Justice Department their vote-by-mail procedures for close inspection.

The politics are oh-so-iffy. The Civil Rights Division of DoJ does not have a gleaming reputation among Democrats. Recall that Hans Von Spakovsky, whose confirmation to the FEC the Democrats are holding up because of his record at the Justice Department, very much set the tone for the type of enforcement that the division has become known for over the fast few years.

"They don't want to have to go to Michael Mukasey and ask him, ask Hans van Spakovsky's voting rights section to make a decision on pre-clearance that could have an enormous ramification for the presidential nomination for the other party," one of Obama's lawyers said. "The party doesn't also want to recognize that the DoJ has any formal regulatory authority."

If the party decides to forgo pre-clearance and decides to take off without permission, well, lawsuits would block its path -- from minority groups worried that the vote-by-mail process would disenfranchise African Americans.

There is political gamesmanship in play as well. New primaries of any sort will undoubtedly decrease the popular vote margin between Obama and Clinton, the superdelegate margin between Obama and Clinton, and the elected delegate margin between the two -- the latter, probably very narrowly. And if the primaries are scheduled in early June, they'll give Clinton the final push of momentum.

A spokesperson for the DNC said the party was aware of the pre-clearance objection and was looking into it.

disenfranchise, disenfranchise...blah, blah. I am getting tired of this word. Everyone is using it to make the other look bad.

Make it as much of a big deal as you want, I guess, but the fact is, everyone can twist the ideas in this case to make their own side look more virtuous. This is because it really shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the candidates. It's a MI, FL and DNC mess. Those people have to work it out.

Quotes from the campaigns are going to be political posturing and nothing more. If you really believe that one candidate is "for" disenfranchisement and the other is "against" it and it's that simple...I am speechless.

I have no respect for voters who fail to see the complexities and difficulties here...for both sides. I have a lot of anger towards the folks who say this is why they'll vote for McCain in the fall.

Calm down. You're the ones who are making this a disaster. Not Hillary and Obama.

Should have added that that was from a MyDD Diary...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/145141/402

Pardon my failure to do so.

The only thing a FL and MI revote will do is push the goal post back to June. She wont gain enough popular votes or delegates to gain any ground.

I wonder if Obama is trying to shift this into holding a caucus. Like challenging the mail-in vote via DOJ, etc.

Caucus would work well for him, because his supporters can do things like these:

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=ERBE-03-12-08

BINGO!

I like the idea floated by (Roy, Ron ...?) that we allow MI and FL to revote, but strip all the superdelegates from each state because they were the idiots that messed it up in the first place. *Everybody* wins.

observer2:

I remember the time when Gary Hart ran the whole race and went before the convention because the election was so close that he only trailed Walter Mondale by around 650 delegates.

Is it the Obama politics-of-unusual for you and your ilk to call a strong, liberal progressive Democratic candidate and her millions of supporters in the Party "losers."

A close, contested primary election is good for democracy. At some point someone will win and someone will come in second.

Then you can restart your immature nah-nah-nah-nah-nahs. I'll be busy working for whichever of the two fine Democratic candidates from the excellent field of non-loser-types we started with.

Do you consider Al Gore a big loser? Ted Kennedy? Jimmy Carter? Just wondering.

Thanks for the update, Greg.

Proves my point. Obama says one thing in public and then the campaign does the exact opposite behind the scenes.

Nice job, also, Greg, in catching the preciseness of the language that he used.

You been hoodwinked, lemmings, you been bamboozled.

Or as Dylan might say,

You used to be so amused
At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you can't refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose...

Here's another way to look at the math. Barack's mission is not to keep Clinton from passing him (she never will); it's to reach 2,025. If losing MI and FL by big margins in a revote or splitting in Hillary's favor puts him closer to 2,025 than he would be if they leaves things as they are, Clinton loses. Otherwise, none of the FL and MI delegates can help him out toward reaching 2,025.

That Obama would disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan to win the nomination should surprise no one. I'm sure he'd like to take away my vote too if he thought it would help him. He has no respect for the voice of the people whom he pretends to want to speak for. Remember that this is an extremely ambitious man who started running for president after being in the Senate for only two years. Apparently, this is a man who, like George Bush, has a thirst for power; and just like George Bush, he isn't afraid to disenfranchise millions of voters to get it.

To make a mockery of our sacred right to vote by insisting upon a 50-50 split is even worse than taking away their votes entirely. It's an shamelessly open attempt to fix an election and impose his own result upon the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan. It's disgusting, though I doubt that we've seen the worse of it yet.

I have no freakin' clue what we should do about Michigan and Florida, all options seeming bad, but 50-50 seems especially dumb.

Edwards was still in the race then. If he'd campaigned, he might be the nominee, for all we know. Why not split them in thirds? Actually, so was Richardson, Kucinich, and a few others. Mathematically, if they're split evenly, they can't be decisive. I get that's what Obama wants, but this would give him delegates he didn't earn, too.

Obligatory disclaimer: I voted for Obama.
Obligatory reality check: Contrary to popular belief, neither Obama nor Clinton are demons from the lowest hells sent to murder the Democratic party in its sleep.

FIRE KEITH OBERMAN!

HE HAS TO GO .

HE HAS CROSSED THE LINE.

HE IS A MAJOR ASSHOLE AND PRICK