Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

How Obama Ended Up On (And Off) The Michigan Ballot

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

May 22, 2008 03:35 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Sam Stein

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.


It's an argument Sen. Hillary Clinton has made countless times. Asked why the unofficial results of the Michigan primary should be considered legitimate, even though Sen. Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, the New York Democrat usually shoots back: "Well, that was his choice."

And it's true. Obama, in addition to three other Democratic candidates, made the decision in early October 2007 to not compete in a Michigan primary that the Democratic National Committee deemed in violation of the rules.

But there is another facet to the story that -- while it doesn't change the basic facts -- adds a ripple to the debate surrounding who is to blame for Michigan's quandary.

Obama never actually put his name on the ballot.

He didn't submit paper work or gather signatures so that he could compete. Rather his name, in addition to those of his primary opponents, was submitted by Michigan's Democratic Party in accordance with state law.

"This was a standard procedure," said an official with the state's Democratic Party, "all the Democratic nominees that had declared for the race were put on the ballot after we sent their names to the Secretary of State."

Ultimately, Obama chose to remove his name just prior to the deadline to do so. And his decision, political observers say, was likely driven by a desire to appeal to Iowa voters (who were angered that Michigan had moved its primary up in the calendar) as well as the conclusion that he simply could not beat Clinton.

But the argument over what role he played in undermining the Michigan primary -- and whether or not his motives were purely political self-interest or respect for the DNC -- is muddled by the fact that it wasn't technically his choice to participate in the first place.

Clinton, for instance, has argued that, "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot." This statement, while true, glosses over the path that led Obama to ultimately remove his name. Indeed, when the Democratic candidates were submitted it was already well known that Michigan's accelerated primary would have difficultly getting sanctioned.

"Did Obama take overt action in the beginning to put his name on the ballot and then take it off? No," said Bill Ballenger, editor and publisher of Inside Michigan Politics. "It was put on the ballot by the higher ups... At the time, everybody knew that what Michigan was doing [with its primary] was in defiance of DNC rules."

Weeks after his name was submitted without his consent or objection, Obama personally signed an affidavit removing him from the primary slate. According to Ballenger, the senator could not have done the same thing in Florida -- the other state whose primary was unofficial -- as there was no state law there that allowed a candidate to remove his or her name.

After that, there were still political options available to Michigan legislators for running a full and successful primary. In the weeks after Obama, John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson removed their names, state Democrats attempted amending a law in order to restore their candidacies on the ballot. That effort, however, died in the Republican-controlled state senate. Weeks later a November 15th deadline loomed for either or both state party chairman to go to the legislature and ask for the Michigan primary to be disregarded and rescheduled.

"There was a clause in the law that said that if both party leaders believed that the primary had become meaningless, and said look, this is ridiculous, this is a farce, they could have canceled it," said Ballenger. "There was a big crisis meeting among Democrats - there was a big rankle over whether the Democrats would throw in the towel. And they said, no, we are going to go ahead with it."

Fast forward half a year and Michigan and the Democratic Party as a whole still are unsure as to what to do about the primary results. On a conference call Thursday morning, Clinton's senior adviser Harold Ickes said that the campaign wanted the state's 55 "uncommitted" delegates -- which seemed likely to end up with Obama -- to go to the convention without commitments. It is a position reflective of the belief that because Obama did not participate in the primary it is impossible and unfair to determine his level of support.

But such a resolution, which will become clearer during the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing, seems unlikely. As Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DNC member who has been heavily involved in finding a solution to the primary process, told the Huffington Post: "our group of four is not arguing for that."

 
 

Comments
1891
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (18 pages total)
- Shenygirl1 See Profile I'm a Fan of Shenygirl1 permalink

Psnyder.

Your evaluation regarding the Michigan primary is incorrect. If Hillary didn't care about the voters in Michigan, she would have taken her name off of the ballot. And if your candidate, Barry Obama had any gonads he would have left his name on the ballot. ,But it appears that fear of losing caused him to make a rash decision. But, sorry to say, he will pay for that decision in November. Of course this is all conjecture, but then that's what the whole Obama campaign has been about.

Michigan Democrat

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Michigan voters are not happy that Senator "it's all about the people" Obama killed Michigan's Tuesday, June 3, 2008 full primary re-vote......What better way to settle the Michigan issue than to hold a full & fair primary re-vote....regular poll day and hours, regular polling precincts....regular polling personnel.....

No.....because of Obama's unwillingness to be fair....this will all be settled behind closed doors by a committee on May 31.

I know Obama wishes Michigan and Florida would just go away.....and, unfortunately...at least to an extent.....he is getting his wish....this will all be settled behind closed door on May 31st.

A huge loss to Clinton in Michigan on June 3, 2008 would have resonated with the people and the press.....much more than any deal coming out of this "committee" meeting on May 31st.

Senator "shrewd" Obama and his campaign are gaming this process perfectly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 05/27/2008
- ElliotNC See Profile I'm a Fan of ElliotNC permalink

Boy, what kind of meaningless and weak argument does this article support?

The fact that he was going to get creamed in Michigan is somehow offset by the fact that he didn't really make any effort to get on the ballot in the first place?

So what?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

IN MOST INCLUSIVE COUNT, CLINTON HAS THE NUMBERS
By: Jonathan Last
May 23, 2008
Inquirer Editorial Board

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080523_In_most_inclusive_count__Clinton_has_the_numbers.html

The only reason Obama is ahead is considered ahead is because of the Democrat's "FUZZY" pledged delegate math.

Consider this:

Clinton scored decisive victories in the 2nd, 6th, & 7th largest states: Texas (4%), Pennsylvania (10%) and Ohio (10%)....but due to the Democrats" quirky rules, those three large states added up to a total net gain of only 14 delegates for Clinton " an advantage all but offset alone by Obama"s single win in South Carolina (24th largest state), a net pickup of 13 delegates for him there.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is.

And, to boot, we all know that South Carolina will turn TRUE BLUE come November. ;-)

It's no wonder Senator Obama and his supporters are so in love with this "fuzzy" pledged delegate math.

SOURCE: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTY0ZTZiM2FjYmRkYzdiOGUwZTA3YjdlZTY5ZGZkMmU=

Another Case in Point regarding Hillary's popularity nationwide:

If you look at the total electoral college votes from states won to date, here"s the breakdown:

CLINTON: 308
OBAMA: 224

Source: http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html

GO HILLARY!!!!! You are AMERICA'S CHOICE!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

If you want to quote National Review, you might as well hire Karl Rove onto the advisory team for the Clinton Campaign.

The MOST INCLUSIVE POLL is run by Phila Inquirer??? Are you out of your Vulcan mind?

THE MOST INCLUSIVE POLL OF ALL is the democratic nomination process. In that process, Hillary is losing and will never catch up in delegate count. There is no way to slice and dice MI and FL fairly based on the invalid results of their invalidated elections that will allow Hillary to even come close to overaking Obama.

Are you finished with sifting through the Inernet for meaningless polls and spin angles only in favor of Hillary? Good, because it is past time for any of what you spin to even matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Actually....I was not aware that the National Review is considered a mouthpiece for the right.....so....I agree....you must take everything they say with a grain of salt....

However, I did check the facts....and these facts are true:

(Not counting the Texas Two-Step where for many younger aged voters, it was "one person-two votes, but for many older voters who were not able physically to withstand the chaotic caucuses, it ended up as "one person-one vote") Senator Clinton scored decisive victories in the 2nd, 6th, & 7th largest states: Texas (4%), Pennsylvania (10%) and Ohio (10%)....but due to the Democrats" quirky rules, those three large states added up to a total net gain of only 14 delegates for Senator Clinton " an advantage all but offset alone by Senator Obama"s single win in South Carolina (24th largest state), a net pickup of 13 delegates for him there.

This is also true:

If you look at the total electoral college votes from states won to date (just to begin to counter Obama's 30 state victory arguement that he so freely uses), here"s the breakdown:

CLINTON: 308
OBAMA: 224

Source: http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html

Whether the source is a right wing rag or not....does not change the facts if they are true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

Your own post is full of FUZZY INFO:

YOU EVEN QUOTE INFO FROM NATIONAL REVIEW. Do you realize how quickly that puts your credibility in the gutter?

First of all, Clinton's 4% victory in TX is not decisive. SHE DIDN'T EVEN WIN TEXAS.

Second, Texas does not have a "quirky" rule. It's easy to understand if you are not a Hillary supporter and only wants to count primaries:

2/3 delegates determined by primary
1/3 delegates determined by caucus

So for you to claim Clinton won a "decisive" victory in TX is just PLAIN JANE BULL.

The only way to determine "victory" in TX is to figure out DELEGATES. Which, by the way, is the only way to figure out how the nomination is won, a fact that every blind Hillary supporter glosses over and you are no exception.

So, if you do that:

OBAMA 99 delegates
CLINTON 94 delegates

So, can you go over again WHO ACTUALLY WON TEXAS??

Oh yeah, by the way, all the states that Clinton won: claiming electoral college results as way to figure out who will win in November is COMPLETELY MISLEADING: you think any Democrat can, for example, count on winning KENTUCKY?? This method is completely bull also.

In summary, YOU ARE PERPETUATING FUZZY LOGIC from MEANINGLESS ANGLES and SOURCES LIKE NATIONAL REVIEW. In short, just another loquacious Hillary spinster.

Go home and come back when you have meaningful info.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Correct....I agree....Texas does have a Texas Two-Step....and I also agree that those were the rules up front....set forth clearly & fairly for all.

However.....in Texas.....it often was NOT..."one person-one vote."

For many of Hillary's older supporters (and please do not try to argue with me that Hillary's support is greater among older demographics), Hillary's older supporters were physically unable to withstand the 2nd step of Texas' Two-Step.....namely, the oftentimes crazed caucuses that lasted for upwards of 6 hours after the polls closed on election night.

Would you send your 85-year old grandmother off to one of these caucuses....telling her...."ok, granny, you are off to caucus....good luck.....I'll pick you up in five hours......hopefully you can find a seat in that jostling and chaos."

Are you going to try to argue that the caucuses were different than what I described? In fact, there was often such chaos that it took Texas almost a month to sort out the caucus results......some results from a few precincts still have not been 100% sorted out.

So yes....in Texas.....for some, it was "one person-two votes" and for others it was "one person-one vote."

So......all I'm saying is that in Texas......I'm more apt to look at the results from the primary to determine "the will of the people".....not the "fuzzy" math used to allocate the pledged delegates.

Do you disagree?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 05/26/2008
- gvidal See Profile I'm a Fan of gvidal permalink

It was HIS choice to take his name off the ballot becuase he was 45 points behind Hillary at that point - Wow - what a profile in courage - please???

Hillary should get all the delegates she WON in both Michigan and Florida - and the Obama people should stop whinig like babies - something they should leave for that fateful day in November when they elect McCain over Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Obama knew Hillary would beat him handily in Michigan....so he took his name off the ballot .....He didthis tobe able discredit the entire state and claim....."Hey, my name wasn't even on the ballot."

"In essence what Obama did was make a shrewd political calculation about the Michigan and Florida primaries.

He determined through internal polling that Clinton would win those states big and probably go on to secure the nomination. So he withdrew his name to try and ensure that Michigan would not be seen as legitimate and in no way could count, he would of done the same in Florida for the same reason if he could have.

This was seen as his best hope to the snatch the nomination away.

Now that's about as ugly as politics can get. Obama has plotted to steal the nomination by purposely trying to sabotage the votes of Michigan and Florida.

Obama is trying to deprive the country and the Democrats of the very democracy he espouses to love so much. That's a disgraceful and pitiful way to run a campaign, to take the process away from the people."

Subsequent to our January primary.....Michiganders came up with a solution.....hold a full and fair primary re-vote on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

But...Obama got this primary killed......he did not want to be embarassed in yet another large important midwestern swing state.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/OPINION03/803200370/1374

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

Another hypocrisy post by Girardo: SELECTIVE HISTORY RECALL is your M.O.

So when Hillary didn't need the FL and MI votes it's OK, but now she needs them to survive she wants them back? And you are OK with that: of course, you are a Hillary supporter and therefore think just the way she does. Selective history memory is OK, right?

NY Times, September 2007: (remember those halcyon days when she was still the INEVITABLE CANDIDATE??)

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?sq=primary%20florida%20democratic&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1211825739-WA+oY8gMLV0NueWBIrkZNQ

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 05/26/2008
- gbht12 See Profile I'm a Fan of gbht12 permalink

There are sure alot of people on here that want to put the blame on Obama. But hey ,we Obama supporters are used to that. Clinton dosen't get her way she whines about the unfairness about the procedure. Where was the whining when this all happened ? I think it happened in Dec. or January. She was okay with it then because she thought she was going to win everything and so she said on camera, the FL & MI votes in those two states would not COUNT!

But we are used to Clinton and her supporters moving the bar to fit their agenda. Move it, give the delegates, cheat, do whatever you want . (The board will decide what is fair with a majority of them already supporting Clinton I might add)

When it is all over and we have every primary and Obama is still ahead and he has the nomination and nothing BAD has happened to him, then will you be satistied that he has earned the nomination? Then will Clinton decide to quit the race, or will she hope for lightning to hit again?? Just wondering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Again.....for the umpteenth time.....to the Obama supporters who keep making this childish argument.....

I am a voter in Michigan....and like millions of other voters in Michigan (8th largest state) & Flordia (4th largest state)....I want to have a say in who the Democrat's nominee will be.....

WHETHER HILLARY LIKES IT OR NOT!!!!

Why did Obama kill Michigan's full & fair Tuesday, June 3, 2008 primary re-vote??? The answer is simple....he did not want to lose yet another large important midwestern swing state to Clinton.....
so rather than doing the right thing....Senator "it's all about the people" Obama.....just silenced Michigan's voters.

Now how is that "NOT politics as usual?"

"CLINTON RIGHT TO SUPPORT DO-OVER"
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Laura Berman: The Detroit News

SOURCE: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/OPINION03/803200370/1374

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME:

Hillary is LYING ABOUT HER SUPPORT FOR MI AND FL.

Back when she didn't NEED FL and MI, she signed a pledge to discount them for violating the rules.

NY Times, September 2007: (remember those halcyon days when she was still the INEVITABLE CANDIDATE??)

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?sq=primary%20florida%20democratic&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1211825739-WA+oY8gMLV0NueWBIrkZNQ

So when Hillary didn't need the FL and MI votes it's OK, but now she needs them to survive she wants them back? And you are OK with that: of course, you are a Hillary supporter and therefore think just the way she does. Selective history memory is OK, right?

YOU ARE SUCH A HYPOCRITE, Girardo. You seek the same in your presidential candidate, for obvious reasons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

Another post from Girardo, another post full of hypocrisy:

CLINTON IS A HYPOCRITE: wanting MI and FL to count ONLY WHEN SHE FIGURED OUT SHE NEEDS THEM.

From Clinton campaign back when she was the INEVITABLE CANDIDATE:

September 2, 2007, New York Times:

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?sq=primary%20florida%20democratic&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1211825739-WA+oY8gMLV0NueWBIrkZNQ

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 05/26/2008
- aquarharris688 See Profile I'm a Fan of aquarharris688 permalink

How does Hillary see this as uniting the party? Desperation!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 05/26/2008
- Shenygirl1 See Profile I'm a Fan of Shenygirl1 permalink

Handing the nomination over to Obama will not unite the party. I really can't believe the nerve of such a suggestion. Also the super Delegates are not naive enough or so easily intimidated that they would turn their votes over to Obama because Arianna Huffington is demanding it.
No one give a flying f--- what she has to say in her broken English.
Thank you

A Michigan Resident

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Michigan had a fair & full primary re-vote scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008....regular polling day....regular polling hours....regular polling precincts.....regular polling personnel......

BUT....Obama got this re-vote killed......Obama did not want to chance losing yet another important midwestern swing state.....so Obama is satisfied with letting a "committee" decide the fate of Michigan on May 31st.

What a PHONY!!!!!

As a fellow Michigan resident, we know how Obama gamed this to his advantage....even if that meant keeping the voters of Michigan silent......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 PM on 05/27/2008
- dl63 See Profile I'm a Fan of dl63 permalink

This debate is ridiculous. All Michigan and Florida needed to do was to follow the DNC rules, and we would not even be talking about this right now. Hillary agreed to not have the Florida and Michigan vote counted. If she had fought this from the start, it would be sincere. Shame on Florida, Michigan, and Hillary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 AM on 05/26/2008
- Shenygirl1 See Profile I'm a Fan of Shenygirl1 permalink

Before you start discussing the rules, you need to find out what the rules were and how they were interpreted. Election rules vary from state to state and they should not be made to benefit a candidate who was afraid to leave his name on the Michigan ballot. Since he didn't have the good judgement to allow a revote in Michigan, he has lost the state.in the general election. His arrogance and that of his supporters are responsible for the divide in the Democratic party.

A Member of the Michigan Democratic Party

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 PM on 05/26/2008
- Girardo See Profile I'm a Fan of Girardo permalink

Again.....for the umpteenth time.....to the Obama supporters who keep making this childish argument.....

I am a voter in Michigan....and like millions of other voters in Michigan (8th largest state) & Flordia (4th largest state)....I want to have a say in who the Democrat's nominee will be.....

WHETHER HILLARY LIKES IT OR NOT!!!!

"NEW HAMPSHIRE CHEATED, TOO"
By: Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell
Published: March 19, 2008, NEW YORK TIMES
Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, is a United States senator. Debbie Dingell is a member of the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new+hampshire+cheated%2C+too&st=nyt&oref=slogin

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 05/26/2008
- BillyT See Profile I'm a Fan of BillyT permalink

So you want NY Times article?

I'll show you one that clearly shows your candidate Hillary is a LIAR for supporting MI and FL:

NY Times, September 2007: (remember those halcyon days when she was still the INEVITABLE CANDIDATE??)

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?sq=primary%20florida%20democratic&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1211825739-WA+oY8gMLV0NueWBIrkZNQ

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 05/26/2008
- steve70638 See Profile I'm a Fan of steve70638 permalink

For the umpteenth time, how about all the people in Michigan who didn't vote because they were told that their vote didn't count. How do we count those votes?

Did you actually READ the Philly article you reference? I did. It says: "f you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, ....The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair."

This is an OPINION piece...you see, it says "It seems". It also is on a page that says OPINION in BIG letters. This is not NEWS, this is OPINION. It also skims over a little thing called "legal votes". It says the "...most important precept in democratic politics is every vote counts" It is in fact, that every legal vote counts. The votes in MI and FL were not legal. Second, it implies that our general elections are not democratic be cause every vote doesn't count in our electoral college manner.

Furthermore, if you actually read the Detroit news article, you will see that that article is also an OPINION piece, not news.

Keep on twisting it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 05/26/2008
- OhReallySheSaid See Profile I'm a Fan of OhReallySheSaid permalink

So now we learn that the real reason Barry Hussein Obama's name did not appear on the Mi ballot was to ingratiate himself with the Iowans, who were in a tiff over the upstarts Dearborneans. If Barry is a smart as he says he is, then he certainly read and knows the rules and sanctions the DNC have to deal with this and it's quite simple: If the DNC follows its own rules, then MI and FLA delegates will be cut in half, the supers will be eliminated, and the alternates will be halved as well. The delegations will be apportioned by the campaign results, which by the way, have been sanctioned as legitimate by each state's sec of state. Read the rules its all there. Maybe Barry is the real cry baby here. Maybe he's not as smart or clever as Sun God Howard Dean has christened him. And , oh, one more thing: the Democratic Congressional Delegation unanimously approved the primary calendar in the spring of 2007.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 AM on 05/26/2008
- KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I'm a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider permalink

Good article on ABCNews website "The Fallacy of Clinton's 1968 Analogy".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-fallacy-of.html

I usually don't copy bloggers posts but I had to copy this post from a Hillary supporter called "ac" to show how crazy these people can get.

"As a practicing astrologer, I can attest that that comment may be truer than you realize and not quite inapt. Of course Hillary doesn't realize it, but what she said was a psychic slip of the tongue. All along I've believed that her birthtime is 8:10 am. That puts Uranus in her 8th house with Pisces on its cusp, signs of psychic ability. She is very intuitive. She is subconsciously pulling from the Akashic records. She is rather innocentactually. However a look at Obama's chart has transiting Uranus moving to oppose his natal Mars. Interpretations are subtle with this but he very well could be in the proverbial and actual crosshairs. Both upcoming eclipses activate his chart, and he will be in danger for a year or more. Hillary's comments were obvious to any reasoning person, a reference to a timeline. However the Obama thugees like this article's author strive to make it an issue. A warning. It is the intransigence and vitriol coming from Obama's supporters that is adding karmic weight to the scales. All that continued negativity spewed on his behalf will be more responsible for the blood to be spilled than some misconstrued comment by her. Sad."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 PM on 05/25/2008
- suntzu See Profile I'm a Fan of suntzu permalink

When the decisions were made to void the Michigan primary, two of the biggest decision-makers were Terry McAulifee and Harold Ickes, both Clinton officials. All candidates agreed to not campaign there. The Clinton team assumed that Michigan and Florida were non-issues because the race would be over by Super Tuesday. Well, Obama had a good run, and then suddenly MI/FL became problems. Hillary suddenly found a cause -- she was going to restore the franchise to the voters of those states.

Now all the accusations are flying about Obama playing politics not only prior to the non-election in Michigan but since then. I am not so naive to believe that there has been no element of political calculation by Obama but to put forward the proposition that Hillary's motives -- both before and after the non-election -- are completely saintly and only in the interest of the good people of Michigan and Florida is the height of cynicism.

Clinton and Obama are both politicians and are trying to maximize their position, but the whining from the Clinton camp is getting extremely tiresome, and as the convention gets closer, the bawling and wailing is going to reach a crescendo.

Michigan and Florida should be seated, no question. But there has to be a price paid for flaunting the rules. Clinton and her cohorts need to grow up and understand that. Once they do, a reasonable solution can be reached. Until then, it is all sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 05/25/2008