Barring some bizarre new twist in the endless campaign, there will not be "do-over" primaries in Florida and Michigan.

According to news reports, the Obama campaign had a lot to do with that outcome. With the clock ticking, the campaign stalled, quibbled, and objected to different possible election formats -- until state officials finally gave up and packed it in. No point having a party if one of the guests of honor doesn't want to dance.

Tactically that may have seemed like a shrewd move to Obama's campaign managers. Holding two more primaries would have given Hillary two more chances to gain ground; it would have increased the total number of delegates (and thus the number required to win); and it would have guaranteed that this whole messy thing would go on at least until June.

But it was a mistake to place obstacles in the path of the only conceivable means of fairly apportioning and seating delegates from two large states with a combined total of 400 delegates. A mistake because not having those primaries inescapably raises the question of the "legitimacy" (this spring's L-word) of Obama's claim to the nomination. Obama can talk all he wants about having won the most votes, the most states, and the most delegates so far, but if they don't let the voices of the people be heard in two key states, his claim to the popular mantle can be challenged. The Clintonites have already begun using the L-word, and that will surely continue and escalate; indeed, the issue of legitimacy can be (and likely will be) used as a rationale for Hillary's remaining in the race, despite the slim odds of her succeeding.

It was also a mistake because it tarnishes (slightly) Obama's claim to represent a new kind of politics, more idealistic and participatory, less hard-nosed. Yes, of course, if the roles were reversed, the Clintons would have done exactly the same thing: winning at any cost has long been their mantra. But Obama has promised a more principled and democratic politics, less bare-knuckled and more visionary; and the principled move in this circumstance would have been to invite more democracy, rather than less, even at some (small) risk that it would lessen his chances of getting the nomination. The last thing Obama wants or needs is to add fuel to the internecine warfare and to end up with a nomination that carries an asterisk.


 

Comments
661
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

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (9 pages total)

"It was also a mistake because it tarnishes (slightly) Obama's claim to represent a new kind of politics, more idealistic and participatory, less hard-nosed."

You either misunderstand or misstate Obama's philosophy. It presumes respect, it rejects sleaze, and it prefers the high road. But there's a saying used by the Supreme Court that applies here: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." And neither are Obama's good will and preference for a respectful competition. It's Hillary who turned this into a cage match. So don't pretend to be shocked that Barack is now kicking her ass.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 03/25/2008

You can spin it any way you like, but all Obama supporters know that all of the re-vote scenarios presented changed the state rules in order to favor Hillary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 AM on 03/25/2008

Clearly, he DNC primary would be considered illegitimate by most Americans most fundamental understanding of democracy. Whatever the DNCs moving target of the so called rules are at any particular pint in time over the past 40 years, most Americans have these *radical* and *totally wrong* ideals like one person one vote or for example when they go to the polls the votes are actually counted. I know, its crazy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:40 AM on 03/25/2008

A mail-in vote is guaranteed to have lower (and whiter) turnout. It's a naturally-disenfranchising way to hold an election.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 PM on 03/24/2008

One of those correct, obvious facts that HRC supporters ignore while arguing that Obama is disenfranchising voters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 03/25/2008

You can spin it any way you like, but all non Obama supporters know that Obama stalled and discouraged the re-votes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 03/24/2008

Hillary Clinton Flip Flops for Florida and Michigan votes

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 03/24/2008

It's interesting that the Clinton campaign has taken refuge in smokescreens in lieu of valid arguments in their desperate scramble for delegates. First it was "Disenfranchisement". When that one flopped, another pro-Clinton blogger tried "Integrity" with no more success. Now they have professor Keyssar floating the word "Legitimacy". Brilliant! In each case it was blatant question-begging, also known as circular reasoning. A vague, righteous-sounding word is raised, hoping that no one will question that presumption, which just happens to be precisely the whole point of the dispute. It is telling that supposedly intelligent people have to resort to such shyster tactics to defend their position.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 PM on 03/24/2008

rikoriki: You didn't respond head-on to the issues raised in the blog. Do you think that what the blog states is true: "According to news reports, the Obama campaign had a lot to do [with the fact that there may not be revotes in Michigan and Florida" outcome. ]"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 03/25/2008

Obama has consistently said that he would abide by any decision the party made. You say "reports" say he has done otherwise, yet you produce no such reports, not even a quote or a specific reference. Rules were broken in both states long after they were announced. There should be anger over disenfranchising voters, but they were disenfranchised by their own elected officials and that is where the anger should focus! I suggest the good people of Florida and Michigan vote out the SOB's that cost them their voice, the ones who refused to abide by the rules the rest of the country played by. If they don't, they become complicit in their own tragedy. In doing this they will protect themselves from recurrence, and set an example for arrogant leaders in other states. Their votes will then not only count, but set a national precedent that will serve our country well!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 03/24/2008

I beg to differ with your reasoning. When this whole fiasco started, both Florida and Michigan were told that their actions would disenfranchise voters, because they were a violation of rules. Note that this was "their" (the states) actions. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both signed a pledge not to campaign in either state, as did the other candidates in the race at that time. This pledge was, in essence, legally binding, although at this time it appears that the candidates may have violated the spirit of the pledge, one more than the other. Because of a legal document, the lawsuit in Florida failed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 03/24/2008

It's too bad voters weren't encouraged to vote....but not told "it won't count." Rather, that the results would be held UNcounted until the rules were straightened out. Then, and only then, count the votes and let the chips fall where they may. I abhor those citizens being denied participation, yet any "legitimac" MUST depend on playing by "the rules". ....How the voters of Michigan, and astoundingly, Florida allowed this to happen is beyond me. Since a 'do-over' has been ruled out, perhaps they could allow a special additional day of voting to allow those who opted NOT to vote their chance to express themselves. The same rules would be in effect to verify signatures and registered voters etc. That way no one would have been excluded from the process. As a penalty perhaps the Super Delegates---or anyone who helped contribute to the snafu---should have to sacrifice their 'bonus power' as a result. The state would be counted strictly on citizens cast votes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 03/24/2008

Legitimacy requires following the rules. Once the two states mentioned decided to NOT obey the rules there is little that can be done. Anything done now will not be ligitmate because the process is underway.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 03/24/2008

Obama has proven himself to be as unprincipled -- as selfish and as much of a lowlife -- as Hillary is. He is willing to see John McCain win in November -- as his decision to torpedo a rerun of the MI and FL primaries almost guarantees that both states end up in McCain's camp.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 03/24/2008

yeah, i remember hearing Barack telling all the people of Florida and Michigan, "nevermind the dnc, your state lawmakers are right! vote earlier than allowed while my name doesn't even appear on the ballot!".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 03/24/2008

Neither MI nor FL offered a re-run of the primaries. Both offered new contests under different sets of rules tilted toward Hillery.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 03/24/2008

Professor Keyssar, I'm truly disappointed in you...your post is premised on the following..."According to news reports...". Now how in the world can we take your post seriously when it's premised on such a flimsy basis. We all know that "news reports" could be anything at all...and we also know that our vaunted media has lost so much credibility in general and particularly with respect to the election, that relying on "news reports" negates everything that follows. If I was grading your post it would definately deserve a failing grade. And one more point...why wasn't Clinton complaining about disenfranchising voters before the Florida and Michigan primaries? In fact, she was complicit in the establishment of the rules that led us here. Add to that her blatantly false statements about her decision to leave her name on the Michigan ballot in violation of her commitment that she would not "participate" in the Michigan primary and she ends up with zero credibility on the issue. Don't let yourself be dragged down in support of her dishonesty!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 03/24/2008

professor Keyssar,

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 03/24/2008

If your candidate can't win, you must spin :-)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 03/24/2008

Haha ... I like this one. Great post.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 03/24/2008

The problem with setting yourself up as someone trying to break the old political mold is that you have to live by your new rules. Instead we get "the same old, same old."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 03/24/2008

Speaking of "legitimacy" -- where would Hillary be today if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and got herself elected as NY senator based on her name alone? What was her "legitimacy" other than being Bill's wife?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 03/24/2008

Stick to the issue at hand, please. It is GOLDEN not to be disingenuous. readerK.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 03/25/2008

The problem with this post is that the Florida State pols killed any kind of a do-over in their state. And they did this without any significant input or influence from the Obama campaign. Once Fla. killed their do-over, the Michigan do-over became all but doomed. Lets say Michigan had their do-over. Their delegates and superdelegates get seated. Would the Dems make an example of one of the most important swing states in the nation? I don't think so. So they seat Florida. Now you Piss off the state of Michigan because they went through the effort and expense of a primary and for what? Not being treated any better than the rule breaker in the first place? One of two things will happen. Hillary drops out and then the composition of both delegations became academic. Or, they split the delegates 50-50. either way no big deal.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 03/24/2008

Did he really just write that. Obama was for a legitimate Re-Vote in both states. THE STATES HAVE DECIDED NOT TO RE-VOTE. If the illegimate votes are counted as is, Clinton still loses the Popular Vote, Delegate Vote, and Most States won. In others words Hillary can not win

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 03/24/2008

Obama's supporters DID make sure there was no revote in Michigan. ANd that is a fact.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 03/24/2008

Rules are not Rules when they are stupid rules. The point of representation was the intended reason for moving the Primary up, No? Other states did the same possibly. If Florida and Michigan are not counted there will be an outcry. Obama's people of course would try to contain this, but I agree it's a mistake. If they had agreed to some kind of do over it would have shifted the focus off the Rezko trial that will begin again after spring break. And as much as Obama'a people try here,feathers will hit the fan.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 03/24/2008

I guess "three strikes and you're out" is considered a stupid rule at times, too?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 03/24/2008

Obstacles? Fairness? Can anybody remember the facts of the FL and MI problem?

In early 2007 Florida voted to move up their date in violation of DNC rules. In August, a few days after the DNC ruled against Florida, Michigan voted to move up their date.

In September, Clinton, Obama and some of the other canditates sign a pledge - a pledge, mind you - to honor the DNC rules.

Both states knowingly decided to flout the DNC rules. Both were warned and knew that they were forfeiting their delegates. The candidates agreed that there should be serious consequences. What happens in the next election if the DNC backs down over this? Total chaos?

The Democrats should stop agonizing over this non-issue of FL and MI, who were warned and who made a conscious decision to break the rules. The delegates should be divided 50-50 between Obama and Clinton - they can all be seated at the convention and we can focus on defeating McCain.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 03/24/2008

Part of that pledge was not to campaign in Michigan, but Obama's supporters DID campaign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 03/24/2008

If Hillary instead of Barack had "lost" the original "beauty contest," and it it had been Obama instead of Hillary who was pushing for a revote that would count, Hillary would have fought tooth and nail to prevent it, obviously. And she would be right - because that was the rule that all had agree to.

The bottom line is, the rules that all agreed to, were followed. You don't change the rules in mid-game. It's time to drop this.

In addition, if the revote were to happen, it wouldn't be quite fair, since some people would not have been allowed to vote in Mich. That could affect the outcome.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 03/24/2008

Alex... seriously now... With all due respect to you, Ms. Ferraro and Senator Clinton, if Obama had one Florida and Michigan and he was calling for those delegates to be seated, you, Ferraro and Clinton would be screaming bloody murder and pointing out every reason those delegates should not be seated.

"But we all agreeded they wouldn't count! How is it fair if Hillary's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot?!?!"

In the end at the Manual for Democracy.com we've said from the beginning that the rules should not be changed mid-stream. We cannot seat delegates from an election in which neither party campaigned, where both agreed the delegates would not be seated and seriously, Obama wasn"t even on the ticket in Michigan.

How many people stayed home in those states because they knew the votes wouldn"t actually count? The only palatable solution has been floated by Governor Dean, to re-do the elections in both states. That makes the most sense and seems the most fair.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 03/24/2008

and obama stood in the way of the revote, which is dead now.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 03/24/2008

Those who chose to hold the Michigan and Florida primaries with full cognizance of the fact that it was in violation, that it would be hollow, the votes not counting: What kind of Democratic state charter or whatever it's called even empowered them to make such a decision (holding early primaries in violation of National Democratic Party rules) that would render such votes impotent? Clearly it should never have been within their power, so why is culpability being shuffled around like some Three-Card Monty game?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 03/24/2008

Primaries and caucuses are held by the political parties, not by the individual states!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 03/24/2008

Meant to say, "Democratic PARTY state charter or whatever it's called".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 03/24/2008

I'm from Michigan, and it was clear from "Day One" that our elected Democratic officials -- Granholm, Levin, and Stabinow -- felt they could "test" the party because they believed Clinton would be a shoe in. Well, frankly, as a Michigan voter who went out to vote for "Uncommitted" in crappy snowy weather, I say, "You already disenfranchised me last year." Clinton was more than happy to have her cronies in Michigan play around with primary dates because she didn't view Michigan to be important. If she cared, she would have discouraged her friends from testing Howard Dean.

As far as Florida goes, the original legislation to move up the primary may have been voted on by a Republican-dominated legislature, but it was a bill that was co-sponsored by a Democratic supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I'm sure that Bill and Hill promised the moon to all of their rich, Democratic Leadership Council pals -- my deepest wish now is that she not succeed.

As far as fallout in Michigan is concerned, the Democratic voters will remember how Granholm, Levin, and Stabenow have behaved -- and trust me, we'll pay them back on their respective election days with big votes for any Democrats but them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 03/24/2008

As a fellow Michigan voter (who trodded out in the snowy weather to vote for "Uncommitted," but voted for Kucinich at the last moment cuz I couldn't help myself), Chatto has it exactly right. And, right again, "any Democrats but them."