Ya know Tony,

Sad as it is too say…You aren’t the only one to make a similar statement this week…

Like this:

“.. have said I will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but not in this case. If Howard Dean caves on this, I am staying home (along with most African Americans, I suspect)”..

And, believe it or not, they weren’t even mostly African-Americans who said this. I’ve heard from a whole bunch of people…students, professors of all ages and ethnicities, that if Hillary ‘gets’ the nomination, they will simply stay home.

Now of course I think it’s understandable for us to have that knee-jerk reaction, but at the end of the day, we just get another george bush regime same as we got in 2000, whether it be McCain or Hillary. (They really ARE the same, and they’re as bad as Bush…both really). There was a time when we thought that McCain might have principles, and maybe he did at some point. There’s no sign of that now. But, Hillary, (like George Bush) has NEVER had any principles. I mean, if we honestly take the time to look back over that 35 years of ‘experience’ she claims, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that she has no principles.

STILL, there are a handful of African-Americans who do still support her, some out of pure ignorance, and others as a result of the long term patronage stuff. An Obama presidency would upset all of that old guard DLC stuff, and spoil the patronage arrangements that have existed for decades, between the Clintons and some members of the African-American communities.

But, there’s hope. John Lewis, (whose always stood on principles as well as pragmatism) has gotten the message, and I’m sure that others will as well.

But for this..yes..Howard Dean is going to have to do whatever he does. I would absolutely hate to see the voters of Michigan or Florida disenfranchised. However, the only choices here are a do-over, or that NONE of those delegates be seated.

Re By Johnny, March 7 at 4:21 am #

Commended? She didn’t want a do-over. She wanted the ill-gotten delegates seated that were won in primaries that all three major candidates agreed not to contest.
——————————————————————————

Damn right! Clinton is not asking for a do-over. She is asking for the delegates to be seated as is. That is outrageous. It is perfect measure of what an utterly unscrupulous conniver she is. I have said I will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but not in this case. If Howard Dean caves on this, I am staying home (along with most African Americans, I suspect). But I have more confidence in Howard Dean than this. He has some principles, unlike Clinton.

Re By Johnny, March 7 at 4:21 am #

Commended? She didn’t want a do-over. She wanted the ill-gotten delegates seated that were won in primaries that all three major candidates agreed not to contest.
——————————————————————————

Damn right! Clinton is not asking for a do-over. She is asking for the delegates to be seated as is. That is outrageous. It is perfect measure of what an utterly unscrupulous conniver she is. I have said I will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but not in this case. If Howard Dean caves on this, I am staying home (along with most African Americans, I suspect). But I have more confidence in Howard Dean than this. He has some principles, unlike Clinton.

Yeah, that’s what my boot-licking, good for nothing, incompetent, rotten ass governor says now.  Now that her little feet are being held over the fire.  But it was that same governor who was one of the biggest pushers for the early primary.

It has come out today that a good many people in the MDP were actually against it (or they say now that they were against it then), but our “honorable” governor pushed hard for it. 

It’s not hard to divine her reasons.  Her political career is over.  She couldn’t win another election in this state if we used Diebold.  She was born in Canada, so she can’t plot a future presidential bid.  The only reason that she won her second term is that the Republicans nominated Dick DeVos. (enough people were smart enough not to let the founder of Amway, and a West Michigan Dutchman run the state)

She’s been spending a lot of time mentally decorating the office she’ll get in a Clinton administration.  See, MI would “lose” its delegates, but Clinton would sow up the nomination on Super Tuesday.  By the time the convention rolled around, Clinton could give a magnanimous speech about not punishing us lowly voters.  Granholm hands Clinton MI, Clinton hands Granholm an administration slot…simple as that.  Hell, it worked for our last (Republican) governor.

I’ll repeat, i don’t think anything should be done about it.  But, yes, a revote would have to be inclusive.  Beyond that, Governor Granholm can kiss my ass…i made a point to sign the recall petition.

I was watching the news (KCET) last night and they had a segment where they were interviewing governors of Florida and Michigan.  Howard Dean says that unless there is a re-vote, they will not be seated. He sounds very firm about this. It would be unfair to Obama who has scrupulously followed the rules, and even withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan (Clinton did not). I just wrote Howard to tell him I agree with his position on this. (If Howard caves on this, I’m voting for Ralph Nader. I suspect most African Americans will stay home. But I don’t think he will.) The governors were also agreeing with Howard; they both think a revote (preceded by a fresh campaign, of course) would be great for their states and for the Democratic party. The sticking point seems to be the question of who is going to pay for it.  Howard Dean has said that it is not going to be the DNC. Both governors say it is not going to be the taxpayers of their states. They agreed that it ought to be the candidates themselves: they could both go to their donor base to raise the money. I think this is a fine idea. I think Obama should make a public offer to supply the funds if Clinton will match them. How could she refuse? If she does, she will be responsible for disenfranchising the voters. I think this would make Barack look great, and make Hillary look like the conniving politician she is! I also think it would engage the voters of these two states and would be good for the party and for our chances in November.

JS:

Your governor seems to agree with you for the most part.  Here are her comments:

“How do you pay for it and how would you do it in a way that both parties - Obama and Clinton - would accept the outcome?  It would have to be negotiated with the Democratic National Committee, which they would have every incentive to do…One thing I do not want to see is any taxpayer funded redo.  Is there a private source of money that could be used to hold a redo?...If there is a redo, it has to be inclusive.  Whatever it is would have to be a primarylike election.”

Peace.

The DNC didn’t disenfranchise Michigan voters.  The MDP disenfranchised Michigan voters.  80 people (actually 79, because the vote to move the primary was 79-1) decided to move the primary with no consultation from the voters themselves.

The MDP doesn’t want it done over.  I know this because i attended a meeting with Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP.  He is a screaming jackass.

As a Michigan voter, i don’t think anything should be done over…and i don’t think that the delegates should be seated.  But if there is a re-vote, it damned well better be “open” like our primary always is.  If it isn’t, all the voters who aren’t card-carrying Party members will be disenfranchised.  And i want to know what they’re going to do about all the Democrats who voted in the Republican Primary because their Democratic vote wouldn’t count.

And any revote should include all of Michigan’s super delegates losing their votes completely.  This was their decision.  It would be ok to give the voters their voices back, but not the fools who decided and planned this little escapade…the same fools who wasted $10M that the state doesn’t have.

Any more shenanigans from the MDP, and i’ll refuse to vote for a single Democrat on the ballot…no matter what. I’ll be voting against every Democrat at the State level anyhow, as they’ve proved themselves wholly incompetent time and time again. (actually, i’m also voting against every incumbent at the State level, regardless of party.)

I realize that many here believe that do-overs in MI and FL would be a case of changing the rules in mid-game.  However, consider two things.

First, I think all of us agree that the Democratic Party disenfranchisement of the MI and FL voters was outrageous to begin with.  Thus, as long as any do-overs are set up properly, and are done carefully and fairly, I don’t see why there should be opposition.  Because…

Second, there is no guarantee that Hillary will win either or both, despite her “wins” in the non-primaries in those states.  Indeed, I believe she is well aware that she could lose one or the other (or both).  If so, then contrary to all the flack she has gotten thus far for pushing for these do-overs, she will have shown far more backbone in RE-enfranchising these voters than Obama has.  So even if she loses one or both, she is to be highly commended for standing her ground.

Peace.