Obama, actively fighting a re-vote in FL/MI
Submitted by mad4clark on March 12, 2008 - 1:37pm.
Barbara Boxer | Florida | Hillary Clinton | Michigan | Democratic politics
The gloves are off.
Obama's message is clear..
Scr*w the "Will of the People"
Up until now, it's looked like he was just trying to delay the inevitable, but it's obvious that he's willing to go further and actively fight any re-vote in FL and MI. And unfortunately, time is on his side...
Another problem is that the state needs 90 days to prepare for a primary once the governor and legislature have signed off on a new election. That approval has not come, and any new primary would have to be held before June 10 to comply with DNC rules.
June 10, however, is 93 days away, and there is no immediate compromise on a statewide election in sight.
I'm not sure what he hopes to gain....well apart from winning the Nom. But if he wins it this way, he is pretty much assuring a defeat in November. And not just that......by disenfranchising over 2 million voters in these states....not to mention millions of angry women......he will cause divisions within the Party that may take decades to heal.
Some "uniter" eh?
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is raising red flags about the idea of a revote in Florida to solve the mess over the state's delegates to the presidential nominating convention. David Plouffle, campaign manager to Obama, noted that the lead advocate for a mail-in revote is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, is a supporter of his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton. Plouffle said any revote would need to get U.S. Justice Department approval.
Riverdaughter says, yep that DOJ....
......Didn’t they learn anything from the US Supreme Court decision that went contrary to their attempt to count the votes in Florida in 2000? Have they forgottent the disaster that followed from that election catastrophe? I guess not. And this is the BUSH Department of Justice. You know, the one that loaded the civil rights and voting rights divisions with friends of Monica Goodling.
Does the DOJ need to approve a revote, presumably under the Voting Rights Act? There seems to be no Constitutional claims that could be made. Bill Nelson's lawsuit might have prospered if there were. If it does, then it is time to take another look at all the contests to see if the DOJ approved them and/or needed to approve them. The Texas contests in particular seemed to be institutionalized voter dilution of Latino votes in South Texas. Was that approved by the DOJ? Did it need to be? Would it be?
But what this really means of course is that Obama will say and do anything to stop the voters of Florida and Michigan from having a representative delegation at the Democratic National Convention.
Lest we forget...
Taylor Marsh, via Riverdaughter...
Obama, coming off a huge win in South Carolina, with Clinton getting reams of bad publicity at the time, also ran million dollars worth of cable advertisement in Florida. He and Clinton were on the Florida ballot. As I’ve said before on Michigan, Obama chose to take his name off to genuflect to Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Obama wants an even split in Florida, while simultaneously throwing a wrench into a revote. This is about keeping voters from having their votes counted, because Obama is afraid of giving Clinton the advantage
Forget the 'will of the people' or even 'the good of the party'.
This man is determined to win by any means possible and no matter the consequences.
So glad he's for 'a different kind of politics' /snark
I thought I could live with his nomination, but as time has gone by, he is showing his immaturity in this election. He has crossed the line, and no way could I support his me, me, me attitude. His stardom has gone to his head, and the spoiled brat he is, is coming forward. NO WAY!!
I've re-read your diary over and over. I'm still yet to find anything even remotely in the same galaxy as "actively fighting." There's just no there there.
Where have you shown anything substantiating that? The official statement from Obama is that he "will accept any solution that the DNC decides upon."
He has repeated those same words multiple times over the last few days. How does saying that he'll accept "any decision" that the DNC comes up with constitute "actively fighting"?
I'm sorry. But this is pure silliness.
Man, I wish this were a Wes Clark site again. It was so much more dignified.
...the parts where they don't accept the Jan 29th results and that they don't approve a re-vote, unless the DOJ is involved.
Putting up roadblocks is actively fighting in most people's books.
Lets face facts...
The only way Obama can win the Nom is to deny the votes in FL and MI be counted, and as such he will fight the "will of the people" tooth and nail.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Hillary Clinton personally signed the document saying that she wouldn't accept the results. As far as the latter point that they don't approve a re-vote... they don't have to approve it. It has nothing to do with them. It's not their decision. It's the DNC's decision. And their official statement is that they'll "accept any decion" that the DNC comes up with. "Accept[ing] any decision" isn't fighting. This is a non-point.
This diary simply doesn't rise to a sound intellectual threshold.
You're making yourself and others hysterical over fiction. Just stop it.
The candidates NEVER signed anything saying they would not accept the results.
They both signed a document ONLY promising not to campaign in those states.....which Obama broke by running ads in FL
Dean in his last interview on MTP threw the problem back to the States.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
All facts can be checked.
I suggest you do so.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign OR PARTICIPATE in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."
Au revoir.
I did a google for the first ten words of that pledge (after Hillary's name). The ONLY source I came up with is DU, and there was no link there.
So what's your source for this pledge? Because I question that she signed anything of the sort.
I've tried to locate this pledge as well since I've seen many references to it. The best I've found so far is on the fladems.com website and they have three versions. One of those three versions if from the Iowa Democratic Party site which includes the letter sent to the candidates asking them to sign the pledge. Neither site has a copy signed by either the Clinton or Obama campaigns.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
archives/2007/09/the_jockeying_behind_the_four.php
and this
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/
edwards-obama-sign-four-state-pledge/
Edwards, Obama Sign ‘Four State Pledge’
By Sarah Wheaton
UPDATE, 4:15 p.m.: Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has just announced that they will also sign the “Four-State Pledge.” Here’s the statement from Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager:
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
Proud to be an American.
...of which I was a member until July, last.
From their web site.....
Party Puts Offer on the Table
For Immediate Release: March 13, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - Last night, Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen L. Thurman sent a memo to the Presidential candidates, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and Florida Democratic leaders, urging them to consider a combined vote-by-mail/in-person election.
"Democrats are passionate, and Democrats are energized. We can capture this enthusiasm if we come together around a solution that offers the people of Florida a voice in the nominating process," Thurman said. "If this proposal isn't what the people want, that's okay. We're putting something on the table, but it's by no means a done deal."
"The Florida Democratic Party welcomes any and all suggestions about how to move forward. However, at this point, the Party has not been offered any other option that would allow all of Florida Democratic voters - whether they're fighting in Iraq, retiring in Boca, raising horses in Ocala, or entertaining families at Disney - the opportunity to participate, other than the January 29th primary that the DNC will not recognize."
The full memo can be downloaded here:
http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/20080312_vbm_memo.pdfYou can submit your input by Friday, 3/14/08, at 6:00 PM EST here:
http://www.fladems.com/page/s/primarymemoAnswers to Frequently Asked Questions:
Q. Does Florida Law allow for this type of election?
A. State law does not apply to this election, which would be run by the state party, managed by experienced election management companies and overseen by a reputable accounting firm. Media reports on this subject have been inaccurate. State law does not allow for a state-run mail-in election with candidates on the ballot, but this election would not be run by the state.Q. How can the Party pull off this election in such a short period of time?
A. Two main reasons: The Florida Democratic Party has researched this process for the past year, and the election would actually be run by election management companies experienced in these type of special elections. When the Republican Legislature moved up the state's primary and put it out of compliance with DNC and RNC Rules, we began looking at all of our possible options. Last summer, we proposed a vote-by-mail election to the DNC, and Rules & Bylaws Committee members were very interested in the idea. Unfortunately, there was no funding at the time. Recently, public and private commitments have been made to assist in raising the $10-12 million it would take to run the election.Additionally, the Florida Democratic Party has accomplished numerous feats in the past three years that no one thought was possible, including paying off an inherited $1 million in debt; building county parties into functional, vote-building organizations; holding a successful state convention that raised nearly $750,000 despite no major presidential candidates in attendance; and picked up a Cabinet seat for the first time since 1998, nine State House seats and two congressional seats all previously held by Republicans (no net loss at any level of government).
Q. Why would you have private companies run the election?
A. Florida Law does not allow for a state-run election under the current circumstances. Nevertheless, the process would be transparent and accessible to the public, as required by DNC Rules and in the spirit of Florida's Sunshine-in-the-Government law.Q. Can you pay for the election with soft (non-federal) money?
A. Yes. The DNC's legal counsel informed the Party that this election could be paid for with non-federal or soft money. Florida law places no limits on contributions given to political parties.Q. Would you have enough time for overseas and military voters to get ballots and send them back?
A. Yes. Like the state of Florida does with absentee ballots for military and overseas voters, the Party would mail ballots to these voters 45 days prior to the election.Q. What is the last day the election can be held?
A. We have until June 10, according to DNC rules. Delegate selection must be completed by June 21.Q. Does the U.S. Justice Department have any involvement in this?
A. Florida has five counties that require "preclearance" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Fortunately, this is a very inclusive process, and we will file the appropriate paperwork. Also, per Section 2, ballots would be printed in English, Spanish and Creole.Q. How long a lead time will be needed to allow for voter registration?
A. Generally, 30-45 days are needed. There is ample time for independents to join the Democratic Party and participate if they wish.Q. Will Republicans and independents who already voted in the January 29th Republican primary be allowed to switch their registration and vote in the new contest?
A. No one who voted in the Republican primary on Jan. 29 will be eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, even if they switch parties. Our voter file enables us to easily identify these voters.
http://www.fladems.com/content/w/party_puts_offer_on_the_table
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Define "participate". "Participate" means campaigning (or dare I say, advertising).
Obama broke the 'rules' with a national ad buy that included both Florida and Michigan.
It didn't do him any good though he could have been beaten in Florida worse. Maybe he actually gained 5 points with his ads. By being lukewarm in public and fighting to stop a Florida revote behind the scenes, Obama's losing more votes there every day.
Your excellent logic and attention to detail is one of the things I admire about you. In this case, however, I cannot agree with the logical leap you seem to have made in asserting that a pledge not to PARTICIPATE in an election contest is equivalent to a pledge not to ACCEPT THE RESULTS of said election contest. Sure, it's a bit of a stretch; but I can see that is one possible interpretation. However, it is definitely not the only interpretation, nor have you demonstrated that it is the best of all possible interpretations. Did you decide to say good-bye when you realized that you could not demonstrate the latter?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
This morning on CNN Dean clearly said that any plan would have to be approved by both campaigns. The DNC can't/won't make a decision that is not okay'd by both Clinton and Obama. So here we have each entity saying they'll accept whatever plan is decided, but no one will decide without everyone's buy in.
And Obama is throwing up roadblocks...playing for time in the hope that it will run out on a re-vote.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Exactly, thank you for proving my point.
Dean makes the decision.
And then each campaign has to approve it. But they are already on record. The Obama camp has repeated multiple times over the last few days and has already re-stated this morning that they will accept "any decision" that the DNC comes up with. So their approval is already there. It's a given. Period.
The Hillary camp is also on record: go by the unauthorized primary results from a vote that we all agreed wouldn't count, or have a new vote, as long as it's not a caucus, and we don't really like the mail-in idea either.
So it's:
A) "Any decision"
or
B) "Go by the unauthorized primary results from a vote that we all agreed wouldn't count, or have a new vote, as long as it's not a caucus, and we don't really like the mail-in idea either."
Which is the side standing in the way? A or B?
There is no intellectually honest way to endorse the substance of this diary.
It's called metonymy, darlin.
"The White House will make the decision on this." Is a piece of architecture adjudicating for America? "We defer to the crown." Was England being ruled by a jeweled hat?
Come on. Let's not be silly.
The substance stands. The situation remains: "any decision" vs. a whole list of qualifications.
After witnessing the mess the of caucuses in Texas (and either purposeful rulebreaking or rulebreaking by ignorance) there is absolutely no validity to the role of 'caucuses' in electing anyone to anything.
Because of infringing on certain groups time constraints (Orthodox Jews cannot participate on Saturdays, working men and women find it hard to get away from jobs during weekdays, parents with young children who don't have (either time or money or the inclination) for babysitters, seniors who are uncomfortable about traveling to and from sites after dark, active duty soldiers who cannot participate, the list goes on and on.
In Texas, the Obama campaign told its supporters that it was simply a matter of going, signing in and leaving. That's a primary -- not a caucus. They advised their supporters poorly.
I saw women with children and seniors turn around and leave because they couldn't spend 3 hours at a caucus. Those of us in the Hillary camp advised potential caucusers that it could be a longer process -- it may have cost us some delegates to the State Convention, but at least it was honest.
Caucuses should be strictly about "party business" and never used for anything as vital as an election...
...Sweetie
I couldn't agree more.
And THIS is where the conversation should be- an adult dialog about refining American elections.
We have pre-existing flaws in our election system(s). And we now have a mess on our hands with Florida and Michigan.
But just because this causes us consternation, it doesn't justify wielding it for silly political gain.
The flaws in our electoral processes aren't proof that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are the spawn of Satan. And we need reject such assertions in whole. These sorts of threads just get silly. The mess that we have isn't Barack's fault or Hillary's fault. It's just a mess that exists independently of either.
And we do a disservice to the party- and we act in benefit of McCain- when we stir up such fictionalized bitterness and division around the situation. And we need to demand more of each other intellectually if this is where the conversation heads.
Maybe they were useful when the the Pilgrims came over from England (or in my case, when the Cajuns were pushed out of Canada) but they have no place in modern political decision making other than as a vehicle for intra-party business -- such as choosing which individuals represent candidates at the State and National Conventions or for putting forth proposals to be adopted by the Party at the State or National level.
Having been a regular caucus goer over the decades, it's been a clear trend.
The latest election is just the proverbial nail in the coffin. Several states will be proposing that caucuses be eliminated from the presidential preference race for 2012 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
It's overdue.
more "dignified" if people posting here were actually trying to help Wes, instead of throwing nails in the roadway.
Impeach the MSM! Then Cheney, then Chimpy
The DNC has to know that you can't toss MI and FL with any expecation of winning in November, so Obama may have to take his lumps. Corzine and Rendell may have to raise the money to pay for the entire thing for the DNC, without any help from the O campaign.
...care if FL and MI are tossed.
I think they truly believe that Hillary supporters, Fl and MI voters, will just let bygones be bygones in November. That 'teh awesome' will heal all wounds.
I've got news for them.
The DNC needs an intervention. ...before they self destruct.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
The Democratic governors may have to put pressure on the DNC to make this happen or seat the delegates from the Jan. election.
has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
So whatever she might suggest will be ridiculed and shot down as partisan (and racist). Unless she should crossover and endorse Obama.... At which point her suggestions would carry gravitas and weight. Thinking strateeeegerically now.
I think it might be a smart idea. Become a crossover Obama super delegate -- just to get some respect and taken seriously-- and call for the new Michigan primary. ;)
But they're broke. They can't pay for it. I still say the candidates should fundraise a few million to be matched by a DNC fundraiser.
A friend of mine suggested that if someone put this do-over challenge on a website as a fundraiser, they'd have the money in no time. Call it a "Do-Over for Democracy".
Major Dems have already pledged $15 mil and I'm sure could go more.
No.....it's simply that Obama is afraid he will lose the Nom if MI and FL are counted and to him, winning the Nom is more important than having their votes counted.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Since he thinks this election is a GAME, and WINNING is all that matters...He is NO WAY ready to be President. Many of us in Michigan are mad as hell. Not only that, we are a democracy, and have had enough of the Supreme Court, making decisions.
IF the DNC goes along with this crap, I will tell you, I and MANY others are voting for McCain or just NOT voting!!! Why you ask, because if these young people think that winning by all means, like American Idol, perhaps better be sent where they are going to be needed to protect the U.S.A. I think its time to salute!!
I have grand children who are going to be old enough to serve, and its sure not my first choice, however, there needs to be an awakening.
After this, I will NOT vote for Obama...no matter what!
I just got home and read an article that Obama is blaming Geraldine Ferarro for causing a divide in the Democratic Party. I thought to myself say what......? He is the one causing the divide. ( I think he has been secretly taking lessons from Bush on how to divide people). I mean you know Bush he took lessons from the best KKK Karl Rove. So why not?
I used to like Obama. But the more I hear him and of him the less I like. He seems to enjoy having his supporters and Hillarys supporters sniping at each other. So that is just another thing that goes to prove that it is all about him. And screw the people.
He doesn't want a re-vote of Michigan or Florida. And he doesn't want them to count as they are either. Because he knows both ways he loses. It doesn't matter that he is costing himself the White House by disenfranchising all these people.
I know I am mad as hell. And I'm not taking it any more.
I give you odds, that he has taken KKKKarl's advice, and is going to create a foot stompin' childlike epic, to get his way. Never, Never, will I vote for him. I will not be responsible for putting him in office with his finger of that BIG RED BUTTON.
Can you imagine, what he would do, when he goes up against world leaders and doesn't get his way. He can swmooze them all he wants, but they are no fools.
I am so sick of this childlike attitude of his and ALL of his supporters who bring the sainted ones messages here. I just can't control my discust!! They are rude, determined, and here to devide.
Its one thing to go to the BO blogs and join the mob, but coming to WKC site is just overbearing and rude. We spend all our time defending whomever is the whipping Hillary remarks on the MSM. I get enough of it there, and don't need to read his followers kumbiah...Grrrrrrrrrrr
We don't need Obama sabatourers here, they're attacks are getting quite old and tiresome.
I really think that we need to clean house here at CCN, we cannot afford the distractions of these Obamacans in our midst pretending to be Democrats...
I agree with you Dee, I will never vote Obama, never. He is a divider pretending to be a "uniter", Obama is Bush!!
If they clean house here, Jack, you'll be gone. You're not helping the cause.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Engaging in democracy is now called "sabotage"?
I've not called for partisanship. I perfectly respect and understand why people would support Hillary. She's a wonderfully capable candidate. I've not called for Obama conversion once on this site. And I remain respectful to Ms. Clinton. I've just requested a return to civility and higher tone. Supporters of both candidates do their candidate disservice- and offer McCain benefit- when the tone gets ugly and bitter.
As far as relevant reading on the subject of mandated uniformity of opinion, I might suggest you begin with some Hannah Arendt. Perhaps "The Origins of Totalitarianism" might be a good place to start.
I continue to advocate for Wes Clark as I have done tirelessly since 2003; he is an American hero.
You have never been anything but respectful and polite here and I just want you to know how much it's appreciated. We will never agree on who is best qualified and ready to be president right now, but you have conducted yourself in a way that I don't believe would bother or hurt General Clark in any way if he were to read you.
Thanks for that.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Arrogant spoiled, ungrateful brats the lot of them. They have no idea what Hillary went through for us, for America for crying out loud, they have no idea what they are talking about, everything they have is BECAUSE of the Clinton's! And they hate hillary for it, the millinials ie Generation O! are the most spoiled selfish generation in American history, I will never for the life of me understand how they grew up to be what they are...
that the repubics use all the time: take a charge or allegation and switch it around 180 degress and blame it on the "allegers." With the complicit media we have, it works like a charm.
Impeach the MSM! Then Cheney, then Chimpy
or watch the party go down to one more shot-in-the-foot defeat to the Repubs. It's hard for me to believe that the powers that be will throw the election overboard for the sake of looking PC and pleasing the bleeding-heart chattering class that forgive Obama all. But, ya never know.
Geraldine Ferraro was so right in what she said. If Obama wasn't being propped up by white-guilt liberals, black Dems, idealistic young folk, and cross-over Repubs voting for an immensely beatable candidate, he would have been gone long ago.
I also would never vote for him, and I have absolutely no fear that he will win the general. The GOP will portray him as an ultra-liberal supported by a rabble of wild-eyed radicals and extremist Afrocentrists. If it all comes to this, at least he will be damaged goods and gone from the national scene in 2012!
Welcome to CCN Briar!!!
He will not win the GE, but he is being suckered by KKKarl. He is following the plan book, thinking he can win, because all Hillary folk will vote for him in the end...well not this one for sure.
Everybody can do what they wish, but I have stated my plan, to obstain.
Obama is radicle, and as leader of the free world, he stinks.
Heres for hoping that there is an Independent (hopefully not Nader) on the ballot that I can vote for. Otherwise I may just under vote for the first time. I cannot see myself voting for Obama or McCain (my state will go red anyway). But I will show up for the down ticket races. The US Senator race is just too important. My state really needs to take down the evil Inhoffe and replace him with the progressive Dem Andrew Rice. But for Obama... This is one Hillary supporter that will not give her vote to him. I'm just too mad at him for the way that he and his campaign along with the media has been treating Hillary.
She doesn't deserve this.
"If Obama wasn't being propped up by white-guilt liberals, black Dems, idealistic young folk, and cross-over Repubs voting for an immensely beatable candidate, he would have been gone long ago."
Never vote for dividers masuqrading as uniters, we got one of them already and his name is George Dubya Bush!
These god damn kids need to grow up and get over themselves, they don't what they hell they are talking about... they're arrogance is mind boggling, the audiacty to think they know anything about anything because they read a book. A BOOK! Hubris, Obamacan Hubris...
"The GOP will portray him as an ultra-liberal supported by a rabble of wild-eyed radicals and extremist Afrocentrists."
Except for the ultra liberal part the GOP would be right about him...
it's sad that they may not realize that his books are not quite what they seem. the "autobio" is partially fictionalized; "Audacity" was a group project.
In the store this morning I saw some heavy-duty Obama hits (screaming fights over women; terrorist connections)on the front page of the Enquirer (or one of the tabloids). The fun begins. (Of course Murdock wants HC to win, I expect, beause he (wrongly) thinks she will be easist to beat in Nov.) Now, if they would just talk about the ignored slums in his district in Chi-town.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
about Murdoch. Something Kossacks don't seem to be aware of...
Murdoch's New York Post endorsed... Obama.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm
and Murdoch's Times of London endorsed... Obama.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3118539.ece
If you enjoy the soothing sound of evening crickets- post this info at Kos! Guaranteed.
For some reason, I thought Murdoch would be pro-McCain. Maybe the right tab doesn't know what the left one is doing?:) Or..anything to sell a paper?
I almost bit and bought!!
I'm too lily-livered to go to Kos, tho--I like to hang on on the Hc supporting blogs, when not here at dear CCN. (I do love Taylort Marsh!)
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
these college kids think they know about the worldbecause the read because but in truth they know nothing, they are a bunch of fuzz headed idealists who have no clue, no damn clue what the world really is and what it takes to get things done, it takes a Clinton.
Stop this talk about redo elections!!!!
Since when do we redo elections just because they don't turn out the way we want?
Sen. Obama signed an affidavit to take his name of our ballot in Michigan. Why should anyone else pay for his mistake? He had instructed his supporters to vote 'uncommitted', I guess that's something like 'present'. Hillary had enough sense to leave her name on the ballot.
If we are going to redo any elections, lets redo all the states that held caucuses. Caucuses are not fair. They do no represent the working people, elderly etc. Almost 2.5 million people voted in Florida and Michigan. Let's honor their vote and seat the delegates.
If Sen. Obama doesn't want my primary vote to count, he can't count on it in November.
of which I am a HUGE fan! Counting voter's votes always seems to me like something that should be related to democracy...
Has anybody been checking into the accuracy of that Mississippi vote? I seem to recall them going all Diebold not long ago- against the will of the people. Will have to check my files but I'm almost positive - they fought like crazy to keep them out but the SOS granted them the contract anyways against the people's wishes.
I'm sure the folks at BradBlog are all over it! Like white on rice. Hope that primary wasn't stolen too...
I love when my memory works! Yep, they're blanketed with Diebold- a company banned in California. The contract was heavily supported and lobbied for by Trent Lott and a band of merry voter hating republicans in 2005 and 2006.
From the Miss Sec of State site:
--------------
Diebold Election Systems, which is providing statewide voting machines in Georgia, Maryland, Alaska, and Utah, <----(MS note: Hmmm, who won those other Diebolded states? Quick!! Somebody call Brad!!) was selected by a committee led by [Mississippi Secretary of State] Clark and involving local election officials and representatives of the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services. The ITS Board unanimously approved the purchase Tuesday, calling it one of the most thorough and careful in recent years. The cost of 5,164 new machines for the state is $15 million and includes training, maintenance, voter education, and technical support for the next five years. The purchase is funded by 95 percent federal money appropriated under the “Help America Vote Act,” or HAVA, and 5 percent state matching funds.
Under federal law, all central scanner machines, lever machines, and punch-card machines must be replaced by 2006. More than 75 counties will be required by federal law to change to new, more accurate machines by January 1, 2006. In addition, at least one device that is fully accessible to the disabled must be in every polling place.
The new touch-screen machines, also known as DREs (Direct Recording Electronic device), will be used in most Mississippi counties beginning with the 2006 primary elections in June. The change to more accurate, accessible voting machines is mandated under HAVA, which was passed in response to numerous election problems in Florida and other states in the 2000 presidential election. The number of machines to be purchased comes to about one per 190 voters, based on turnout in the past two presidential and gubernatorial elections.
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/PressReleases/Articles.asp?prno=2027&search=
-----------------------------------
So yes, election integrity watchdog Brad Blog was climbing all over it, calling attention to the dangers!! .... In the Nov 2006 elections...(see below)
Today? Not so much... Lots of silence today about Mississippi's notoriously flawed and hackable Diebold touchscreens and tabulators. Funny that.
-----------Brad Blog, Nov 2006:----
In Mississippi...
# Voting machines not working in Leflore, Jackson counties; other problems reported statewide (Diebold)
"Problems with Mississippi's rollout of touchscreen voting machines are surfacing across the state...'We found out about an hour into the process that these machines were programmed incorrectly,' he said. 'I don't know what happened.'"
# Leflore County - Paper ballots required at precinct on Claiborne Avenue (Diebold)
# Leflore County - Machine woes plague polling sites (Diebold)
NOTE: Remember, MISSISSIPPI Sec. of State Clark is on record --- via video here --- telling Election Integrity advocates, during a public meeting with a Diebold rep that their machines are "the most secure thing outside of a Wells-Fargo truck." Will he eat those words tonight?
----------------------------
------Brad Blog, March 2008--
( crickets )
Obama is stealing the election from Hillary using diebold tabulators, we've got to stop this!
I guess his alliance with Lieberman has paid off.
Big Tent Democrat @ Talk Left
So say his MI Campaign Co-Chair (TPM):
State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path. "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."
Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.
(Emphasis supplied.) I guess the Obama MI Co-Chair does not agree with Obama's previously held positive view on mail in voting, agreeing instead with Obama's newly minted distaste for mail in voting. Oh and a 50-50 split is the ONLY thing Obama will accept in Michigan. Hope we are clear now on how Obama feels about the will of the people of Florida and Michigan.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Your subject line is just a bit misleading. If you track the source back to the Detroit News Obama is quoted there as saying he has "some concerns" about a vote by mail but he's sure "sure it will get sorted out." I hope that both campaigns have some concern about a hasty vote by mail since we'd like to see every vote count and each person vote once.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
Obama's MI Chair....
State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path. "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/17353/7404
And...
The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/151551/198
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Obama has not rejected the vote by mail, his national campaign has not rejected vote by mail (check the Detroit News article), only his Michigan co-chair is quoted as rejecting vote by mail. Maybe this Hunter character didn't get the memo.
Obama has said publicaly that he does not reject the vote by mail idea, but it has to be done right. Based on the quote that you provided he does support the idea and is co-sponsoring a bill to give everyone that right (with the needed controls I hope).
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
...but "did" sponsor....
Obama was one of three co-sponsors of the Vote by Mail Act of 2007 aimed at helping states move to mail voting,
Now that it affects him he's throwing up road blocks like saying the DOJ has to get involved.....
I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is out there having his campaign argue that mail in voting has some type of impact that requires a Voting Rights Act review that could be troubling. That it will take more than a rubber stamp. Let's be clear, if the implication is this is just filling out a form, then no one would be bringing this up. Even the time frame is not a particular problem. No, Barack Obama is intimating that HE will raise a Voting Rights Act issue about mail in voting.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/151551/198
FL has three days.....now two....to make a decision. They need 90 days to implement a mail in primary. Obama is dragging his feet ......gee I wonder why.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
a hypothetical. Let's just take the article at face value for the sake of argument and say Obama will ONLY accept a Michigan 50-50 of the delegates, which would yield him just a slightly higher margin than it would were he to claim all the Uncommitted votes (that were cast for both him AND Edwards-- and I believe Biden and Kucinich or someone got a few votes too)
Or say he agreed to just take ALL the uncommitteds.
Then WHAT IF Edwards were to endorse Clinton, and one might assume his voters would largely wish to follow his lead?
That would then disenfranchise all those Edwards people and turn them into an automatic Obama voter, without their consent.
So complicated this mess...
There is no reason not to support a revote in MI and Fl, unless you are afraid you are going to lose.
Obama is not Bush
Hillary is not Bush
Bush is not Clinton
Clinton is not Hitler
Obama is not Hitler
Hillary is not Rove
Obama is not Rove
Rove is not even Hitler
Only Hitler is Hitler
Only Hillary is Hillary
And so on...
The only way we are going to be taken seriously is if we avoid the hyperbole and exaggerated, baseless claims that are running rampant on the blogs and on the airwaves right now. Like a plague.
We need to make a distinction between ourselves and the knee jerking, hysterical rabid haters out there who are jumping and leapfrogging from one puddle of disinformation to the next without stopping to breathe.
Cooler heads prevailing and all.
We need to leave the sick identity switchings to Limbaugh, Drudge, the Freepers and Daily Kos.
IMHO
Oh but... Cheney is Lucifer. :)
Not that anybody cares, but I vote for cancelling this whole ridiculous "primary" season and holding a National Democratic Primary day on a nice warm day in September. Every state, every precinct; DEMS ONLY, and you must have been registered prior to the election for at least 60 days and pledge to remain a Dem for at least a year. (Sorry, if that screws up the convention, but it can be changed, as well.)
Impeach the MSM! Then Cheney, then Chimpy
Poll: Florida Democratic voters want primary do-over
Lets face it, there are 3 choices.
1) The DNC and the Obama campaign accepts the results from the Jan 29th election
2) They do a "do over"
3) They refuse to seat the delegates and lose the GE.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
"In contrast, Florida's House Democratic members have expressed opposition to re-do by mail of the Florida primary." ..From the article Mad referenced
Why all the 'blame Barack' when the Flordia House Democrats have come out against the mail-in redo?
FL Dem Congressionals are against the re-vote because they want the original election results to stand.
Obama doesn't want the original results to stand....nor does he want a re-vote.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Its true that he doesn't want the January results to stand but he has not said that he opposes a re-vote.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
I hope so!
I am for the revote- Well, I'm actually for any vote where the most voters possible get the most votes counted as possible.
Love that provincial vote counting thing!
So he's on board?
What with the fierce urgency of NOW!
We have millions of voters waiting to see if they count or not.
On a proposed Caucus idea
On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
--Hillary Clinton
::
Of course the arguments about these methodologies would apply for each candidate, Obama's people are better organizers, and do better in Caucuses, and a Mail in may be detrimental to the "Texters" that support Obama.
Of course, this is more about the Supers from Florida for Hillary Clinton, and a "re-do" in Michigan would likely produce and entirely different outcome in Obama's favor.
Tell me again why not just have a Primary vote?
And tell me again what you would say if George Bush suggested a re-do by mail of Florida in 2000.
Which brings us to pieholes...
Thu Mar 13, 7:38 PM ET
Hillary on Michgan...
[...] The Clinton campaign made it clear that it strongly prefers a state-run primary to mail-in voting during the meeting, according to a campaign official speaking anonymously about the private talks. People involved in the private meeting said the Clinton advisers favor the state-run primary because there would be less likelihood of problems such as fraud and ballot counting than with a mail-in vote. [...]
(assuming that would apply to FL as well)
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
..seating FL and MI delegates if they do NOT reflect the will of the people.
"The easiest solution . . . is an arrangement that allows those delegates to be seated," Plouffe said. "But not based on those [January] contests; that would not be fair."
And of course caucuses don't reflect the 'will of the people' either....only the will of those who can attend.
And about a re-vote? From the same article...
But the Obama camp said the mail-in has too many hurdles. It likely would need approval by the U.S. Department of Justice. Because of past voting-rights issues, five counties must submit voting changes for review.
Much more at the Orlando Sentinel today which says that both candidates are "digging in".
Doesn't sound like Obama will agree to anything that reflects the 'will of the people'.
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
...The poll also asked what impact the failure to count votes would have on the November elections, and Gelber warned that the results should send a message to national political leaders, and Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters said that if the controversy is not resolved and Florida Democratic voters do not have a voice in choosing the Democratic nominee, only 63 percent will still vote with Democrats.
"We need that in the 80s or 90s,'' Geller said. Among the other voters: 14 percent said they would send a protest vote and consider voting for a Republican, 12 percent said they were unsure, 6 percent said they wouldn't vote for the Democrat for president but would for state and local races and 5 percent said they wouldn't vote at all.
"Unless our votes are counted,'' Geller said, "You might as well stay out of the state because a Democratic nominee will not win and it will cause tremendous danger to our congressional candidates.''
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/03/gellers-poll-59.html
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
....She is willing to risk losing the gains she has already accrued to ensure that the voters have participated and will view the outcome as legitimate. If the original primaries are not going to be honored, then the voters deserve an opportunity to register their opinions in another way. Insisting on DNC insider-politics rules as the grounds upon which to justify barring the delegations of two key states may play well with the Blogger Boyz, but it will go down sideways with the voters. This isn't just losing legitimacy in Florida or Michigan, either. This is risking losing millions of voters in many states who will look at the gerrymandering of the convention as a betrayal of their participation. Hillary has no guarantee of the nomination even if she does retake Florida and Michigan, but she and every Democrat who can think straight knows the party will take a huge hit in November if voters do not think that Florida and Michigan are being counted fairly. That means a primary, mail-in or otherwise. The caucuses are too compromised.
Obama's game of chicken with the voters is going to backfire badly, and for the right reasons. Not racism. Not lack of experience. Because he knows he can't win in a head-to-head contest:
Obama is advocating disenfranchisement of two must-win states because he does not have enough confidence in his own electoral strength to submit himself to true primary votes by large and diverse Democratic populations.
If Obama does not have faith in himself, why should we?
More at http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/losing-faith.html
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Talking head suggesting the possibility of a Texas two step redo with both a primary AND a caucus in the evening so "neither candidate is prejudiced"... Same talker says that any breaking of the rules would be "dangerous". Sounds skeery.
Where that money would come from for the 2 step is still unknown.
....just a couple days ago the State Democratic party (in Texas) declared that they were going to give up trying to count the votes in the caucus format with over 1/3 left uncounted (theoretically, the first phase was just for the purpose of selecting delegates to the county conventions coming up on March 29th which sends delegates to the state convention later).
not prejudicing the candidate(s).... that we are about not prejudicing the voters.
Short end of stick- meet voters.
...from BTD
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/151551/198