Obama Should Champion the Cause of Michigan and Florida
If Hillary Clinton does well enough in tomorrow’s quartet of primaries to continue, her campaign’s next step will to resume banging the drum about seating the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the convention.
Barack Obama should support this aim.
Realistically, any Clinton nomination scenario at this point requires the inclusion of lopsidedly pro-Hillary delegations from Michigan and Florida at the national convention, since she's all but certain -- even with wins tomorrow -- to finish the primary season with fewer pledged delegates than Obama. Both states held "outlaw" primaries in January: None of the candidates really campaigned in either state, turnout was markedly lower than in other states, and Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Clinton won them both handily.
The Clinton campaign has been playing the voter-disenfranchisement card, arguing that the delegations must be seated to honor the will of voters in both states. This argument has not gained much traction, given the obvious flaws of both contests. But Clinton's hope seems to be that attitudes might shift if she reels off a late series of primary victories, starting with Texas and Ohio tomorrow. Perhaps then, the thinking goes, Democrats might be more receptive to finding a way to dump Obama, even if he has a slight lead in pledged delegates and cumulative votes.
Obama should, proactively, advocate a way of bringing both states’ delegates back into the fold. He could acknowledge the imperative of ensuring Michigan and Florida representation at the convention while stressing that the January primaries hardly represent fair elections. Caucuses, he could argue, represent the best compromise: They are paid for by the party (not the taxpayers), do not require the printing of ballots, and can be organized fairly quickly. This way, he could argue, there can be a real campaign in both states and everyone -- voter and candidate alike -- will understand the stakes.
This would at least nullify the enfranchisement argument, which could help him in both states in the fall if he's the nominee. And it would also play his electoral strength. (With the exception of Nevada, where he lost narrowly, Obama is undefeated in caucus states.)
A potential kink was thrown in this strategy over the weekend, when Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, announced that he'd be fine with his state footing the bill for another Democratic primary, a development that was greeted by D.N.C. Chairman Howard Dean, the man who stripped Florida (and Michigan) of its delegates in the first place.
But even if a new primary were to be held in Florida, it's unlikely that Clinton's margin -- if she were to win -- would approach her 17-point spread back in January. Back then, her tally was aided by enormous early voting -- ballots that were cast before the national Democratic race had fully come into focus, when Clinton led Florida polls by nearly 30 points. Now, the race would almost certainly be a lot closer, and most likely the delegate totals would be too.
And if caucuses were held in Michigan -- where there is no comparable move to schedule a new primary -- Obama would be the clear favorite there. (In '88, Jesse Jackson won Michigan's caucuses in an 18-point rout over Michael Dukakis -- a win that, fleetingly, made him a serious threat to win the Democratic nomination.) Between a Michigan victory and a Florida tie, Obama would probably add to his overall delegate lead.
When it comes to Michigan and Florida, the path of least resistance for the Obama campaign is to do is what they've been doing: Bury their heads in the sand and hope it works itself out. And if Clinton strikes out tomorrow, that’s fine.
But if she has a big day tomorrow, then the campaign will go on, with new momentum behind Hillary and new questions being raised about Obama and his ability to make the sale. Eventually, the Florida and Michigan situations will have to be resolved and delegates will have to be seated. It’s doesn’t make much sense for the Obama campaign not to be pushing for the best deal they can get.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 45.8
- 41.6
- Obama +4.2
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.6
- 33.0
- +22.6
- McCain
- 52.6
- 34.3
- +18.3
When did the Politicker become a political opinion site? The Daily Politics almost died when Errol Lewis tried to turn that into one.
This piece is an interesting suggestion, but it doesn't belong here unless it's reporting someone else's opinion.
Also what does this mean? "A potential kink was thrown in this strategy over the weekend, when Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, announced that he'd be fine with his state footing the bill for another Democratic primary, a development that was greeted by D.N.C. Chairman Howard Dean, the man who stripped Florida (and Michigan) of its delegates in the first place."
It was greeted?
the reason obama isnt backing a new vote in MI or FL is obvious--he wants this process to be over after tomorrow and is willing to take a little short term flak in order to be the nominee. the absolutely last thing that he needs is to put more future delegates in large primary states on the table and then have hillary say "wait for MI and FL" just as she has done with PA, TX, and OH.
his rhetorical response to the MI and FL issue ("rules are rules") is persuasive and voters outside of MI and FL dont care that much. Crist proposed a new primary simply to start trouble and keep the Dems from coalescing around a nominee.
and im not sure what Dean said elsewhere, but on Wolf Blitzer's show he responded to Crist's proposal by saying, "that's nice, but he doesnt have the authority to do that." and then went on to blame the FL state party for the problem.
Jews Cold on Obama
Jewish voters in New York State — including Democrats — could support Republican John McCain in the November election if Barack Obama wins his party’s nomination, according to Fredric U. Dicker’s “Inside Albany” column in the New York Post.
Dov Hikind, a Democrat who backed Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, is an assemblyman whose Brooklyn district includes the largest concentration of Hasidic Jews in the U.S.
He said many of his constituents oppose Obama for his “half-hearted” support of Israel and his membership in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
“There are a lot of Jews who are concerned about these issues, and they go way beyond Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, people I describe as conservative Reagan/Giuliani Democrats,” said Hikind, who has not yet endorsed a presidential candidate.
Jewish concerns about Obama have been widely reported among top New York Democrats, according to Dicker.
“There is anxiety, there is concern, on the part of a lot of important Jewish Democrats in New York,” one prominent Democratic activist told the Post.
But Hikind said last week’s controversy over Obama’s visit to Kenya, where he was photographed in Somali garb, would have no impact on Jewish voters.
www.huffingtonpost.com
Posted March 2, 2008 | 12:45 AM (EST)
Now it's official: page one of the New York Times reported on Saturday that the Jews have a problem with Obama.
Buzz up!on Yahoo!The Times story, by Neela Banerjee (is that a Jewish name?), did not exactly say there was a "problem." It said there was a "challenge" for Obama: "navigating" the "treacherous paths" that lead to "winning the trust" of Jewish voters. That task, the Times reported, is "all the more difficult" because of the "tenuous relations" between blacks and Jews.
Not until paragraph nineteen, deep inside the paper on page A12, did readers learn that the Jewish vote is "hardly monolithic."
And nowhere in the piece did readers learn that Hillary Clinton was thought to have the Jewish vote sewed up before the primary season began -- partly because Obama was an unknown quantity to the official Jewish organizations that define whether politicians are sufficiently pro-Israel.
Nevertheless in February Obama surprised many pundits by winning a significant proportion of the vote in what some called "the Jewish primary" -- the day New York, California, Connecticut and Massachusetts all voted (others called it "Super Tuesday"). Obama split the Jewish vote in California with Clinton, even though she won the state, 55-45. Obama won the Jewish vote in Connecticut, 61 to 38. He won the Jewish vote in Massachusetts, 52-48, even though he lost the state 56-41.
In New York, Clinton took the Jewish vote 2-1. But that's her home state.
According to the Jewish weekly The Forward, on Super Tuesday "Jewish voters were not more likely to back Clinton than Democratic voters were as a whole, except in New York."
Obama's position on Israel -- the litmus test for the conservative Jewish establishment -- is the mainstream Democratic Party position. His website says that "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel... will always be my starting point" in dealing with the Middle East. Obama supported Israel's disastrous war in Lebanon in 2006. Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida says "Obama has been an ironclad supporter of the US-Israel relationship."
So what exactly is the problem? According to the Times, "some critics" have "expressed concerns" that Obama's repeated statements of support for Israel "are not heartfelt."
Number one among those critics, according to the Times, is somebody named Ed Lasky, who writes for a website called AmericanThinker.com.
The Times failed to note that Obama's supporters include Martin Peretz, longtime editor-in-chief of The New Republic, whose obsession with Israel is legendary. He recently published a remarkable piece in that magazine headlined "Can Friends of Israel--and Jews--Trust Obama? In a word, Yes."
Of course there are lots of other reasons why Jews support Obama. Jews have been the religious group most opposed to the war in Iraq. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. The American Jewish Committee poll last November asked American Jews to pick their most important campaign issue. 23% named the economy and jobs, followed by health care (19%), the war in Iraq (16%), and then terrorism and national security (14%).
At the bottom of the list: support for Israel, at 6%.
That wasn't in the New York Times, either.
March 03, 2008 4:08 PM
Hillary: Obama Not Muslim...Obama Muslim smear
Hillary: Obama Not Muslim "As Far As I Know"
Huffington Post | March 3, 2008 10:03 AM
Buzz up!on Yahoo!Via Ben Smith, Hillary gives a less than adamant answer to a question about Obama's religion on 60 Minutes. Hillary claims, "I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." It's an issue where even an accidental slip this can do damage.
Republican dirty tricks:
1. Rush Limbaugh said VOTE FOR HILLARY to create mischief;
2. Rush Limbaugh said keep the Democratic Campaign going for as long as possible and keep voting for Hillary to bloody Barack Obama as much as possible.
3. Tucker Carlson interviewing TWO Hillary boosters every night to say how badly Hillary is being treated.
Hillary Clinton should just out herself as the "Goldwater Girl" she always was -- and join John McCain's campaign. DNC and "Super Delegates" Democrats will become INDEPENDENTS this time four years from now. Watch.
Jesse Jackson won Michigan? Why are you injecting race into this discussion?
Don't seat my delegates. The National Democratic Party makes it very easy for me. As a Democrat who always votes straight ticket, you might be surprised that will simply be voting for the REPUBLICAN candidate in the Presidential Election and, further, I will be voting straight-ticket Republican all of the way.
What the DNC needs to understand is that it does not matter if Obama or Clinton wins the party's nomination. Seat our delegates unconditionaly. No new primaries in Michigan and Florida. No new caucuses or "firehouses". As Carl Levin said, "Given that 600,000 Michigan voters participated in a primary that was held in accordance with Michigan law, it seems to me that it would not be practical or fair to throw out the results of that election".
Accept our delegates as elected in the States of Florida and Michigan. If the DNC does not, it makes our decision as voters easy. If the DNC does not seat our delegates they are turning their backs on the people of the State of Michigan and the State of Florida. In turn, we will turn our backs on the DNC. My mother is 87 years of age and never thought that she would live to see the day that she would cast a vote for a Republican - let alone in the Presidential Election. Well, she has. It is her intention to vote straight-ticket Republican as well. She feels that if te DNC does not seat her choosen delegate, she might as well vote Republican. Another relative, "Well first it was Dade County and now is is the entire State of Florida". I hope that all persons who voted in the primaries in Michigan and Florida not contribute to, support nor vote for the Democratic Candidate for President (regardless of who win's the party's nomination) unless the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated - unconditionally - as elected. No new primaries, caucuses or firehouses.
kkb wrote:
"Don't seat my delegates. The National Democratic Party makes it very easy for me. As a Democrat who always votes straight ticket, you might be surprised that will simply be voting for the REPUBLICAN candidate in the Presidential Election and, further, I will be voting straight-ticket Republican all of the way."
___________________
That's REALLY mature, kkb. I love it how you insist that no matter what, you'll vote for a straight-Republican ticket. Guess what - that means there is no reason for Democrats to care what you think! Good luck in your childish little protest and good riddance. To pretend there should not at least be a re-vote to seat those delegates is just absurd.
The Democrats registering 2:1 to the Republicans will MORE than make up for your selfish little tantrum.
BYE!
The hesitations of the Orthodox Jews to support Barack Obama are unfounded. He is a staunch friend of Israel, as reported in the New York Sun, the New Republic, and elsewhere. I am Jewish and I think he's the best thing to come along in my lifetime. There is a smear campaign against him simply because he's not as familiar as some other politicians, but if you look into it you'll be completely satisfied. Obama has condemned anti-Semitism in exceptionally strong language, and has been particularly forthright in the black community about the scourge of anti-Semitism. It would be tragic if Jews voted against their interests and chose a lesser candidate simply because of a guilt-by-association campaign that smacks of racism. This is something we should know something about, people!
The math behind this recommendation is unsound, according to Democratic Convention Watch. Here is the link:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/cnn-messes-up-delegate-math-bigt...
Obama and his campaign manager Axelrod are not interested in getting every one to vote - they would like to win the nomination at any cost - even if nearly 2 million people have not picked Obama - they will defeat him against McCain in the general election. I would vote for McCain and leave the party if I were treated the way Michigan and Florida voters are being treated. Shame on Obama
Hillary would do the country a whole lot of good than Obama who is immature and clue less about major issues and keeps copying other people's ideas (his health care plan is the plan from the MA governor) and "is" deaf and blind for over twenty years to his pasture's sermons. He will be so beholden to the Leahys, Kennedys, Oprahs, Kerry etc that we might as well elect these folks. Should he be the nominee some of us neutral folks, will vote for McCain albeit his position on the war. No president can pull out of Iraq thanks to the mess Bush has created. Big corporations employ millions and many funds for retirement are invested in their stocks - they are a part of the US and World economy - they fill an essential role - many of them do good.
Since the media is playing Clinton's taunting stabs of Obama as having a role in the unfortunate decisions of Michigan and Florida to hold primaries too early, can someone explain exactly what Obama has to do with that scenario? Politics in itself is difficult to understand, however, I would like to understand exactly what is his role in it and why Clinton keeps saying that he should have some shame in it.