The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Obama "Quietly" Looking for Running Mate? Me Thinks He Thinks Voters are Stupid | Main | Conyers Subpoenas Rove, DOJ to Investigate Questionable Prosecutions? »

May 22, 2008



It's exceedingly odd that you choose Josh Marshall's piece as a springboard to re-state your argument, because his piece, including the part you reference, does not address (positively or negatively) any of the points you make, at all. His argument is completely orthogonal to yours.

In fact, he explicitly states that he is NOT addressing these arguments:

"I know many TPM Readers believe there is a deep moral and political issue at stake in the need to seat these delegations. I don't see it the same way. But I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. It's a subjective question and I respect that many people think this."

He then gets back to what he is, in fact, arguing. I don't know how much more clear he can be than that. Your arguments simply do not address his, just as his (explicitly) do not address yours.


What Josh is arguing, and I agree, is that what Hillary is doing is motivated not by morality but by tactical need. As he says:

"The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign."

Now, Josh slightly overstates the point there - there's of course no way for us to know what Hillary THOUGHT of the decision. What we do know is:

1) Key Clinton staffers were instrumental in the stripping of the delegates.
2) Hillary signed the pledge to not campaign, and did literally nothing to try to resolve the situation otherwise for months.
3) Hillary was quoted as saying that "everyone knows" those contests won't count.

Then, suddenly, when she needs some justification to continue the campaign, it became a major civil rights issue. Josh is calling this what it is - political grandstanding.


So, since you brought his piece up, what do you think of what Josh Marshall actually did write about?

D. Cupples


Hello to you, too!

It's not odd at all. I saw Josh's piece on Memeorandum, read it, and reacted. I was irritated -- still am (though not at you).

One of Josh's main points was to accuse Hillary of getting Florida Dems mad at the DNC by making the Recount 2000 comparison -- as though Floridians won't be mad at the DNC if Hillary just refrains from pointing out what we've already been pointing out for months.

I challenged Josh's point by 1) stating that we've been mad for months (and drawing the same 2000 parallel); and 2) by explaining some details as support for my argument.

What's illogical about that?

Incidentally, you KNOW that at least one Floridian has made the 2000-comparison, because you've seen me do it in posts/comments.

As for Josh's saying that he ISN'T arguing that Florida isn't a moral issue, he said it RIGHT AFTER saying that he doesn't think it is (i.e., he doesn't "see it the same way" as those who do think it's a moral issue).

That's like saying "Not to mention X..." then mentioning X. Better example: "Bob, I was going to call you an asshole, but now I won't."

The jury will please disregard that remark. LOL.

As a non-Floridian Obama supporter, Josh can't help but see Florida/Michigan as little more than something that might (negatively from Josh's perspective) affect the results of the Obama-Clinton race.

As a politically active Florida voter, I see the disenfranchisement as an independent issue on its own -- as well as relevant to the the Hillary-Obama race.

Consider what else Josh said:

"I've always assumed, as I think most people have, that once the nomination is settled the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated."

That is symbolic NONSENSE and he's savvy enough to know it. Any Floridian with a brain also knows it.

The result would be disenfranchisement, pure and simple if the delegates are seated AFTER the nominee is chosen. In short, my state's delegates will be at the convention only to party and delude themselves into believing that the voters they represent had a real say.

Anyone advocating that (like Dean did a couple months ago) is merely trying to manipulate less-aware Floridians into NOT feeling ill will toward the DNC -- though the DNC, via its own choices, deserves double-barrel ill will from us disenfranchised Florida voters.

Many of us are not stupid children who can be manipulated by spin and symbolism -- and that DNC leaders would even try such tactics only adds fuel to the fury.

As my state's Republicans had anticipated, Florida Dems supporting BOTH candidates are separately furious at the DNC -- and nothing Hillary or Harold or even Karen say will change that.

I saw Karen last month, and she did try the Dean tactic of "If you have to be mad at someone, be mad at Florida Republicans." At least she didn't lie and fully blame the Rs.

I'm not mad at Karen, incidentally, because the DNC pushed her into saying that. But she knows the difference between truth and the DNC's self-serving spin.

And so do many of us disenfranchised Florida Dems.

'Sorry to go so far off topic, but at least I answered your criticism early on.


I still think you are misinterpreting his piece. He's not talking about Floridian Democrats. He's talking about hardcore Hillary supporters across the nation, who are being encouraged to think of this as a stolen nomination. (This will be a harder argument to make in a month or two, when Obama has enough delegates to clear 2210 even without any pledged delegates from Michigan, but I'm sure there will be some that continue along that line anyway.)

I also think it's very unfair to accuse him of "...saying "Not to mention X..." then mentioning X." He states the opposing view, states his view, makes NO supporting arguments to that view, and simply states that that argument is not what he will be talking about.

Honestly, how can that be seen as making the argument that they don't deserve to be seated? He explicitly avoids the discussion. If he had said "there is no moral or political argument against stripping the delegates, but that's not what I want to talk about", then you would have a point. But that is NOT what he said. The fact that you have been angry for months about this situation (which I freely grant) is, again, orthogonal to the point of Josh Marshall's piece.

You haven't actually responded to the point of his entire piece - which was that Hillary's camp was instrumental in stripping the delegates, and that she ignored the issue, or even mildly supported the DNC, until it became politically important to her continued relevance in the process. I'm still interested in how you reconcile that with her current rhetoric.

D. Cupples


Josh introduced the piece by talking about Hillary's speech in FLORIDA yesterday. Surely, you can see how I would think he was talking about Florida voters?

Note also -- and you're right that I'm mad about FL -- today, I was on the Wolfson conference call. He and Harold repeatedly talked about Florida as though it truly broke rules and deserved "punishment": it was like a foregone conclusion or moot assumption (which I KNOW is factually inaccurate).

I pushed the number too late to get to say something, so I couldn't vent. Then I saw Josh's somewhat related piece.

IF Hillary was instrumental in actually stripping Florida, then I'll be mad at her too (big IF in my mind, because I don't know the facts and don't trust Obama-friendly spinners like Josh for unvarnished facts about Hillary or Obama).

I don't mean little snippets of out-of-context quotes (like when she said that Michigan won't matter, as opposed to MI shouldn't matter).

I need to understand the actual context of what was happening at the time to figure out whether or not she really didn't care about Florida.

I'd be surprised if she really didn't care, because she's too good a politician, but my mind-reading skills are still up in New England.

Hillary has been manipulative, too -- which I don't like. Oh well, we have 3 candidates in the race who are manipulative and not as straightforward as I would like.

Was Hillary "going along to get along" verbally, thinking that the DNC might fix the situation, so there was no need to raise hell until it looked like the DNC wouldn't?

I really don't know. At this point, I have no prob giving her the benefit of the doubt, if only because it wouldn't have been self-serving to truly want to see MI and FL not count.

All that said -- as I've said before -- I view the Florida disenfranchisement as an issue on its own, as well as in the context of the race.

I don't care which politicians or operatives have flip-flopped: I still think that Florida should count (for the reasons I listed in the post).

No amount of finger pointing at Hillary (or Obama) for their flip-flopping will affect my opinion that Florida should count.

I actually wanted a re-do, even knowing that there was a chance that Obama could have won it.


"Josh introduced the piece by talking about Hillary's speech in FLORIDA yesterday. Surely, you can see how I would think he was talking about Florida voters?"

I'm sorry, but no. This wasn't some private event. She's speaking to the rules committee, the superdelegates, and to her supporters at large. The location was symbolic, for sure, but the audience was most assuredly national.

I'm not sure how you can deny that Hillary accepted this outcome for months. You don't have to trust Josh Marshall. MacAuliffe specifically threatened stripping 100% of delegates when he was head of the DNC. Ickes, as referenced in the tribune article linked within the TPM article, voted for the delegate removal.

As you seem to be aware, Hillary was directly quoted saying "You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
Now, that's not the same as making a direct statement that she supported the stripping of delegates... but it's plainly clear that she wasn't interested in sticking up for Michigan and Florida until she needed the votes from uncontested primaries.

Furthermore, she did release that statement supporting the (BS) idea that only IA/NH/SC/NV deserved to be up front. She explicitly affirmed the DNC ruling in that statement.

If Hillary had deep-felt objections to the penalties given to Florida and Michigan, she had an awfully odd way of showing it.


Finally, while I still believe that it's likely that the Democrats could not have stopped the passage of the date change in Florida... you can't watch this clip and tell me their opposition looks sincere.
Now, I get that this bill contained provisions on a paper trail that they wanted. But the comments in that clip make it seem like they really didn't give a damn what the DNC said. They may not have had a choice, but it looks like they were HAPPY about what was happening.


Here's the section from McAuliffe's book, talking about 2004. When you contrast this against his more recent comments, the hypocricy is truly incredible.

" "I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.
"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it." [Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.] "

D. Cupples


I'm going out of order and answering in multiple comments.

You said: "...while I still believe that it's likely that the Democrats could not have stopped the passage of the date change in Florida...."

There is no "likely" about it. I may be one or two off (my memory), but the Rs have about 77 and the Ds have about 43 in the House. The Senate is R-24 to D-16.

If you think I exaggerate, call my state house and senate. It's not on the websites, which is why I had to call to get the #s some weeks ago.

You're good at numbers: in what scenario do FL Dems have the ability to stop the Rs from doing ANYTHING?

Admittedly, video tapes of Rubio having extra-marital sex with a woman -- better yet, a man or an adorable puppy might have worked, but that would have been illegal.

Because of the numbers, the Rs HAVE done whatever they wanted -- including blocking a paper trail (as my post states) -- for years. You should see what they've done to our schools and the breaks they gave insurance companies (at homeowners' expense).

Dem gub candidates campaigned on the paper trail in '06, knowing it was a big issue to Floridians.

Rs DIDN'T EVER have to give Dems the paper trail. If Rs had wanted one, they would have passed it long ago. They didn't UNTIL one of them thought of pairing it with the primary-date move.

Dems tried to separate the paper trail from the primary-date provision and didn't have the numbers to succeed.

So, did Dems act in good faith before the bill was passed? Yes.

Did they posture afterwards? Apparently so. Why? I can't tell you, but I suspect that it has something to do with not looking as impotent as they really are -- that or the Rs made bipartisan imagery part of the deal (Bush has made Rs nationwide look bad, and our Rs want to get re-elected).

It DOESN'T matter anyway -- as I said in comments to another post when you brought up the YouTube.

The post-game posturing is has nothing to do with whether the Dems had made a good-faith effort to stop the primary-date moving BEFORE the bill was passed.

Your repeating these arguments about post-game spin gives the IMPRESSION that you, too, want FL not to count because you view FL only in terms of how Obama's campaign would be affected.

I hope that's not true, but you are entitled to your own perspective.

My perspective: I'm here, I pay taxes, I understand (from reading & witnessing first hand) what our lege has been like since 2001. I share in suffering the consequences.

That and, as a person with some understanding of American jurisprudence, I think my vote should count.

D. Cupples


Why are you bringing up McCauliffe's 2004 position? Not even knowing the context, I still lean toward believing that McCauliffe and Ickes flip-flopped and waxed hypocritical.

So what? I'm not supporting McCauliffe or Ickes -- any more than you are supporting Axelrod, Brennan, Power, or Goolsbee.

I don't think HILLARY wanted to disenfranchise MI and FL: at the very least, it wouldn't serve her (or most other candidates') ultimate interests.

Did ANY candidate with a serious chance (i.e., not Gravel) publicly go after the DNC last year over MI and FL?

I don't remember it, do you?

Why not? Because the DNC (as it has proven beyond doubt) has major influence over which candidate gets the nomination. Public pissing contests with the DNC is not in ANY candidate's interest.

Make no mistake: the DNC wanted to fully disenfranchise FL -- evident from the fact that it didn't even hold the rules-prescribed investigation re: good faith before going beyond the automatic 50% delegate reduction.

That and the DNC also falsely spun the FL situation in the media (i.e., it left out details indicating that the DNC COULD have made a more Florida-friendly decision).

People don't spin and lie when they have facts on their side.

I have no trouble calling Hillary out when she does things I didn't like (e.g., Bosnia).

On this one, as I said in another comment, I suspect that Hillary publicly did the same thing Karen Thurman did: avoided pissing off the DNC early on, despite personal objections.

I'm NOT friends with Karen, but I've talked with her enough to have a decent read. As I mentioned before, she now publicly focuses on Florida's Rs as "the enemy."

Privately, Karen KNOWS that the DNC is at fault -- and she's mad.

As state party leader, she doesn't say that publicly, because it would harm her job or ability to get things done long term.

Do you honestly think that it's IMPLAUSIBLE that Hillary had good, strategic reasons for delaying entering the MI and FL fray?

I can easily envision her logic (from a candidate's perspective) -- not that I can prove what was on her mind, but it makes sense to me.

Here it is: one objective was to NOT piss off the DNC earlier than necessary. That said, I could see Hillary delaying entering the fray for at least 2 reasons:

1) there was a chance that MI and FL would have worked it out by having real do-overs (as opposed to caucuses): what would she gain from taking a bruising early on if it MIGHT ultimately work out?

2) MI's and FL's state people were already fighting with the DNC -- and MIGHT have succeeded: again, why suffer unnecessary injuries?

Incidentally, do you KNOW that Hillary didn't fight the DNC privately early on?

It wouldn't surprise me if she had: that might be one of the things that pissed off DNC leaders.

Yes, I'm totally speculating, but our DNC has shown a knack for saying one thing in public and another in private.

As I've said again and again, Hillary is an analytical and strategy-oriented politician (as is Obama) -- so manipulative strategies don't seem implausible to me.

Lastly, from this Floridian's perspective, the self-serving posturing/strategies of two politicians should NOT determine whether my state's votes count.

If the Dems had a majority in FL, they WOULDN'T have risked DNC's (and ultimately voters') ire by moving the primary date.

They had nothing to gain: we're a numerically significant state. Like CA, NY and TX, Florida doesn't HAVE TO go a few weeks before Super Tuesday to be significant.

Unlike Iowa, we get soooo many tourist dollars that our economy doesn't get a perceptible bump from the media that shows up to cover our primaries.


I certainly agree that the D's could not have stopped the R's from passing it. However, the video on the floor taken BEFORE the bill passed, as well as of posturing afterwards, makes it appear that they really didn't care what the DNC was saying, and made no good-faith effort to oppose the measure. That hurts their credibility.

My perspective on the broader issue:

- Primary voters in Florida and Michigan were significantly disenfrancised whether or not the delegations are seated. They were denied a contested primary. Even the Florida primary vote falls short of international election standards. There is NO good outcome for Michigan and Florida primary voters at this point; the window for that has long since closed.

- On that note, every late state has been significantly disenfranchised every year between 1984 and 2008. The entire process needs an overhaul, and that only happens if the DNC can enforce a new schedule.

- What we are seeing from the Clinton campaign on this issue is hypocritical grandstanding motivated by naked self-interest. A full re-seating favors Hillary, and of course that's why we're seeing this becoming an issue. That's why Hillary cynically bringing up civil rights here is so grating. She's acting as if we can't read all the old quotes from her and her staff where they had no problem with the decision. As you said w.r.t. Obama's VP search, it's insulting to our collective intelligence. I'd prefer if she just moved for re-seating them because she would have won a contested primary, too. That's debateable, but at least it would be an honest argument.

On the question of whether there is a broader moral imperitive to seat the delegations, we disagree. I see the results of those primary elections as fundamentally flawed, and I see the DNC penalty as both easily predictable (see: the 2004 threat) and morally defensible. I certainly sympathize with you the Florida voter, but I don't see seating these delegations as righting the wrong, plus there's several unintended consequences that would cause.

Finally, I am not a lawyer, but I do see a legal distinction between general elections for public office and primary elections that determine the official candidate of a private political party. It's not clear to me that the DNC would be subject to the same jurisprudence as a state would.


This conversation is probably getting a little to deeply into speculation to be useful. Still, one last bit of speculation for you.

I don't think Hillary, or any other candidate, was too worried about pissing off the DNC. Lord knows she didn't do them any favors with them by waiting until late February to start complaining. By contrast, I think all of the (real) candidates were worried about pissing off voters in IA/NH/SC/NV, who felt for some stupid reason that they deserved to go first.


The point of the McAuliffe comment is twofold:
1) It demonstrates that those near this decision knew that losing 100% of the delegates was a very real possibility, perhaps even likely.
2) It shows McAuliffe's current comments, where he completely contradicts himself, as the duplicitous grandstanding that it is.

It's true you're not voting for McAuliffe or Ickes, but Clinton did have a whole bunch of supporters on the rules committee that passed the sanctioning, and she didn't do anything then to stop it. The buck in the Clinton campaign ultimately stops with Hillary Clinton, and the way her campaign has addressed this issue has been fundamentally dishonest and self-serving. I'm OK with the latter, but not the former.

D. Cupples


For the third time: I don't care about Fl Dems' posturing before or after the primary date got moved. You know the numbers.

And you know that FL would not reap much benefit (if any) from having its primary a week before Super Tuesday. Dems had NO reason (even if they'd had a majority) to move the primary date.

I brought that up in the last comment, and you seemed to sail right past it.

Also, you don't know our lege. You didn't even know just how R-heavy our lege is until I told you (again, I might be one or two numbers off).

Last year, the Rs saw themselves as in trouble with FL voters because of GWB. I wasn't just throwing pasta at the wall when suggesting that a bipartisan puppet show might have been part of the Rs' deal.

I said it in the last comment, and you seemed to overlook it.

FL Rs WANT to get re-elected, because there's major money at stake for them (as individuals).

We have a part-time lege (poor pay), and many Rs have more interest in serving their own industries (like insurance) than in actually making good public policy.

If you want to believe that FL's votes shouldn't count, there's nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise.

But the YouTube "evidence" means nothing -- and you're in no position to draw valid conclusions based thereon, because you don't understand Florida's internal political landscape.

You brought up a new point: the notion that FL's primary was uncontested, thus (your argue) it shouldn't count.

I AGREE that it would be unfair to seat MICHIGAN, because Obama took his name off the ballot (though I still think it was a strategy). I disagree with Hillary re MI: I also understand why she doesn't talk about MI as though it's different from FL.

Obama doesn't talk about them as though they're different, either -- though I'm sure he understands just how differently the game went down in MI vs. FL.

They're both being rather dishonest when they talk about MI and FL: don't kid yourself.

Regarding FL: NONE of the candidates campaigned (aside from a few of Obama's ads that played on cable -- no biggie).

Thus, the playing field was level. That and we had record turnout for a primary, which shows that a lot of people weren't staying home.

Those who did stay home because they thought their vote wouldn't count (despite urging in most of our media to vote anyway) made a CHOICE.

Remember, voting in FL is EASY. I had about 2 weeks and 4 or 5 locations (including public libraries) at which I could early vote -- without lines.

That's how I've been voting here for years. We also have a liberal absentee-ballot policy.

What's this about "international election standards"?

Neither of us knows whether Hillary fought privately or whether she came up with the same strategy that I thought logical (delayed intervention) -- and God knows the DNC doesn't tell us ordinary folks what's really going on behind the scenes.

Incidentally, you may be right about the candidates' publicly refraining from fighting about MI and FL because they were afraid to piss off voters in early-primary states.

I hadn't thought of that, but it sounds plausible. And Obama WAS one of those who refrained from fighting.

And I don't think his motives were just about "following rules," though he said it a lot. Again, I suspect that he is well enough informed to have known what really happened in FL (versus MI). And yet, he kept arguing about "rules."

To me, that's downright disgusting.

Back to my point: again, if you want to believe that Hillary was just being dishonest and hypocritical (and was alone in doing so), I can't change your mind.

All I can say is that I think MOST candidates had no reason to want MI and FL's votes to not count. I can't prove it, and you can't disprove it.

Remember also: Hillary supported a re-do. Some of her friends even started raising money. That was in Feb or March.

Obama (via surrogates) DIDN'T want it -- though the rules allowed it and Obama had a chance of winning both FL and MI.

Ok, he likely would have lost FL, because he did so poorly here (he won my county, a few north-border counties, and one panhandle county -- while most of the population is in the southern half).

But Obama certainly had a chance to win MI in a re-do.

The prob was, I suspect, that he was very happy with the magic # being 2026 -- while adding MI or FL would have raised the #. Also, his winning MI would not have been helpful if Hillary had simultaneously been allowed to win FL.

Lastly, FL is NOT only now "becoming an issue." Thurman and Nelson have been fighting on our behalf for months.

My Obama-supporting, active DEC member (and many of her pals around the state) have been sending negative replies to the DNC when they receive fund raising letters.

The fighting has been going on for months at various levels.

As I said before, what would Hillary have gained from prematurely jumping into that fray and suffering more battering from the DNC (or early-primary-state voters) -- if there was a chance that Karen, Bill or the protesters might have made headway?

Incidentally, I like her better than Obama, but I realize that Hillary is still as much a politician as he is.


"Regarding FL: NONE of the candidates campaigned (aside from a few of Obama's ads that played on cable -- no biggie).

Thus, the playing field was level."

You don't really believe that, do you? A lack of campaigning and advertising means that you have a low-information election. For goodness sake, you STILL talk about how you don't really know Obama, and you are plugged in more than 99% of voters.

A low-information election favors the incumbent. In the absence of an incumbent, it favors the more well-known candidate. This is why Obama's numbers have risen in the month approaching the primary in basically every state - he's building name recognition through advertising, campaigning, and volunteer work. That didn't happen in Florida.

Again, if that Florida election was in a foreign country, UN observers would rule that it was not a fair contest due to restrictions on campaigning. That is absolutely NOT a level playing field. It favored Hillary Clinton to an enormous degree.

"That and we had record turnout for a primary, which shows that a lot of people weren't staying home."

Florida's primary turnout was, what, up 50% from 2004? Let's contrast that with other primaries that were at a time when the nominee was more in doubt than usual:

- Maryland, more than double 2004 and an all-time record

- Ohio, nearly double 2004 and an all-time record

- Indiana, over four times the 2004 total, an all-time record, and in fact, more votes than Kerry got in the GENERAL election. (That's true of Texas and North Carolina as well).

I could keep going. The point is, in the context of the 2008 elections, Florida's turnout was sub-par, and Michigan's turnout was pitiful.

Those elections were not representative of what would have happened in a free, fair, contested primary contest.

Aside: Poblano threw his demographic model at Michigan, except he expanded the approach by comparing each congressional district to demographically similar congressional districts in nearby states. It's characteristically thorough, and the results are quite interesting, to me, anyway:
The most convincing part of the presentation to me, is that after he finishes, he shows that his projections line up extremely well with the percentages of the "uncommitted" vote in the actual primary.


"Back to my point: again, if you want to believe that Hillary was just being dishonest and hypocritical (and was alone in doing so), I can't change your mind."

I don't think she was alone in acting out of self interest. Certainly, Edwards/Obama/Richardson/Biden took their names off the Michigan ballot because they wanted to deny Hillary the P.R. victory of winning a primary against them on name recognition. That's self interest.

My argument is that it's ridiculous for Hillary to start raging about disenfranchisement now when she could have probably prevented the delegate stripping a year ago, and when she publicly supported the process until she needed the delegates.

I fully expect candidates to make arguments motivated by self-interest in electoral politics. That's fine. I have a problem with the blatant reversal of policy in mid-stream and the utter hypocrisy of the new argument.

"Ok, he likely would have lost FL, because he did so poorly here (he won my county, a few north-border counties, and one panhandle county -- while most of the population is in the southern half).

But Obama certainly had a chance to win MI in a re-do."

I agree with both of these things. I thought it was a very poor tactical decision for Obama to not strongly campaign for a Michigan re-vote, because he SHOULD have seen the controversy over the horizon at that point, and he could have probably made a re-vote happen if he pushed hard for it. Again, a poor TACTICAL decision, but I don't see this as a moral or ethical failure. It's a vast exaggeration to imply that Obama's inaction, or the actions of his surrogates, was the main factor that prevented a re-vote.

The comments to this entry are closed.