Essentially, the party leaders Mark Brewer, Debbie Dingell, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm want to make sure you are unable to cast a vote for Senator Barack Obama. They want to be kingmakers.
They want to deliver the nomination to Hillary Clinton. It is slipping away from her, and from their control.
You see, they’ve messed this thing up from the get-go.
Originally, they weren‘t totally committed to Clinton, at least, Brewer wasn’t. He preferred John Edwards. But what the Democratic leadership is totally committed to is . . . power.
They thought that by moving the primary to early January they could make a big difference in the choice of the nominee. At first, nobody, not they, nor I, thought the Senator from Illinois with the African father and the exotic name had any chance.
They also didn’t think the party was serious about punishing them for breaking the rules. But the party did punish them.
None of the serious candidates campaigned here.
Most took their names off the ballot. Hillary Clinton did not. She told New Hampshire public radio it didn’t matter because Michigan’s vote “is not going to count for anything.”
Well, it is now clear that she very much wants it to count. She needs it to count. On Super Tuesday, Obama fought her to a dead heat. On Saturday night, he beat her in devastating landslides in three states as different as can be.
He won Democratic Washington and solidly Republican Nebraska by more than two to one. He won overwhelmingly in Louisiana, and took the Virgin Islands for good measure. Yesterday, he easily won Maine.
He has the momentum now, and is taking in far more money. But strategists for both Clinton and Obama now calculate that neither is likely to reach the convention with enough to win.
Not without Michigan and Florida.
That means Michigan Democrats absolutely HAVE to have a caucus and do this over, or face certain disaster of some kind.
Consider this: Let’s say they deliver the delegation to Clinton but Obama wins anyway. Where does that leave Michigan?
Let’s say Brewer and Co. deliver this delegation to Clinton, and that gives her the nomination. African-Americans and all Obama supporters are going to feel robbed again and justly so.
Can you see them working hard for Hillary Rodham Clinton in November? What I see is President John McCain.
But it’s still possible that the convention might not seat Michigan at all. That’ll sure give us a bigger voice in the process.
The Democrats can avoid this mess. They know how to hold a fair and inclusive caucus. They did four years ago. Then, whether Clinton wins, or Obama wins, it will be legitimate, and accepted.
They need to do so this. Because if they do, Michigan may well be the state that determines the nominee, fair and square. As comedian Yakov Smirnoff used to say … What a country.
I agree with you completely about the travesty of our primary. I thought it smelled fishy that Clinton left her name on the ballot and two days later Granholm endorsed her. Now the Dingells have too...I'm extremely unhappy and don't know what to do beside writing to the Michigan Democratic Party which I did.
If Clinton's on the Nov. ballot...I will not vote for her.
Posted by: Anne Marten | February 11, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Thank you for calling the Michigan Democratic Party on their biased and unethical decisions about the Michigan primary. I thought at one point they were just idiotic, stubborn and immature, but your comments suggest something worse. I now understand why Mark Brewer dismissed out of hand the possibility of a spring caucus. It is not difficult to do, just not consistent with the desire of Michigan Democratic leaders to stack the Michigan delegates for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Thomas Schwenk | February 11, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Jack, thank you for what you do. This is a situation I am deeply frustrated about and don't hear enough about. Like many reports I have heard on NPR, I and most people I know here did not vote in the primary with the understanding that the primary would not mean anything, only to find out later that it may end up counting after all! If these guys are refusing to hold a caucus, then I hope the delegates are not seated. I am a liberal independent who would never vote for McCain or any of the Republican candidates, so I'm not exactly sure what I will do if Clinton is the candidate.
Posted by: J. Panhorst | February 11, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Jack, thank you for your essay today, February 11. Here are some comments I posted on--of all places--a Buffalo Bills forum yesterday. As you'll see, we agree on this subject:
We were told our Democratic primary wouldn't count, so fine, keep it that way. I cast my vote with that in mind. Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden all removed their names from the ballot; Clinton did not. And a write-in would have invalidated one's ballot. The only real option (to Clinton) was "uncommitted," which didn't guarantee that uncommitted delegates wouldn’t eventually go to Clinton anyway. It was such a mess, that the whole thing should be discarded. (I)f these shenanigans make the difference in Clinton getting the nomination, this life-long Democratic voter will be truly P Oed...
...In my mind, the only right thing to do is ignore the results of the Jan. 15 primary and, if they really want to count MI in on the decision, let us have a caucus. Who knows, a late caucus just before the convention could be decisive. Then you can call Michigan the Decider.
Posted by: Gary Sz. | February 11, 2008 at 04:29 PM
I was a Richardson supporter. I am now Clinton supporter. But I was angry about this whole thing from the very beginning, long before I understood it to be a ploy. And I have written letters of disgust to both Brewer and Granholm (who I actually highly support) telling them so.
That said, I address Democrats and other progressives when I plead: Do not punish the rest of us for the leadership's folly. However you feel about Clinton/Obama or anybody else, I think we can all agree that none of the Republican options will fix our country, and will undoubtedly lead to worse.
Not voting for the nominee -- whoever it is -- is cutting off your nose to spite your face; and you will cut off the country's nose in the process.
I pledge to practice what I preach. Clinton/Obama, I may have a preference, but come November, I will vote for the Dem nominee. Period.
Posted by: Carol | February 11, 2008 at 05:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Na1wyEWQCA
Please watch the video above about this controversy.
The following are key arguments that I believe support a Michigan Presidential Caucus.
ARGUMENTS:
(1) Michigan deserves to have clout in this election. So long as our delegates do not count, Michiganders do not have clout.
2) Our 128 delegates could be decisive. The race for delegates is expected to be very close at the time of the convention, with both candidates near, but not at, a majority. Michigan could tip the balance.
(3) Michiganders deserve to see the primary candidates up close and hear the candidates debate the issues that matter in Michigan, like the health of the Great Lakes and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Michiganders will not have this opportunity if January's results stand.
(4) Michigan voters deserve to be able to choose between all of the candidates. Most of the candidates names were removed from Michigan's ballot, and "Uncommitted" won the "youth vote," the "black vote," and over 40% (200,000) of the overall votes.
(5) Michigan deserves to have our delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention. As it stands, the DNC will reject the delegates distributed at Michigan's January 15 Primary because Michigan advanced the date of our Primary in defiance of DNC rules. They will restore our delegation's voting credentials if and only if we hold a caucus.
(6) Whichever candidate wins the nomination, they must win Michigan to win the presidency. The opportunity to campaign in Michigan prior to the nominating convention would strengthen the nominee with Michigan voters.
Posted by: Nate | February 11, 2008 at 06:34 PM
I certainly agree with you, Jack. I have and I hope all who read this will contact Gov. Granholm, MI DNC, and their elected officials if only to state their disapproval.
Posted by: Melodie Holman | February 11, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Thank you for addressing this problem. After contacting Mark Brewer's and Governor Granholm's offices, I am more convinced than ever that their intention is to have the Michigan delegates seated. Governor Granholm’s office stated that this was a fair primary with large voter turnout and everyone should have known that the votes would be counted. I really fear that on March 29 when Michigan delegates are elected, not only will Clinton get her share of the delegates based on the primary results but a number of "uncommitted" delegates. Then the DNC will reverse its position and seat the Michigan delegates. The DNC should take a firm stand and take it now. If a caucus is not a feasible alternative, then the DNC should stand by their original position and not seat the delegates.
Posted by: M. Major | February 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Jack – You and your minions have it wrong from the start on this primary mess. This primary flap is a perfect example of why state and national political parties in fact are and should remain independent organizations free to decide their own times and methods of choosing the candidate(s) they deem best suited to their ideals whims or fancy. The legislatures and governor should not be allowed to use the power of the state to tinker with them (besides we can use the money elsewhere). The legislature has no more business setting the rules for primaries and caucuses than they would have in telling the Rotary club how they should pick their leaders! I am confident that political parties left to their own resources and devices in today’s information saturated society will come up with suitable mechanisms (at least no worse than what we have now). Citizens always have the final discipline for perceived political party shenanigans …. Don’t like the way a party picked its canidate? Don’t vote for them!
Posted by: Matt Howell | February 12, 2008 at 05:28 PM
"Citizens always have the final discipline for perceived political party shenanigans …. Don’t like the way a party picked its canidate? Don’t vote for them!"
That makes good sense! Let's punish the individual candidate for the party's mistake. Why not? Let's tar with as broad a brush as possible, shall we? Nevermind that working that way may leave you with only someone reprehensible to vote for, eh?
Matt Howell, smarten up! There's a lot of area you could smarten up TO.
Posted by: brantl | February 14, 2008 at 02:14 PM
the Republican options will not fix anything, but neither will the Democrats.
Might as well Vote Green/Ralph Nader. That is what i intend to do.
Posted by: Vince Prygoski | February 27, 2008 at 02:59 PM
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
[url=][/url]
Posted by: freexxxpron | June 05, 2008 at 07:27 PM