The Two-State Handicap

[metta 0]

The Two-State Handicap

Perhaps Barack Obama really is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime candidate who can get away with tossing two large swing states on the scrap heap, and whipping John McCain with one hand tied behind his hopeful back. But should he fail - and I remain petrified that he might - his campaign's decision not to find common ground on legitimate primaries in Michigan and Florida will be rightly seen as one of the great strategic blunders in Presidential political history.

Veteran New York muckraker Wayne Barrett has the definitive piece in HuffPo on machinations that led us to this strange 48-state strategy. Barrett's take: Republicans set it up, Dean and Obama fell for it (in their zeal to run out the clock on the reviled Clinton), and the rest is - or sadly may be - history. Says Wayne:

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

Of course, the column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished adds up to less than the attention devoted to, say, the Wyoming caucus, where a 2,066-vote Obama margin gave him a big enough delegate boost to virtually cancel out Hillary Clinton's 329,000-vote margin in the five March races.

What's more, argues Barrett (he of the 30-year career exposing the vast patronage underbelly of New York politics), the Republicans set it all up - while the Hillary-hating media could only chant the idiotic playground song of "rules are the rules." More from Barrett:

Imagining a convention without delegations from these large and politically volatile states has become the nightmare of every thinking Democrat. Polls indicate that a nominee who refuses to count the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in a level-playing field primary, or to find a way for them to vote again, will wind up wasting whatever time and money he or she spends there in the general election campaign. As close as the general election vote in Michigan has been in recent years, even a small margin of voters disgruntled by the state's Democratic lockout could push it into the GOP column. Obama's stonewalling about both states may offer short-term advantages, but two delegations denied seating because of his maneuvers may well be seen as contrary to his populist rationale now -- and crippling to his candidacy in November.

Ed Pozzuoli, the Republican chair of Broward County, recalls the Florida showdown of 2000, when he says Democrats taunted Republicans, insisting that they should "let every vote count." He gloats now: "I guess that's changed in eight years." He's hardly the only one chortling over the likely consequence of what he calls the "draconian" Democratic spiking of his state's delegation.

What started out years ago as Howard Dean's 50-state organizing strategy for the national party now looks like a 48-state electoral one. Michigan and Florida could become the Ralph Nader of 2000, the great regret that delivers the country once again to four years of darkness.

As I've written before, this is a stunning mistake by the Obama campaign; undoubtedly the McCain campaign is working already with the state Republican machines in Michigan and Florida on just the right tone of slogan, just the right video - all of them saying the same thing: the Democrats didn't want your vote. As commenter argent1 adds to Barrett's in-depth reportage:

The long and tedious nuts and bolts doesn't fit well with the "I want it Now" Obamelites. All those retired grandparents may go McCain in FL, and the blue collars of MI as well. The demonstrative snub by Obama and Co. will ruin his chances. Then we'll be hearing boo-hoo-hoo after November 4th trying to blame Clinton for not bowing out in April.

[simple_male 1]

Good job! I love your passion. But still, Obama is leading in popular votes, pledged delegates and Hillary won't be able to erase them.

[no name 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

[simple_male 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

Clinton has turned off many voters with her sniper fire story. I am sure, Obama will accept what DNC will decide about FL and MI. I thought, those two states broke the DNC rules.

[no name 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

Clinton has turned off many voters with her sniper fire story. I am sure, Obama will accept what DNC will decide about FL and MI. I thought, those two states broke the DNC rules.

He has rejected a proposal already put forward. He will block whatever he can, he can't bear to lose to HC.

[simple_male 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

Clinton has turned off many voters with her sniper fire story. I am sure, Obama will accept what DNC will decide about FL and MI. I thought, those two states broke the DNC rules.

He has rejected a proposal already put forward. He will block whatever he can, he can't bear to lose to HC.

I thought Hillary is still in the 2nd place. Question is, whose proposal was put forward? Hillary's or DNC's?

[no name 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

Clinton has turned off many voters with her sniper fire story. I am sure, Obama will accept what DNC will decide about FL and MI. I thought, those two states broke the DNC rules.

He has rejected a proposal already put forward. He will block whatever he can, he can't bear to lose to HC.

I thought Hillary is still in the 2nd place. Question is, whose proposal was put forward? Hillary's or DNC's?

Michigan's.

[simple_male 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

Clinton has turned off many voters with her sniper fire story. I am sure, Obama will accept what DNC will decide about FL and MI. I thought, those two states broke the DNC rules.

He has rejected a proposal already put forward. He will block whatever he can, he can't bear to lose to HC.

I thought Hillary is still in the 2nd place. Question is, whose proposal was put forward? Hillary's or DNC's?

Michigan's.

It has to be approved by DNC first, right? Did DNC accept it or reject it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But should he fail - and I remain petrified that he might - his campaign's decision not to find common ground on legitimate primaries in Michigan and Florida will be rightly seen as one of the great strategic blunders in Presidential political history.

How come Hillary didn't think the primaries in FL and MI were legitimate when she was thought of and thinking of herself as Ms. Inevitable? The primaries there became legitimate only after she was inevitably behind. And to call the primary in MI legitimate when she was the only one of the ballot because she refused to make good on her committment to withdraw her name from it (yes, there were a couple no chance candidates on there too but that's not really the issue) is rather questionable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

That's ridiculous. Before the primaries, Hillary had signed on to the rules and even agreed not to campaign in both Michigan and Florida. It's up to the those states, not Barack or Hillary as to what they will do. Pinning the blame on Obama is just petty...really.

[no name 1]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

That's ridiculous. Before the primaries, Hillary had signed on to the rules and even agreed not to campaign in both Michigan and Florida. It's up to the those states, not Barack or Hillary as to what they will do. Pinning the blame on Obama is just petty...really.

No one knew the race would be so close.

That 'petty' dig, that's not negative, is it?

[HAL 9000 96]

Close or not, rules are meant to be followed. One cannot say one thing one day and cry foul for doing so the next.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

That's ridiculous. Before the primaries, Hillary had signed on to the rules and even agreed not to campaign in both Michigan and Florida. It's up to the those states, not Barack or Hillary as to what they will do. Pinning the blame on Obama is just petty...really.

No one knew the race would be so close.

Perhaps that's Hillary's hindsight, but why the rest of the candidates decided not to campaign had to with respecting the DNC rules which every state had a choice to uphold the rules they agreed to.

Note: (Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2007) Reuters

Her two closest rivals in national polls, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, both withdrew their names.

So did New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said Kelly Chesney, a spokeswoman for the Michigan secretary of state.

...

All the candidates, including Clinton, have pledged not to campaign in states that hold nominating contests early in violation of Democratic party rules.

....

Obama spokesman Jen Psaki said the decision not to appear on the ballot was "an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...943600520071009

...yet, interestingly, yet not surprisingly - Obama is somehow being blamed for why MI and FA's delegates aren't being counted.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Obama has made some serious enemies in FL & MI. Not counting them may well cost him the WH, if he is the nominee.

That's ridiculous. Before the primaries, Hillary had signed on to the rules and even agreed not to campaign in both Michigan and Florida. It's up to the those states, not Barack or Hillary as to what they will do. Pinning the blame on Obama is just petty...really.

No one knew the race would be so close.

If the tables were turned, Hillary would be fighting tooth and nail to keep FL and MI on the sidelines and the super delegates in line with the will of the voters. And she's be pushing hard and openly for Obama to call it quits. You know she would. As would you.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog