« The Middle Country: Balancing China’s Energy Demands for Development with Diminishing Cheap Energy Supplies (A response to CT's China-Oil post) | SPQR's Blog | Another Note, somewhat topical to the last Note »
A Note to Hillary, Her Campaign, & Supporters, From an Angry Michigander (with thanks to Jennifer Roth)
In the spirit of Jennifer Roth's recent post, I would like to add my refrain to her chorus; and I'll thank her for kindly not taking offense that I'm riding her coattails. Hopefully she won't be mad at me.
Lots of people are angry. They're on news networks; they're writing blogs; they're predicting doom, or making threats; and being overly passionate about it. They're angry for the sake of Michigan and disenfranchised Michiganders.
I'm one of them. Not the people who are angry on behalf of Michigan. I'm one of the angry, supposedly disenfranchised Michiganders. I grew up there, go back every Christmas, and have plenty of family and friends there.
I've read all about why Michiganders are angry: HRC is being denied the nomination because a few jerks had to decide to move Michigan's primary to a date so early that it violated DNC rules, and then that jerk DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee took away all of Michigan's delegates. Then a bunch of jerks had the nerve to take their names off the ballot, leaving only a few jerks left for the good people of Michigan to vote for in their Democratic primary. One of those ballot-reneging jerks happens to be leading this race by nearly every conceivable measure, as well as the only measure that matters, the delegate count. The nerve of that guy. He follows behind two senators and a former governor in removing his name from the delegitimized Michigan ballot. He follows the rules designed by the party elite; and he still manages to beat the insider, establishment candidate. What a jerk.
Those angry people I mentioned earlier, the ones who are angry on behalf of Michigan, need to kindly stop speaking for me. They might have a valid point, but it only applies to a subset of Michiganders, not all of them.
In fact, that's the reason why I'm feeling angry and disenfranchised.
I'm angry because I'm a 26-year old Michigander, and I'm being told by a bunch of people WHO AREN'T EVEN FROM MY STATE why I'm angry.
The subset of Southerners who were pro-civil rights were rightly angry when Gov. Wallace, a Southerner himself, made statements to the effect of, "Southerners are angry about desegregation."
Those same progressive Southerners, you can bet, were even more angry when Yankees had the nerve to make the same statements about them.
First they're assuming that we're all of one political mindset, and then they're describing us that way in their own political arguments, for their own political purposes.
I'm angry and disenfranchised at the DNC insiders on the Rules & Bylaws Committee responsible for stripping my state of its delegates; all 29 of the ones who voted to penalize Michigan, BHO and HRC supporters alike.
I'm angry and disenfranchised that my state's elected representatives broke the rules in the first place, causing this whole mess. I'm disappointed in my state's governor for ultimately having the last word and failing to stop the madness. I hope she's not a Canadian double agent or anything ; -)
I'm angry, disenfranchised and wounded for my state pride that my state is being mentioned in the same sentence as Florida with regard to a bungled election. These feelings have been magnified and been directed at both campaigns for failing to find a compromise time after time, waiting it out till tomorrow's critical DNC RBC meeting.
I'm offended that my state is being used as a political football by both sides; but I will suggest here that the pre-agreed-upon-rules-by-all-parties argument trumps the idea of changing the rules mid-game. So as a Michigander, I feel that HRC's campaign is the far guiltier party of treating my state as a political football.
I'm apalled that one side presumes to tell the nation how all of the Democrats of my state feel. I'm disenfranchised with the Clintons for presuming to speak for me without acknowledging the Uncommitteds and the BHO supporters from my state.
I'm angry and disillusioned that one of the candidates would pretend to champion my state's Democratic electorate, after saying those words: "It's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."
I'm a Democrat, and to me, Mitt Romney is more credible as a champion of Michigan than you, Senator Clinton.
And I'm ready-to-blow-a-gasket (my apologies) at the idea, put forward by only one side, that my state's lopsided Democratic primary election was somehow fair?! Mad as hell at the contention that the popular votes in my state should count, with ZERO (?!?) going to BHO -- as if the popular vote even counts in such a compromised election. Infuriated that 55% of the partisan vote in an illegitimate, "beauty contest" primary election by a disenfranchised, confused electorate is somehow perceived, by one side at least, as a MANDATE for HRC and her campaign to SPEAK FOR ALL OF MY STATE'S DEMOCRATS?!
And boy does that piss me off
Shame on you, Senator Clinton. Shame on any of your supporters who failed to acknowledge the valid arguments of the BHO supporters from my state, while trumpeting your talking points to the rest of the nation as if YOU were the mouthpiece for Wolverines everywhere.
So here's my suggestion to Hillary Clinton supporters who keep talking about why Wolverines are so angry. Leave me out of it. You can use my name if you want to. Michiganders except Scott from Kalamazoo are angry and disenfranchised because HRC is losing since the votes didn't "count."
I'm angry and disenfranchised, but it isn't because of the reasons why HRC, her campaign, and her supporters say. To the aforementioned parties: Please refrain from trying to be MY mouthpiece when you speak of the people of my state. I'll speak for myself.
If you liked this post recommend it. If you really liked it, then your homework assignment is to read my other recent post, recommend that, and post at least one interesting and topical link as a comment.
Lots of people are angry. They're on news networks; they're writing blogs; they're predicting doom, or making threats; and being overly passionate about it. They're angry for the sake of Michigan and disenfranchised Michiganders.
I'm one of them. Not the people who are angry on behalf of Michigan. I'm one of the angry, supposedly disenfranchised Michiganders. I grew up there, go back every Christmas, and have plenty of family and friends there.
I've read all about why Michiganders are angry: HRC is being denied the nomination because a few jerks had to decide to move Michigan's primary to a date so early that it violated DNC rules, and then that jerk DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee took away all of Michigan's delegates. Then a bunch of jerks had the nerve to take their names off the ballot, leaving only a few jerks left for the good people of Michigan to vote for in their Democratic primary. One of those ballot-reneging jerks happens to be leading this race by nearly every conceivable measure, as well as the only measure that matters, the delegate count. The nerve of that guy. He follows behind two senators and a former governor in removing his name from the delegitimized Michigan ballot. He follows the rules designed by the party elite; and he still manages to beat the insider, establishment candidate. What a jerk.
Those angry people I mentioned earlier, the ones who are angry on behalf of Michigan, need to kindly stop speaking for me. They might have a valid point, but it only applies to a subset of Michiganders, not all of them.
In fact, that's the reason why I'm feeling angry and disenfranchised.
I'm angry because I'm a 26-year old Michigander, and I'm being told by a bunch of people WHO AREN'T EVEN FROM MY STATE why I'm angry.
The subset of Southerners who were pro-civil rights were rightly angry when Gov. Wallace, a Southerner himself, made statements to the effect of, "Southerners are angry about desegregation."
Those same progressive Southerners, you can bet, were even more angry when Yankees had the nerve to make the same statements about them.
First they're assuming that we're all of one political mindset, and then they're describing us that way in their own political arguments, for their own political purposes.
I'm angry and disenfranchised at the DNC insiders on the Rules & Bylaws Committee responsible for stripping my state of its delegates; all 29 of the ones who voted to penalize Michigan, BHO and HRC supporters alike.
I'm angry and disenfranchised that my state's elected representatives broke the rules in the first place, causing this whole mess. I'm disappointed in my state's governor for ultimately having the last word and failing to stop the madness. I hope she's not a Canadian double agent or anything ; -)
I'm angry, disenfranchised and wounded for my state pride that my state is being mentioned in the same sentence as Florida with regard to a bungled election. These feelings have been magnified and been directed at both campaigns for failing to find a compromise time after time, waiting it out till tomorrow's critical DNC RBC meeting.
I'm offended that my state is being used as a political football by both sides; but I will suggest here that the pre-agreed-upon-rules-by-all-parties argument trumps the idea of changing the rules mid-game. So as a Michigander, I feel that HRC's campaign is the far guiltier party of treating my state as a political football.
I'm apalled that one side presumes to tell the nation how all of the Democrats of my state feel. I'm disenfranchised with the Clintons for presuming to speak for me without acknowledging the Uncommitteds and the BHO supporters from my state.
I'm angry and disillusioned that one of the candidates would pretend to champion my state's Democratic electorate, after saying those words: "It's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."
I'm a Democrat, and to me, Mitt Romney is more credible as a champion of Michigan than you, Senator Clinton.
And I'm ready-to-blow-a-gasket (my apologies) at the idea, put forward by only one side, that my state's lopsided Democratic primary election was somehow fair?! Mad as hell at the contention that the popular votes in my state should count, with ZERO (?!?) going to BHO -- as if the popular vote even counts in such a compromised election. Infuriated that 55% of the partisan vote in an illegitimate, "beauty contest" primary election by a disenfranchised, confused electorate is somehow perceived, by one side at least, as a MANDATE for HRC and her campaign to SPEAK FOR ALL OF MY STATE'S DEMOCRATS?!
And boy does that piss me off
Shame on you, Senator Clinton. Shame on any of your supporters who failed to acknowledge the valid arguments of the BHO supporters from my state, while trumpeting your talking points to the rest of the nation as if YOU were the mouthpiece for Wolverines everywhere.
So here's my suggestion to Hillary Clinton supporters who keep talking about why Wolverines are so angry. Leave me out of it. You can use my name if you want to. Michiganders except Scott from Kalamazoo are angry and disenfranchised because HRC is losing since the votes didn't "count."
I'm angry and disenfranchised, but it isn't because of the reasons why HRC, her campaign, and her supporters say. To the aforementioned parties: Please refrain from trying to be MY mouthpiece when you speak of the people of my state. I'll speak for myself.
If you liked this post recommend it. If you really liked it, then your homework assignment is to read my other recent post, recommend that, and post at least one interesting and topical link as a comment.
Advertisement
Oops. The first link should be to Jennifer Roth's post, not her profile.
May 31, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comments from Michiganders who support both sides are most welcome.
May 31, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
SPQR:
I am 55 (forgive me for this one), white, hard working, and not only have lived my life in Michigan, but still live here.
All that said, my real reply:
Amen.
May 31, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for appreciating my testimony.
I'm honored to have your respect, sir.
To everyone else:
I'm leaving till tomorrow, so I won't be able to respond to your comments. So for the people who've shown their support and will click back here to read the discussion, please help me refute my detractors while I'm gone..
Thanks a bundle for all of the RECS!!!!
-Scott
May 31, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. :)
May 31, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Michigander, and I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm angry at the state party officials whom I've supported through the years for putting breaking party rules and making our primary worthless. Their goal was to be one of the first big states to give Hillary a boost (Granholm, Levin, and Stabenow are all Hillary supporters).
I'm angry at the Hillary campaign for their ridiculous assertions that they won a legitimate primary, that they can count the votes cast in Michigan in their argument that she is the stronger candidate (while ignoring the votes cast for "none of the above"), and that they care about our voting rights following a faux primary.
I'm annoyed with Hillary's supporters who claim to be so passionate about our voting rights when it is obvious they haven't talked to many of us.
We are not your pawns.
May 31, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support. I've been wanting to write this post for a while now; I held back because I was hearing the refrain to stop the Hillary bashing. Have you noticed that many of the Cafe's regulars have been showing self-restraint in this regard?
With the DNC RBC meeting imminent, and seeing the posts of HillaryClinton08 and Indiex, I just couldn't take it anymore.
It was time to give voice to what I was sure Michiganders all over the state felt. I had to get it out in the open, instead of continuing to let outsiders speak for us.
May 31, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the perspective from inside Michigan.
P.S. GO BUCKS!
May 31, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
tut tut. no goading.
Go DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE!
;-)
May 31, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
TBH, I was actually hoping for the buckeye Obama supporter to drop in and comment. Have you seen his avatar? it's the O horizon icon with a small buckeye icon in the foreground.
May 31, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whaddya mean? Go GREEN, Go WHITE! (You know what happens when you drink ink? You go blue, of course.)
May 31, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I actually root for the Spartans too, except when they play UofM. Go BLUE. Green & White TOO!
I root for Michigan, then MSU, then Purdue since my dad went there, then the rest of the Big 10, except for OSU. I grew up watching Big10 football.
Then in the PAC10, I root for USC since that's my alma mater.
May 31, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear these thoughts and feelings put into words (or post).
Nicely put.
May 31, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can tell you're really from Michigan because you went straight for the football analogy.
May 31, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Articleman was right. this is by far my most successful blog. I forgot his 10 rules of successful posting, but I remember that one of them was "metapost," which this is..
May 31, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Us "argula eating bobos" (NOT) from Ann Arbor sure are pissed. So much I've posted my own take on it.
May 31, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only metric that counts is the ability to win the general election in November. Hillary has a much better shot at that than does Obama.
The paranoia level on this is really high.
Scott feels that the 'real' reason that Michigan was seeking to go first was to help Hillary. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Sen. Levin has been seeking to get an industrial state -- any industrial state -- to be part of the first states consider for well over a decade. Before Obama was even seeking to become US Senator. IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA.
The argeement that Michigan and Florida agreed to had New Hampshire going third -- the point was to break the lock that Iowa and New Hampshire has had -- these are conservative states and they tend to produce candidates who are not as appealing to the rest of the Democratic voters as they could be. In Iowas they use the caucus procedure which is undemocratic in that it gives advantages to those whose supporters have the best access (disciminates against the elderly, the poor, the uneducated and those who have to work) and do not reflect the results in a votig booth. Pandering to Iowa produced the grain ethanol fiasco. (Hillary opposed grain ethanol but supported switch grass ethonal -- Obama pandered.) So the point was to knock New Hampshire and Iowa off the first two spots. New Hampshire moved its primary back up and got a waiver. Michigan and Florida said well, in that case we are going earlier to. They did not get a waiver. THE RULES ARE UNFAIR AND WERE UNFAIRLY ENFORCED.
Obama was not required by the rules to take his name off the ballot. Obama, himself, took his name off the ballot. Deb Dingell (DNS member)plead with Obama to keep his name on the ballot. OBAMA HAS LIED ABOUT THE RULES.
It's unfair because everybody knew that the vote didn't count. THAT WAS THE SAME FOR BOTH SIDES
Everybody on all sides was playing chicken: the expectation was that one candidate or other, probably Hillary, would have prevailed by this oint and the delegation would be seated without threatening to disrupt the results. Usually when one candidate becomes the front runner the other side becomes discouraged and resigned and the front runner proceeds to rack up an unsurmoutable lead. This didn't happen in this race. The popular vote is neck and neck. Obama has so incensed the Hillary supporters that they continue to come out and vote for her in large numbers even though most recognize that her chances are slim unless the super-delegates wake up and recognize that Obama has a much poorer shot in November.
I was born in Michigan. I live in Michigan. Years ago I argued against Deb Dingell that Michigan should attempt to break the small state monopoly.
In short, for a lot of voters in Michigan Obama blew it and since he won't count our votes, can't count on them either.
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOw do you feel about what Hillary said in October?
How do you feel taht she said that our election wouldn't count?
How do you feel about the contention taht there is enough blame to go around? It can't all be Barack's fault. HRC has to claim half the blame at least.
How do you feel about the fact that they were all there to sign off on this decision, and agreed to it prior?
How do you feel about changing pre-agreed upon rules mid-game, as opposed to that agreement made before any results had come in?
May 31, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ack!
Wat Billary sed don' make no nevermind. She and Willie and Markable Pennydingle all had their fingers crosswised. The rules say that makes it OK for talkin outta all six sides of their tongue-waggin mouths.
Blame, shmame, Janet! It all bein HBO's fault cuz he diddn see it was Her Royal Clintonitis's turn! It bein owed to her, jus like Jo UnbeLieberman wuz owed it in 2004. Young upstart whippertysnappin dood jus got no respeck.
Yooall got scrood by Mitchagain party wheels an highrollers. Was Carl Leavinin pointed man on this? An your guv wuz no help, not neitherway.
An dem Demagogic Natural Committers get no marx fer handlin the IA-NH-MI leappity-froggin bizness. Betcha mosta dem wuz Billary fans, tho.
Waaat??? Dey been turnin the sign off? . Howz we all gonna find our way home? (Sniff... sniff... thbbbt!) O, nemmermind!
Doncha know dat in pollyticks, one underwritten rule is the rules can be changed?
Poor, stooopid HBO, he wuz sooo naieve tryin to be upperstanding and playin fair. As Prez, he's gonna get rolled by AIPAC and even the French!
Guess Billary was right bout him not havin Complainer-in-Chief stature like McSame gots.
May 31, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also never contend that the
That claim is made by Slaw in his comment.
May 31, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The only metric that counts is the ability to win the general election in November."
This falsehood is one of many being peddled daily in Clinton's ongoing disinformation campaign.
The only metric that counts is which candidate the primary voters want to elect as our party's nominee. It is incredible to suggest that nothing about a candidate's views, temperament, experience, moral fiber, policy interests, etc., should matter in whom the party runs in November. Plus the minor fact that polls predicting who would be the stronger candidate are completely useless this long before the election.
Obama has won by the only metric that counts, namely, who won the primary. All the rest is Clintonian hot air.
May 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really sick of hearing that the caucus procedure is "unfair". This has suddenly become a talking point this year only because Hillary Clinton lost in most of those states. Discriminate against people who work? In our state our caucuses are on Saturdays and our elections on Tuesdays so people who don't work on Saturdays can cast a vote. Against the elderly, poor, uneducated? All caucus goers come and place a vote. They don't have to stay and participate in discussions. They can cast their vote and leave. This does not discriminate against those populations.
May 31, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comment above was supposed to be in response to AJM's comment. I also forgot to mention that any popular vote counts do not include my state (WA) and three other caucus states. So any claim Hillary has where popular vote is concerned is flawed.
May 31, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM,
Levin made a very compelling argument today before the RBC why he and the other state party leaders did what they did (and have done for many presidential elections cycles now), was unapologetic for doing it and promising to go at it again -- or until the RBC takes a different approach to the game of front-loading primary-cycles that is more fair and diversified.
The one thing I rarely hear mentioned is the fact that the very first recommendation from the Obama camp concerning a MI re-vote was simply to toss out all the results and have everybody come back at it. You know, a complete Mulligan, and one that disenfranchises no one.
The Clinton campaign response was to totally reject that idea (obstruct a popular-voice-do-over) and, from there, we were off to the races we have been embroiled in ever since.
For the RBC to accept the hard-line Clinton proposal that was also strenuously promoted in today's RBC hearing -- to take all votes as cast, period -- would have disenfranchised me, the person who chose me as a husband (trying not to use misogynistic possessives here) and at least a dozen personal friends, who always vote, who stayed at home because the RBC and all of the candidates, including the one you chose, told us this vote was an empty gesture.
I also know a good number of people who voted uncommitted, or voted Kucinich, Dodd, or mischief-voted Republican, who would have voted for Obama. I even know a few of the 33,000 who placed Obama's name on the ticket as a write-in, though NONE of those write-ins were tallied.
What is the reality behind the high-minded rhetoric of "every voice counts" when the policy put forward is to let none of our voices be heard?
About that fall electability crap: John McCain is running neck-and-neck with both Hillary and Barack in current national polls (with only a few outliers going in different directions) -- and that's without a coherent push from the Democratic side against him yet because of the prolonged Democratic dog fight.
If McCain is such a formidable threat to Clinton or Obama in the fall, he should be up 20 points in the polls now, not neck-and-neck.
To angry Clinton supporters, I only suggest that if what you want is McCain to win, for one or two more Supreme Court justices to be replaced in the next four years (a very likely scenario) and want a woman's right to control her own body to be tossed in the legal sh*t pile of American history for maybe the next 50 years, then vote McCain, stay at home (which is a passive-aggressive vote for McCain) or vote for Nader (same diff as staying at home).
If that's what you want, then that is what you get by taking those actions. But, at least, you might win back the right for women to control their own bodies 50 years before we leave Iraq.
Sincerely from the Middle of the Mitten.
May 31, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Fish.
--from Kalamazoo-zoo-zoo.
May 31, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bat Guano,
What school did you go to?
I'm a Portage Northern alumnus. I also attended the Kalamazoo Area Math & Science Center.
If you're my age, you will probably be able to figure out who I am...
-Scott
June 2, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you vote for McCain to punish Hillary Clinton. Then, as the years go by and you have to live with your guilt, perhaps you will grow up a little.
May 31, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will get my vote if she earns it.
If no one does, no one will get it.
There will be a snowball in Hell before John McCain earns my vote, after the way he's treated Veterans with his Senate votes.
Hillary has a far better chance of earning my vote, because her politics are better than McCain's -- although I am still offended by her belief that her win in my state's primary was somehow legitimate, as well as her further presumption that she speaks for my state's Democrats as a result of this illegitimate win.
May 31, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen #2
May 31, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little confused.
You wrote that you grew up in Michigan and go back there every Christmas. This implies that you don't live there now. Yet you refer to yourself as a Michigander. In which state were you eligible to vote in this primary season?
P.S. The city of Constantinople kicks the city of Rome's ass.
May 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Istanbul now. But last time I checked, Rome is still Rome....
I live in Los Angeles currently. I might be moving back to Michigan by the fall, though. I have more authority to speak as a Michigander than many of the "angry people" I rail against.
I lived there for more than 17 years and I still get mail there.
My finger is still on the pulse of the state, and I talk to people from that state multiple times a week.
May 31, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople has always been a Jewel of the Mediterranean. Rome was a dump in the Dark Ages. Today's Rome has the same name and location, but it is not the Rome of old.
May 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares? Rome is still the seat of nearly unrivaled majesty.
A father should be proud if his son's legacy outshines his own.
Such is the case with Constantinople and Rome.
That's right, boy. Who's your daddy?
;-)
May 31, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 31, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me - let me just say that modern Rome kicks ass!
It's gorgeous, it's fascinating and it rocks all night long.
I love Rome.
you may now resume your silly squabble over the seats of Christianity.
May 31, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a U of M alum. Count me as one who thinks the state party screwed up, the national party screwed up, the national media screwed up, and the suckups like Obama and Edwards screwed up. Just like they sucked up to the casinos in Nevada. Just like Obama invited Republicans to cross over and vote for him. Obama and Edwards were trying to ingratiate themselves to the first 4 states they were contesting because they had no hope if they didn't do well in these. Pure self-interest, tossing the Democrats of the fourth and eight largest states under the proverbial bus (and how did New Hampshire skip past Nevada to be the 2nd contest again? No one cares?). Michigan is an important state, representing the auto industry and other interests. It is reasonable that Democrats in that state would want a real influence on the nomination process, and not just a token fairgrounds visit and flyover by the candidates. As someone said earlier in the campaign, there are more World Of Warcraft players in Manhattan than tubby white family farmers in Iowa, but when was the last time the MSM cut to Manhattan to interview a WoW player to find out what "real America" thinks. The same can apply to Michigan. Many people wanted the nomination declared by Super Tuesday, and the campaigning in Super Tuesday states was rather pathetic compared to the first 4. And yes, there's more to Michigan than Ann Arbor and Lansing, though some might look down at UPers and Kzoo and the rather extensive Detroit suburbs.
May 31, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for weighing in. Go Wolverines.
I agree with you about blaming the state's elected officials, the DNC, and even BHO too. I even said so in my "rant." You left out HRC in your list of people to blame, and this ignores the fact that the DNC's RBC is constituted by many of her supporters, as well as that fatal remark:
She made the famous "election...isn't going to count for anything" comment in the public record before the illegitimate primary was held. She and her statement are partly to blame for the confused, disenfranchised electorate that voted. Unless you would contend that we should only selectively believe what Hillary says, you should include her among the people you are mad at over the MESS in Michigan.
May 31, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I put it low on the responsibility list. She didn't push these states to switch, she didn't push the DNC to disenfranchise them, she did encourage them to find a workable solution. But she was a candidate stuck in a bad situation - the disenfranchisement hurt her and not the others, while complaining about it would hurt her in the early states while quite likely not making a difference in FL & MI. If she had said anything, it would have been "Hillary not playing by rules" through the first 4 states. Sorry, it's not a candidate's responsibility to deep-six her own campaign.
May 31, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a post I made back in March on this.
May 31, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She signed a contract not to participate. By leaving her name on the ballot, she violated that contract.
And before you bring up Florida, recall that Obama tried to take off his name, but missed the deadline.
May 31, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think from other posts I've seeded around here, there would be no confusing me with a Clinton supporter.
That being said, and in a complete sense of fairness: They signed a pledge to not campaign here. According to David Bonior, then chief strategist for John Edwards, Edwards chose to remove his name from the ballot because, honestly, that early in the campaign and back at a time when HRC was "inevitable," it was decided to not leave his name on a "whose name do you most recognize?" level vote without the benefit of strenuous on the ground campaigning. I believe, though it was never admitted by any of the rest, that Biden, Obama and Richardson all reached the same conclusion and that's why they removed their names.
Hillary chose to leave her name on because she knew she was the most recognizable name and had, for at least 6-9 months prior, been declared "inevitable" by almost all of MSM. There was nothing more to that, nor less, as far as I'm concerned.
Combine that with the fact that there were 33,000 (never tallied) Obama write-in votes and exit polls showed Obama garnered around 73% of the "uncommitted" vote and that there was no tallying of the Obama voters who mischief-voted Republican (I personally know a few of those), and I think that scrapes a bit of luster off Clinton's 55% vote.
I mean she was about all that was being favorably talked about in the MSM, with passing references to Obama's large rallies and somewhat tentative early debate performances. And yet he, by all appearances here anyway, came within spitting distance of her "win."
Without campaigning here.
May 31, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found the pledge: "shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as 'campaigning' is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."
May 31, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Edwards tried to get a caucus instead of a primary. Desperation moves.
June 1, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Obama tried to make it back for Kyl-Lieberman and missed the vote, etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda. The backers with a million excuses. And it's bullshit - he was legally not allowed to pull his name from the ballot, so what are you talking about?
June 1, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okee dokee Des. Hillary has been HERE twice and Obama once (though he appeared at two rallies that time, so that makes them even). Since they all agreed to not campaign here, they have both held true to that pledge, I'd say, so the "fly over" allusion to Bush also applies equally (no matter how absurd).
As for me, a real Michigander (and white and hard working and male and 55), I'll go with the guy who started his political life helping displaced steel mill workers in Illinois over a person who helped a law go into effect that sent our jobs to Mexico and overseas any day (and whose husband and lead political adviser was the only Democratic president in the last half century that took an active part in killing labor unions).
But, what would I know about Michigan politics after only being involved in it for 35 years?
May 31, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what did Hillary do for rural electrification and micro-loans for poor women and improvement of rural education and other help for working women?
Just paint her with one big goddamn brush. Obama=Man of the people, Hillary=shill for corporates. Is that what *YOUR* 35 years of experience taught you?
June 1, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for another ill-informed bullshit rant. You have absolutely no moral authority to be angry.
I've been watching the Rules Committee meeting today, where I have learned about the history of the Michigan primary. I suggest you educate yourself about the Michigan primary, unless you enjoy making an ass of yourself in public.
May 31, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could respond to my points instead of dismissing them as an "ill-informed bullshit rant."
How, pray tell, will you back up your claim that I "have absolutely no moral authority to be angry?"
What state are you from? Did your state fail you? Did your party fail your state?
Come back and preach when you can tell me why I have no authority to be angry about the goings on in MY STATE.
May 31, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, and 57 recommends and counting along with at least 2 other Michiganders say I'm NOT making an ass of myself in public.
what state are you from?
May 31, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your rant has no points. Everything you've said is either unprovable or outright false (hence "ill-informed bullshit"). I'm not going to address your confused, self-absorbed emotional outburst (hence "rant") except to scorn it.
No accuracy means no argument means no moral authority. As I said, please go away and educate yourself about YOUR OWN STATE. If I can do it, you can too.
Your rant is meaningless and doesn't belong in a public forum whose goal is broader than the thoroughly uninteresting topic of you. Your rant is about you, not about issues. Your response to me is also about you, not about issues. Therefore, go preach on your own blog, in your own space.
Don't like my opinion? I don't give a shit.
May 31, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket is READY! TO BLOW AGASKET! ON DAY ONE!
May 31, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lie. Reread the post if you have to. There's plenty of facts in it that can be backed up by historical record. Click the links if you have to. Or you can just not give a shit. I don't give a shit about your opinion either, if you won't even engage.
At the least, respond to this. Why did Hillary say that the election "isn't going to count for anything" back in October?
Why is it ok for her to fight so hard for it to count for something now, after she knows the result?
I say, hold her to her word from before the outcome was known; she is a sore loser for wanting to go back on it after the results are in.
Facts. Respond or go away.
Until you can erase the historical record of Hillary's statement regarding the Michigan race "not counting for anything," I have a valid point that she's flip-flopping. The historical record is accurate. The argument is made, and unrefuted. The moral authority remains.
May 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything in your 4th paragraph is wrong except that 4 candidates took their names off the ballot. However, your insinuation that the Clinton campaign has called anyone a jerk is bullshit. Your insinuation that there was a "rule" to remove names from the ballot is bullshit. Your insinuation that Clinton did not follow "the rules" is bullshit.
Your state's representatives did not break the rules until after New Hampshire broke the rules. New Hampshire wasn't punished yet Michigan was. Why? Michigan was lobbying to follow a rule made by the DNC that New Hampshire should go third rather than second. You don't even know what you're whining about.
The Michigan primary was not "illegitimate." You don't know what the fucking word means when you connect it to an election. It was a legitimate, if non-binding, primary. There's a difference which you clearly don't know.
Your notion that Clinton is proposing Obama gets zero votes is bullshit. You don't even know what the Clinton proposal was.
Using Clinton's quote from New Hampshire is bullshit. You fail to mention John Conyers's radio ads that urged voters to vote Uncommitted. I know about them, why don't you? You fail to mention the massive grassroots efforts by the campaigns of Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson (all Obama supporters of course) to get out the vote for Uncommitted. You fail to mention that Michigan has a history of sending Uncommitted delegates to conventions. You fail to mention that Michigan voters were informed. You don't know any of this because you weren't there and you're too lazy to find out.
Those are just some of the things you got wrong. Would you like me to finish? I haven't even addressed the illogic of your anger.
But believe me, no one is angry on your behalf.
You have no moral authority.
May 31, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for finally engaging, if in a thoroughly profane way.
If you read Jenn in Indiana's post, you would know why the term "jerk" figures so heavily in the 4th paragraph. It's a metapost. get over it.
Same for the "Rule" quote at the end of Paragraph 4. It's not a reference to Michigan's primary, and I know there was no "Rule" requiring candidates to remove their names from the ballot. The "Rule" quote is DIRECTLY PULLED from Jenn's post. Again, metapost.
Whether I insinuate that Hillary broke the rules is in the eye of the reader; I didn't say that she broke the rules explicitly, and I don't believe leaving her name on the ballot was breaking the rules as you have insinuated. But I think it's fair to say that she wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, by counting Michigan's delegates when she agreed to have them stripped months ago.
My state's representatives broke the rules. The DNC RBC chose to punish them. The RBC chose not to punish New Hampshire -- oh, i don't know, perhaps because of its historical primacy? Every candidate understood those terms before the race. What about this is unfair to HRC and advantageous to BHO? Nothing. They were pre-agreed upon conditions by ALL PARTIES.
Please enlighten me as to the difference between "Illegitimate" and "non-binding," oh election guru. And please see your way to doing it without cussing. I only cussed in my response to you b/c you cussed first. This time I'll refrain, and I hope you will too.
(I guess Desidero was right. Words do matter.)
Isn't that EXACTLY what she was saying when she first stated making the claim "You know, more people have voted for me than anyone else..." Because the only way for that to have been true on that early date was by ignoring caucuses and giving Obama a big fat ZERO for Michigan. Sounds like she proposed that Obama get zero votes from Michigan AND 4 other states that day. Whether that was official or not, that was the talking point taken up by many of her supporters. So who's BS now?
I think Clinton's quote from New Hampshire is fair game. What makes quoting it BS? How is it off limits? She said it on the public record. I knew all about Conyers' radio ads for Uncommitted; it matters very little, because not that many people listen to the radio, and furthermore my state LOST ITS DELEGATES. People still stayed home, because they couldn't vote for who they wanted to, and they'd been told taht their state's delegates had been stripped anyway. Bottom line: Delegates are what matter to the nomination; without delegates, voters won't vote for "Uncommitted" if it doesn't even mean anything. Partisans, however, at least have the motivation of seeing their candidate's name. That's why the numbers for the election are absolutely NOT a reflection of the state's Democratic electorate.
Biden only declared yesterday. And it's not like they were ganging up on her.So now you're the thought police and you know whether I'm ignorant about subjects I fail to mention? How do you get from "fail to mention" to "don't know any of this?" What I choose to mention or not mention is up to me; if it's not up to me, then I'm afraid you are going to have to turn against Hillary for FAILING TO MENTION the 4 caucus states and the Uncommitted vote in Michigan on the day she first started claiming the popular vote. So don't conflate FAILING TO MENTION with IGNORANCE on me. You are the lazy one - it took me 3 comments to get you to engage. Here I am, hitting you back right away, on each of your arguments, and unprofanely.
So flame away, blown gasket.
May 31, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
SPQR,
As far as facts go, quoting other reader posts as a "source" is bullshit, regardless of whether you're going for meta or not. Either you know what the fuck you're talking about and you can quote an authoritative source, or you don't know what you're talking about. You clearly don't know enough about Michigan's primary to write this post. You're offering a biased, unsubstantiated opinion but presenting it as factual and historically accurate simply by bellowing it. It's neither factual nor historically accurate.
You are certainly free to have an unsubstantiated opinion. Just go do it on your own blog, not here.
As far as New Hampshire goes, the DNC spent about a year examining the relevance of the "historic primacy" of New Hampshire's primary and Iowa's caucuses. The DNC determined to expand the diversity of the electorate represented in early voting, and made a schedule, which included Nevada and South Carolina. Everyone, including Michigan, agreed to the schedule, and then New Hampshire jumped ahead again, breaking the rules. Michigan challenged the DNC for not enforcing its own rules. The DNC gave New Hampshire a waiver to break the rules and penalized Michigan and Florida.
"We are determined that Michigan not be bound by rules that are not effectively enforced against other states," wrote Levin and Dingell to Howard Dean in September 2007 in the letter I linked to.
I don't have the desire or time to refute your every misconception and misstatement because there are so many, although I certainly could do so. The burden of proof actually falls on you, however, not on me. You haven't proved a single claim you've made, you've just hit the CAPS LOCK key and started typing. But you're ignorant, and what's worse, you're arrogant about being ignorant. Watch the first half of the RBC meeting for a quickie primer, where your representatives from your home state outline the history and enumerate the facts about MI. I think you'd find it enlightening, particularly because it's about MI, which you say you care so much about. Not to mention, it's part of the overall democratic process in this country, such as it is.
May 31, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the part where they shot down the Florida representative who made many of the points you did.
May 31, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what. I'm talking about Michigan.
June 1, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
RTBAG,
We are in agreement about reader posts not being authoritative sources. We are not in agreemnt about the necessity of quoting an authoritative source in order for a person to know what the "f#ck" they are talking about. You've made a specious argument here. For instance, you could tell me that chemical bonds form because electrons are shared or transferred, and I would take your word for it w/o needing your source, b/c it's true.
My opinions are not unsubstantiated, and you're going to have to refute my valid arguments against Hillary Clinton before you can credibly call for this blog to be censored from public fora.
-She flip-flopped on whether Michigan should count, and she now calls for the contravention of mutually agreed upon rules set prior to the contest; this left her open to accusations of being self-serving: please refute.
-She failed to mention Michigan and 4 caucus states when she began making her claim for the popular vote; such an oversight was both disingenuous and misleading, or just plain ignorant for its failure to mention 5 states: please refute.
-She made "predictions of doom," (losing MI/FL to McCain) and whipped up her supporters nationwide, causing what I referred to as "anger" on behalf of Michigan from people not even from Michigan, with arguments like these:
Please refute.
Did the TPM management remove this blog before its 24 hours? Isn't this their website? No one made you TPM's censor, and no one else called for my blog to be removed from public view. In fact, Democrats from Michigan appreciated it, and from reading the comments, I obviously gave voice to the opinions of many Michiganders. Can you show me what part of the Terms & Conditions this violates? I'm pretty sure that giving voice to people's thoughts and opinions, political or otherwise, is exactly waht this place is about. Believe me, I won't ever leave a comment that tells you that your opinion doesn't belong in public, on one of your posts here on TPM or anywhere else. So feel free to post blogs about whatever the hell you want. I hope people read them and discuss topics interesting to you in them.
So, more ad hominem attacks; I'm ignorant and arrogant too. At least I don't lace my strong objections or my self-righteousness with profanity.
The reason I use ALL CAPS for emphasis is because I'm too lazy for html when I'm on a roll. Whether you perceive it as bellowing or wahtever is up to you. I'm no Pirate Peet, though - I use emphasis, but it's not in every sentence.
And BTW, there's likewise lots of stuff you've posted in your comments here that I haven't taken the time to refute, although I certainly could.
Your statement about Michigan primary voters being "informed," about all the things you say that they are, for one...
Keep flaming all you want. I'll keep posting as long as you do.
June 2, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Born in Michigan. Just checking in here. Thanks!
May 31, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! Clinton is willing to flip-flop on everything, from Michigan and Florida, to NAFTA, just to fit in with the flavor of the month. Your detractors here are short on facts, and long on vitriol.
In fairness to her supporters, Clinton is the best candidate...for John McCain in November. With negatives like hers, and with Obama's ability to organize in all 50 states, McCain would to run against Clinton. That's why Rush Limbaugh was encouraging R's to vote for Clinton in Indiana and elsewhere.
What Barbara Ehrenreich said about Clinton in the Nation was dead on: "Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way--by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps."
May 31, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't a better strategy to vote Democratic locally and avoid the type of folk who will move your Primary as an F.U. to the DNC?
While you are at it . . . Perhaps folk voting cross party to SNAFU the other Parties nomination process . . . Well . . . Angry folk live as angry folk do.
Clinton lives as Clinton is. Of course, she is farging with your state. Being pissed off at her idiocity is like being angry at the wind for blowing.
May 31, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Angry at the wind blowing" or fed up with the Koolaid Kids blathering on about how angry everyone else is.....either one.
May 31, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that many who were told over and over that the Michigan Dem dels wouldn't be seated naturally assumed that a Dem vote wouldn't matter. So they picked up the Republican ballot and voted for Paul, or whoever else they thought would be the best Republican, or for someone like Romney (son of a past Michigan governor, by the way) to keep the Republican fight going.
In that context I wouldn't portray messing with Republican ballots as the mentally deranged act of angry folk.
May 31, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... voting Democratic locally gave us the leaders who moved up the primary, whether in FU mode or not (and I think Levin's arguments for the unfairness of Iowa and New Hampshire always being first has a good deal of merit, regardless the bad back-end consequences.
The people I know who did cross-over voting are anything but angry people; they are just people who didn't have a name on the Democratic ballot besides which to dimple their chad and were anything but "uncommitted."
But, you are 100% correct: I would never be angry at a tornado. Neither would I elect one to occupy the Oval Office.
May 31, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Michigander, my main concern is that the Democrats in my state have been *disenfranchised* in the precise meaning of the word. We didn't get a legitimate primary or caucus, despite representations to the contrary from numerous Democratic officials. Florida's primary was also flawed, but at least all the names were on the ballot there. While I greatly prefer Obama and expect him to be the nominee and eventual president, it would be be reasonable to reward Hillary a bit for keeping her name on the MI ballot by giving her more MI delegates than Obama gets.
But that's a secondary issue. The national party has generated a lot of ill will here and needs to make amends by, for example, guaranteeing that Michigan will have a favored role in the next contested Democratic Presidential race. The state party leadership should also be honorable and step down.
May 31, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Michigan-mate, I'd say the RBC went a fair piece in settling that issue today -- even though somebody in the Clinton camp has declared they are taking this all the way to the convention.
The only ill-will generators left, it seems, are the ones who have decided that scorched-earth is preferable to grace in defeat or party unity. Wins are wins and losses are losses -- otherwise they would never have cameras at the finish line in real horse races.
Considering her new-found closeness to the key players in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I would be very little surprised to see Hillary run for POTUS as a Republican in 2012. A bit of a full-circle there: From "Goldwater Girl" in the 60s to a Mellon-Scaife/Murdoch client in the 21st century. Dragging this to the convention would leave her somewhat radioactive to the Democratic inner circle.
May 31, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone born here and who still lives here and is one of the proud Uncommitted voters, I'd just like to say that everyone can KISS MY PLEASANT PENINSULA!!!
GO RED WINGS!!!
May 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second both of those noble notions.
June 2, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Michigan.I whole heartly agree with your post!
May 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters, please go here.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/an-honest-question-for-clinton.php
May 31, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BRAVO!
June 1, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink