Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and those pesky MI and FL delegates

With the Democratic presidential nomination fight looking more and more like a draw, party leaders are becoming increasingly concerned about internal fallout should neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama seal the deal the old-fashioned way -- by earning enough delegates for a first-round win at the Democratic National Convention.

As our colleague Peter Nicholas reports in today's paper, the Clinton campaign is still pushing the national party to count delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries, which she won. You'll recall that those states were stripped of their delegates because the state parties jumped the line and held unsanctioned early contests. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, made a pitch earlier in the week for both national parties to seat all the delegates from the two states (the Republicans stripped half the delegates from the gun-jumpers).

A couple of points: First, courts have been loath to interfere with internal political party spats, arguing, essentially, that it's up to the parties to create the rules and sort out the messes themselves. But one suspects that if the Democratic National Committee changes its mind and seats the delegates -- even with the acquiescence of the Obama campaign -- while the nomination hangs in the balance, there would be a legal challenge by Obama supporters arguing that the party had violated its own rules after the fact. This is especially significant in Michigan, where Obama removed himself ...

from the ballot because of the sanctions, which meant people there couldn't have voted for him if they wanted to. And that's the kind of challenge the courts might take up.

Second, why is Crist so hot to have the delegates seated? His candidate, John McCain, sealed the Republican nomination the night before Granholm and Crist made their pitches. Yes, it would be good for GOP unity to have everyone seated, and as the party's standard-bearer in Florida, Crist certainly has a responsibility to make that case. At this point, the Republican Party loses nothing by letting all the Floridians in, though we're reminded of the necessity of firm and consistent discipline to handle an unruly child.

But the delegates are more important to the Democratic race right now. And with many Republicans preferring that McCain face off against Clinton instead of Obama, Crist's stance sounds like political game playing, similar to that of the Ohio Republicans who voted for Clinton on Tuesday. And it should be noted that Granholm's intent might not be pure, either -- she's a superdelegate who endorsed Clinton last fall.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments () | Archives (61)

The comments to this entry are closed.

If Obama wins without MI and FL being counted, he will be illegitimate and I will do everything I can to see him lose in Nov.

Plus, the dems need to get rid of the caucus system. TX shows us how completely undemocratic it is.

If Clinton wins because Michigan and Florida are counted, she will be illegitimate, and I will do everything to see she loses in November.

And then Obama returns in 2012 to defeat the ancient John McCain or his vice president.

JS, your post is a twofer. Two of the most inane things I've read lately.

1. How is Obama responsible for what the Democratic National Comittee decided? He can't be an illegitimate candidate if he has played by the rules established by the DNC (which, by the way, were voted on and agreed to by the entire committee, which included, at the time, current Clinton staffer Harold Ickes - convenient that now he wants those delegates to count...)

2. If you're supporting Clinton, but would switch your vote to Republican (or, as you stated, do everything you can to see Obama lose) just because she didn't get the nomination, you must not hold very valued opinions about the state of the nation or the presidency. Pull your head out! This election is about more than whether Clinton or Obama gets the nomination. This is a chance to begin to reverse the damage done by the Republican party during the last 8 years. McCain isn't going to do that. Only Clinton or Obama, whichever of them wins the nomination, is going to be able to start working on repairing our nation.

Frankly, as an Obama supporter myself, I obviously hope he wins the nomination. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to act like a 5 year-old. I'll walk into that voting booth in November and select Clinton. This isn't a time to "take your ball and go home" like a child.

How can you say she "won" Michigan when no other candidate was on the ballot? The most you can say is she won a noncontest. To leave it out there as a 'win' says to people who don't follow the news "wait - she won that?" NO. She didn't.

Please don't keep calling her a winner there. Ditto Florida, where no one competed.

Ditto, for that matter, Texas. We don't award wins by popular vote. If we did, Al Gore would have been president in 2000. In the primary, you have to win the delegates.

And in Texas, now that the caucus results are 49% in, Obama's lead there is so big it's wiped out her primary victory. The delegates from TX come 2/3 from primary and 1/3 from caucus.

Hillary's votes: 65 primary plus 29 caucus = 94.
Obama's votes: 61 primary plus 38 caucus = 99.

So OBAMA is WINNING TEXAS by 5 delegates, and Hillary LOST Texas in the only count that matters.

I wish the media could get it right on these matters.

(Actually, Kucinich was on the ballot in Michigan, where most of the Democrats asked to have their name removed. Clinton did not. In Florida, the other candidates were listed, but did not actively campaign. They were allowed to fundraise in the state, however, which Clinton did and attracted pre-election publicity that way.)

Just like football or any sport for that matter, you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Both Florida and Michigan knew the rules and the consequences for breaking them a full year and a half before their primaries. Anyone with a brain fully understands that the only reason why this has become an issue is because Hillary is desperate and will do anything to win. The fact of the matter is, the math is not on her side. Plus, the Governor of Michigan is a super delegate for Hillary and the Governor of Florida would like to see Hillary win because she is an easier candidate to beat against John McCain. Every poll indicates that Obama has the better chance of beating McCain than Clinton. The only fair resolutions is to abide by the rules as they were set or to have another election.

Don't you think Democrats might NEED Florida voters in November, and Michigan voters? Ever heard of voter suppression?

These democrats came out in record numbers to VOTE. This is despicable! COUNT THEIR VOTES. In Florida, neither candidate campaigned, and both were on the ballot. They had an even shot. COUNT THOSE VOTES FOR PETE'S SAKE.

In Michigan, re-vote or seat those delegations at the ratio of the national popular vote, but COUNT THOSE VOTES!

No one cares what their stupid state parties did to break the rules. The voters VOTED. Either pay for new elections, not those crooked, absurd, undemocratic caucuses, or COUNT THEIR VOTES!

If DEMOCRATS don't understand the value and importance of counting votes IN FLORIDA, then we are truly lost.

What the heck is wrong with these idiots?

HILLARY CLINTON has lied and cheated all thru this campaign. This woman has NO integrity or honour. She will do anything including STEAL this election if she is allowed to. She is the worse kind of politician. I want my daughter to see a woman President someday, but NEVER this caniveing witch.

How come you can say Hillary won with no other candidates on the ballot? It's called default! Some people ask dumb questions.

What lies? What cheating? Be specific. Prove your points. By the way, where did you learn to spell? It seems Clinton's critics don't know how to argue a point or spell.

I don't get it. In Michigan, Clinton did not campaign but got her name on the ballot. The only name because everyone else decided to pull their names out of the game. I see this as a good tactician, remain visible and remind people she is running for president. Cover all bases. Is that what we want out of our leader, make sure everything remains to our advantage when dealing with foreign leaders and republican leadership?. She won without campaign. So she did not break the rule. In Florida, everyone decided to do the same, put their names in the ballot, including Obama. And guess what CLINTON won without campaigning. If you follow this campaign closely, Obama did visit Florida before the election, fundraising and or campaign. Clinton did not. Clinton won and only after she won that she had celebratory visit. To me this show foresight, ability to pan out all potential problems before going on the battle. And she picked her battles. She is certainly not a follower in my eyes. She lost 11 straight contests because she did not really campaign in caucus states due to, again she foresee the problems. Obama is following the Dean's strategy: all 50 states. If you see it closely, Obama won independents, and by nature independents are fence sitter, they can go to republican nominee at any given moment. Overall, I think Clinton is smart, forceful, determined, and has the ability to smell problems ahead of time and knows how to handle them. GO HILLARY!

When you've lost 12 in a row, any good news qualifies as a comeback. The reality is, though, Clinton promised to cut Obama's delegate lead, and that didn't happen. The Clinton campaign set a test for themselves, which was to wipe out Obama's lead in delegates in the Ohio and Texas primaries. They didn't reduce Obama's lead at all. So now the Clinton campaign wants to change the nominating rules.

And Hillary has to create hocus pocus out of this. I can’t believe the LA Times buys into the"no leader" spin in this article on its front page today. It's hocus pocus to be sure, but Clinton's media team relies upon their ability to divert attention away from the actual facts. And these facts remain: Obama has won 28 contests, Clinton has won 13; Obama has won more popular votes; Obama has got somewhere in the neighborhood of a 160-delegate lead; and time is running out. At some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee should be Barack Obama.

Now Clinton wants to change the rules. Hillary has shown she's ready to destroy the party over her unprincipled ambition, and it should now be obvious to everyone that Clinton is prepared to use any and all manner of misinformation and manipulation to win. Clinton talks about vetting Obama, but what about Mrs. Clinton? Hillary Clinton and the voters need to be reminded why people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If Hillary insists on taking credit for the supposed accomplishments of her husband's administration, then she can also take responsibility for its many failures.

Voters should take a good look to see what is now beyond disguise: It is Clinton, not Obama, who is all talk and no action. The big ideas fueling Clinton’s candidacy are blind ambition, an unbecoming sense of entitlement and a thirst for power that all the Gatorade in Gainesville could not quench.

And it is time for each and all of us to be over and done with politics served Clinton style.

Both Michigan and Florida knew the rules gonig into the game and now they want to change them? Shame, shame! I personally think ALL primaries should be held on one day. Oh, yes... I hear the complaints now. It's too costly! The candidates would spread themselves too thin! But wouldn't that be the most democratic way to do it? Give everyone's vote equality in the primary.

People are intrigued because, for the first time that I can remember, the nominee hasn't been chosen by the third or fourth primary and people actually have the opportunity to have a voice.

I don't recommend at all that this continue to drag on with Democrat pitted against Democrat and McCain working himself into a lather. I don't think that the delegates should be seated based on election that was held outside of the rules.

My big question... since when has a Florida Republican cared whether or not a Florida Democrat's vote counted? Interesting perspective on that primary.

Team Clinton is now comparing Obama to Kenneth Starr for stating he intends to delve into her background, as she has with his.

Once again, I'm gobsmacked at how despicable she is. I won't vote for McCain, but I don't think I can in good conscience vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. She embodies much of what I despise about the Republican party.

Who is the Green Party candidate?


HRC = :-) GOP


I wonder what Mrs. Clinton would be preaching if she were up by 100+ delegates? You can rest assure that she would be "thinking of her party's welfare" and urging Barack to bow out for the sake of the party.

Hillary really disapointed me in this campaign. She has proven to be the single most, disingenuine person in politics and yes even more than George dubya himself.

What a disgrace for the democratic voters. This should have been a slam-dunk after almost 8 years of George!

Shame on you Hillary! Shame on the super delegates! Shame on the DNC!

"Frankly, as an Obama supporter myself, I obviously hope he wins the nomination. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to act like a 5 year-old. I'll walk into that voting booth in November and select Clinton. This isn't a time to "take your ball and go home" like a child."

I do not want to be represented by an individual such as HRC who would use any dirty tricks or do anything to be elected. She is an individual without integrity.

Besides, John McCain will win the election, hands down. She carries to much baggage

I need to decide weather I stay at home, during the elections ,or vote for McCain if HRC is nominated for the Democratic Party

For the sake or reference, if the Democratic Party followed a winner-take-all system that awarded delegates based on the number of electoral votes that a state has (i.e. 55 delegates for California, 34 for Texas, 4 for New Hampshire, etc.), this is what the Obama-Clinton standings would look like:

Scenario 1 -- Without Florida and Michigan

Clinton... 214
Obama... 193

* With a maximum of 494 "delegates"/ votes available(remember, no Florida and Michigan in this scenario), either candidate would need 248 for a majority.

Scenario 2 -- Florida and Michigan for Clinton

Clinton... 258
Obama... 193

* With a maximum of 538, the magic number would be 270.

I recognize that this is not the system in place. I am just offering this as an alternative method of comparing the success that Obama and Clinton have had in the primaries and caucuses. Yes, Obama has won far more states, but they have been much smaller states.

To Steve Wimer
"How come you can say Hillary won with no other candidates on the ballot? It's called default! Some people ask dumb questions."

The LA Lakers would not gain any points if the play a pick up game with the NY Knicks. The game has to be acording to the NBA rules and must be sanccion by it.

Great points-- with one exception-- it does not look like a draw between Clinton and Obama--

She only gained between 5-10 delegates on Tuesday--mathematically there is very little chance if any that Clinton can beat Obama's delegate count. He's just too far ahead-- he not only won eleven states but in most of them he won by a huge margin.

I agree with those who critique the democratic primary system as being wacky, antiquated, in need of overhaul, even but you can't change the rules in the middle of a game and Clinton is an irresponsible candidate to argue for this. It shows little regard for the democratic party and I've lost all respect for her-- and may possibly lose all respect for the democratic party if it does not play by its own rules.

Yes, the super delegates can overrule the popular vote, but this would be the nail in the DNC coffin.

"HILLARY CLINTON has lied and cheated all thru this campaign. This woman has NO integrity or honour. She will do anything including STEAL this election if she is allowed to. She is the worse kind of politician. I want my daughter to see a woman President someday, but NEVER this caniveing witch."

Oh great - it's comments like these that make me shake my head. You can't even spell "conniving" correctly; it certainly doesn't help how judgmental, idiotic, and pompous-spewing misogynist you come across to the rest of us. Go back to school and learn some things before spouting off your stupidity.

Just wondering when the media will start to take a hard look at Obama and stop theie ridiculous infatuation with him? When is anyone going to discuss the skeletons in his closet ? I'd also like to know from the Obama supporters how this man will unify the party when he is a separatist at heart (remember the 13 tenets of his church)? He also happens to have an extremely close relationship with the minister of his church who openly denounces gays and gives a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. This same minister is the first person he thanked when he became senator. he has many underlying issues that the Republicans are going to exploit once the national election comes around. I'm not saying hil doesnt have any but most of hers are out in the open. Its interesting that the majority of his campaign is based on a speech he made denouncing the war before he was even in the senate. Who knows what his actual record and views are. He likes to complain that he accidentally miscast his ballot while voting on contentious issues so he can have his cake and eat it to. Being a good speaker and regurgitating what has been written by your speechwriter does not make a good candidate. All his major gaffes have been while he's asked to answer questions on his own (ie meeting w/ heads of unfriendly states, going after Pakistan, etc). Unfortunately hope and inspiration alone cannot change our country.

Long live the oligarchy! Long live Clinton!

I find it highly ironic that a large amount of Clinton Democrats are preaching a system that is...well, completely undemocratic.

Overturn caucuses (perhaps the most functional unit of democracy). Count votes in states where their candidate was the only one on the ticket. Sue the party when rules don't suit you. How the hell is that even remotely democratic? Who are you people, and why are you in my party?

Don't you see why we're voting for Obama now? We are sick of the oligarchy. I'm not surprised a good amount of Hillary supporters will defect in the general election if Barack wins...McCain and the GOP are definitely a better ideological match for them.


Assuming by your post, you're one of the many uneducated white males who makes up Clinton's base...when was the last time you actually read a newspaper?

An educated white male

To Pooja b who wrote: "Just wondering when the media will start to take a hard look at Obama and stop theie [sic] ridiculous infatuation with him?...." intelligent, well thought-out post albeit a few typos. Thank you for this.

My goodness, whether ethical or not, re-voting in Florida and Michigan will prove to be the final dagger to the Clinton campaign and with what little integrity they have left.

Why is Florida always effing things up?

Florida and Michigan will hold primaries on either June 10th or 14th. Both primaries will be for Democrats only and will be funde by a large individual donation.

Projected pledged delegate count at that time will be Obama : 1,675
Clinton: 1,552

Giving Obama a 123 vote lead in pledged delecates (those won in an election). If Florida and Michigan were counted, which will be argued at the convention, the race would be within a few votes giving little direction to the Super Delegates.

Florida and Michigan primaries are the only way to resolve the issue before the convention, even though these primaries sitll might not define a winner. Clinton believes she can win if she can get to the Convention within a hundred pledged delegates of Obama. She also has to win the popular vote (counting Florida, where both Obama and her were at least on the ticket). She believes she has the votes to certify the Florida and Michigan delegations but the real appeal is to the super delegates to avoid a confrontation. New primaries are the only way to resolve this devisive issue before the convention, and avoid a real fight days before the general election starts a few days after the convention.

Intelligent? Do you two live under the same rock, or just share the same brain cell?

You're totally correct. The media has been a gentle, little lamb towards Obama in the last three weeks. And Mia, before accusing someone of being sexist because they don't back your horse, why don't you look at your own reasons for voting for Hillary? What's more sexist, voting your conscious or voting for someone because they share your gender?

Hillary has to win legit. If MI & FL delegates are seated without a do-over so that Obama has a chance to introduce himself and compete, I pledge to work hard to see her lose the general election.

Surely the Democratic party learned in its DNA to "count every vote" during 2000. I understand the problem with the current votes. But the voters of Michigan and Florida need to be counted, and it is frankly odd and hypocritical for Obama supprters to be against the established rules for superdelegates while adamantly insisting on the rules being applied strictly in this case, when it means no votes for Florida. Now who's being Bush-like? Mr. Dean, let them vote!

There's another thing that's irking me. Somehow, Obama is the people's choice; yet in Texas, which Hillary won by 100,000 or so, the caucus's results, were the opposite of the people's choice, Obama winning by the same percentage as Hillary won the primary. Never has the real contrast between the candidates been shown in such relief. A lot of the activists, and Republicans and Independents, are for Obama, and they show up for the caucus. When the whole population is given a choice, they choose Hillary.

Oh yes ! By all means count Michigan and Florida. After all it is only fitting to break the rules, when things aren't going your way. After all the Clintons' got away with it for 8 years in the White house , and for years before in Arkansas. Why change now? In fact and indeed, they are expected to stay the course. Makes one wonder why Obamas' message of hope and change, could eek out a single vote! Hmmmmm. OK back to reality.

These questions deserve thorough explanations if Clinton expects to be the nominee, let alone President! Fully VETTED my eye!

• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

It was NOT the Florida voters who decided to move the primary date up, it was the Republican controlled state.
We cannot claim to be a democracy if we let 1.7 million voters here in Florida to be disenfranchised for something they didn't do.
How can we preach about bringing Democracy to other countries in the world and yet so many people here are OK with the undemocratic decision of DNC which would result in 1.7 million voters getting disenfranchised.

Florida and Michigan delegates should NOT be included unless a new vote is taken. I live in Florida and I didn't vote because it wouldn't count and it would have been a waste of my time. In fact, I thought Democrats in Michigan and Florida were silly to vote that day because we were already informed it was of no consequence. Trust me, many people didn't vote for the same reason and it would be incredibly unfair to not allow everyone who wants to be counted to be counted.

Pooja b -- how naive: "I'm not saying hil doesnt have any but most of hers are out in the open." I'll agree when they release their tax returns and we can see where the millions are coming from, and what Bill's business dealings are. The media also needs to investigate Bill - do we really think he's keeping it zipped?!? Like it or not, Bill is fair game come Fall, and he's an enormous target and liabiity. Could be McCain in a landslide.

I just want to stress that we need to win this presidency and make serious changes or we will have another war lord in the white house and you know what that means ... it will never end. I like Obama for his simple solution to our economy: End the war in Iraq and use the 4 billion dollars we spend every day over there to fund AMERICA! Schools, colleges, Social Security, Medicare, make health insurance affordable, the list goes on and on!
Hillary, you just seem so darn greedy and mean spirited the way you campaign. You and your husb already had 8 years in the white house, hey, give it up to someone fresher and not so mean and jaded as yourself. You and Bill aren't who you were when you ran for office way back when. Back then, you were more like Obama and his wife Michelle. Now you're old mean grinches. Back out and help Obama beat John McCain. Please.


Intelligent? Do you two live under the same rock, or just share the same brain cell?

You're totally correct. The media has been a gentle, little lamb towards Obama in the last three weeks. And Mia, before accusing someone of being sexist because they don't back your horse, why don't you look at your own reasons for voting for Hillary? What's more sexist, voting your conscious or voting for someone because they share your gender?

Nic, you're either backpeddling, or your thoughts have caught up to your first post in which you seemingly were putting down someone for their opinion about the media's lack treatment of Obama.

I know what my reasons are for supporting Hillary and they're far too long to list here. But I'll leave you with this thought: If I support Hillary and not Obama, people like you will come to the conclusion that it must be because I'm a sexist, feminist, racist...what have you. What you don't understand is I was supporting Edwards until he dropped out for the simple reason I agreed with the issues and concerns he had. Now, I'm supporting Hillary and if Hillary drops out I'm supporting Obama. Tell me what that makes me? A flip flopper? The name calling, flaming and mud slinging of a candidate isn't productive or necessary to a good discussion; it's just more of the same and no one has to read any of these posts. But if you're going to post a comment, I'd like to see some well thought out points made; otherwise, you're boring me.

I am torn between Clinton and Obama. I personally like and admire things about both of them. I am a true blue democrat. But, I have never found any ONE canidate that I agreed with 100%. I have found a few that I agreed with 80+% of what they have done, how they have done it and what they have said.

I will vote for either Obama, or Hillary. I was originally a Edwards supporter myself. But I would be proud to have the first woman, or the first person of color president.

But what will upset me tremendously is another Republican reign with the status quo. I am tired of more of the same; the only way to evoke real change is to elect a Democrat in Novemer-be it Obama, or Clinton.

Those of you that have questioned whether you would vote for McCain-in order not to vote for the dem canidate you did not like. I think you need to ask yourself. Do I agree with McCain's vision for America, which is Bush's vision for America and the RNC vision for America.

I think, we Americans need to start using our head more and thinking things through a bit better

To pleaseanswer:

Of Course it wasn't "the voters" who disenfranchised Florida. It was the "republican controlled state" that the majority of VOTERS elected. Now you have to live with it. The MAJORITY chose. Most Democratic voters didn't VOTE for the war in Iraq either.
Their elected officials that they VOTED for...AKA ...HILLARY CLINTON.... sure as shootin' did!! The American people didn't want to lose their jobs to NAFTA either. They VOTED for BILL CLINTON and he sold them down the river, when HE introduced it and had it passed. Is there ANY intelligent life in Florida?

I would like to point out something all Dems should think about. If Hillary schemes her way to the nomination and takes it away from Obama, what do you think the result would be in the African American community? Since Obama has gotten 70-90% of their vote in the primaries I think at least half will stay home, because of the race baiting and going negative in the campaign. The last time I looked any ”D” running for President needed them in those close toss up states. Are we killing ourselves?

This MADNESS Must be STOPPED!!!!!

Let the DNC hear how you feel LOUD and CLEAR:

Yea Martha! You said it. All these Clinton people are saying that the press is easy on Obama. When the story about Bill and Gusta broke I thought it would be all over the news. It was barely mentioned; swept under the rug. Both Hillary and Bill are typical narcissists! They do what they need to do to get what they want with no shame or remorse. I am an independent voter who has voted for Republicans, Democrats and even for Ralph Nader (once). I am voting for Obama because of his authenticity and integrity. His views do not differ THAT much from Hillary's - so I might as well vote for someone who seems legit.

I live in Michigan. The media in Detroit kind of told everyone that only Hilary's name would be on the ballot, and that you are wasting your time if you vote for Edwards or Obama, because the ballot would just be marked "Other".

That being said, I know the results here would be equal to Ohio's if held again. We may not get along in college football, but Michigan and Ohio are very similar economically and socially and share many affinities. Count on HIlary winning Florida with the Latino vote.

C'mon folks. Here's the final scenario unless you're so busy you literally can't afford to pay attention. Corporate America through the media decides elections. The super delegates will give Hillary the nod because Barack won't do. Hillary can't win in the presidential election and guess what: You have a president elected by the corporations for the corporations and nothing more. It is so simple its scary. Our country is a farce in the eyes of the rest of the world. And guess who sold us down the river. CORPORATE AMERICA. God help us all!

The Democrats have done all of this to themselves. If this is any indication how a Democrat President and Democrat controlled Congress would govern, I hope Hillary and Obama don't make it ti the White House. There system is a joke. The same for the Democrat candidates, and all who believe the dribble the Dems are saying.

From Michigan

If you seat those delegates you cause a civil war. That is the price of your pride.

How convenient is it that Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates when both states fit Hillary's demographic. The whole thing has smelled like fix from the beginning. Add to this how the democratic machine has came out for Obama giving him all the caucuses were the elderly and women could easily be intimidated, and this thing stinks as a fix from the beginning. Moving S Carolina up before Super Tuesday with the way its demographic heavily favored Obama adds more fire to the idea the the democratic party has fixed this election against Hillary.

Hillary was forced into signing the Four State Pledge, and has every right to protest at this time. If the democrats do not come up with a solution that pleases enough people, then they can kiss the white house good bye for at least four more years. Leaving Florida and Michigan voters out of the contest simply will not work. In fact, you might see the democratic party completely unravel, because personally I am so disgusted by this process, I am ready to abandon the democratic party for good.

Keep the Florida vote as it is, and the DNC should pay for a Michigan do over.

Personally, McCain is the one republican I can see voting for. He has moved to the right, but if he gets into the white house, chances are that he will move back to the center.

If Obama gets the nom and loses the general, it will take a miracle to resuscitate his presidential aspirations.

The politicians in Michigan and Florida decided the dates for the primaries. The voters and hence taxpayers of those states should not be penalized. Obama took his name off in Michigan so it was his choice. As a resident of Michigan, I do not want a re-vote and certainly not a caucus that will essentially exclude the working class, the elderly and those who can't afford to spend hours in the evening hanging out at some polling site. All the candidates' names were on the Florida ballot so the DNC should seed those delegates according to the outcome of the January primary. The reason why Obama is hoping for either a re-vote or to exclude those delegates is so that he can spend millions of dollars blitzing the airwaves with his vapid message.

In Texas, caucus votes are "called in" voluntarily. Texas was expecting about 3.3 million votes, there were 4.2 million voters that turned out on Tuesday.

Caucus votes could not begin until all the primary voters had been counted. In some precincts the caucus didn't even begin until after midnight. Each precinct chairperson has 72 hours to mail in the original documents and caucus results.

If I remember correctly, as of Thursday only 49% of caucus votes had been called in. The results of the Texas caucus will not be official until the District Convention on March 29.

So I wouldn't count delegates until the caucus results are made official.

1 2 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: