Christopher Beam has been blogging on and on and on about how Obama is disenfranchising Michigan voters. Each time he carefully avoids stating the real reason that the Obama campaign can not accept a revote in Michigan under current Michigan rules. Why does he misinform this way? Well, you can probably figure that out for yourself - and no, it's not because he's an idiot. Allow me to enlighten. The major candidates all agreed to not campaign in Michigan as well as take their names off the ballot - all because Michigan moved its primary ahead of Super Tuesday against the wishes of the Democratic Party. Hillary, being Hillary, left her name on the ballot anyway. Obama's name was NOT on the ballot. When it came time to vote, many of Obama's supporters, not wishing to vote for Hillary, but still wishing to exercise their right to vote, voted in the Republican primary in order to at least try to influence that outcome. Under Michigan's voting rules, if you have voted in the Republican primary, you cannot vote again in a revote for the Democratic primary. Why Michigan won't change this rule is beyond me.

Actually, no, they didn't agree to take their names off the ballot. Look into that a little more. Hillary left her name on the ballot and Obama and Edwards took theirs off specifically because they all *knew* that Clinton was going to win that state. Edwards and Obama wanted to make the win seem less important, Clinton wanted the win to retain its importance. Obama could have left his name on the ballot and he would *still* have *lost.* Dodd left his name on the ballot because he felt taking his name off would slight the voters. He is actually right .Even Obama's campaign admits that taking his name off the ballot was a mistake.

And those voters had the opportunity to vote for someone other than Clinton in the Democratic primary. They could have voted uncommitted. If they chose to vote in Republican primary, that is their prerogrative (and a strange choice).

So, if anyone is mislead, it's you.

I do enjoy the term Clintonista...that has a nice ring to it.

As a Michigan Obama supporter, I was under the impression that my vote would not count towards my candidate even if he were on the ballot - so I voted in the Republican primary. Now I'm being told that there could be a revote in the Democratic primary - but I cannot vote because I went on the information that my state's delegates would not be seated at the Dem convention.

Now they want to change the rules. Who's being disenfranchised here if I don't get to voye in the re-vote?

bluelake:

Each candidate had a choice of whether to leave their name on the ballot or not. Each candidate decided that issue by themselves with no DNC involvement. That Edwards and Obama removed their names was strictly voluntary and was of their own volition. Or maybe as many in Michigan would think, Iowa and New Hampshire played a bigger role in it then thought previously?

That many Dems were told their vote would not count was the choice of the Dean led DNC, who authored this mess in Michigan by not resolving the issue since 2004 or acknowleging its existence since 2000. Many Dems may have voted on the Repub side to support Romney over McCain. If you do not know it, the Romney name in Michigan has "favorite son" status. As I said before, the state has the grass roots to go either way in the national election. That many of the Dem voters voted for Romney is certainly an indication of the ability their vote swing either way.

To answer your question on another Dem primary . . . the last primary was the 3rd highest in the state with 1.4 million voters turning out of the ~7 million in the state. ~800,000 came out for the Repubs and 600,000 for the Dems, which is indicative of the popularity of Romney besides the mess on the Dem side. Regardless, 80% of the voters did not turn out, which means there is an ample population of voters to vote in a new primary.

With regard to Barack, he has not done well in population diverse states such as Michigan. I can see why he would not want a revote.

Gilbyboy,

Why didn't you vote in the Democratic primary?

Did you read the post? I think the first sentence explains it all perfectly well. If your vote isn't going to count with the Dems, then you might as well cast a vote that does...

For more than seven years, we (Democrats) have had to live with a president and administration that's refused to play by any rules, much to our frequent chagrin; does it make any sense now to punish people who have in fact played by the rules?

If you wanted your voice to be heard in the Democratic primary, you should have voted in the Democratic primary (lots of people did). It also seems like a vote in the Republican party is just as futile because there was no way McCain wasn't going to win.

Now that you might be given another chance, you can't vote because you can only participate in one party's primary. Maybe they *should* change this rule, I don't know. But it would introduce all sorts of corruption (it would basically invite Republicans to modify the result).

Last time I checked, the area around the capital- D.C., Northern VA, and Maryland- isn't suffering from any great lack of diversity, and yet he won all three of those primaries fairly comfortably. This is besides the fact that it would be much more accurate to say that Oboma has not done well against Clinton in diverse states such as Michigain; as for a race against McCain, there is little basis for judgment.

As for putting names on ballots, I would ask this: what responsibility does Obama have to legitimize and election that isn't supposed to be legitimate in the first place by having his name on the ballot. If this was going to be such a big problem, then people should have been complaining as loud as they are now in the first place. That would have been the only high road to take, but since nobody did, then we shouldn't even pretend that either side in this campaign is truly doing any of this out of principle.

what you're essentially saying is this:

if you wanted your voice to be heard in the democratic primary you should have voted on the incomplete ballot that will seat no delegates.

stupid and pointless, sorry, but it is.

a better tact would have been to work for your candidate nationally and use this as an opportunity to vote for the opposing candidate you like or would like to face. that would have been and was the smart thing to do.

voting in the michigan democratic primary as it happened was a practice in meaningless futility.

That would have been the only high road to take, but since nobody did, then we shouldn't even pretend that either side in this campaign is truly doing any of this out of principle.

So, sonofeucrates, you do agree that Obama's big stand-up is not out of principles but out of political expediency? So good that facts have finally made some progress in the Obamabots' collective minds.

And since Hillary has always just said that she's the more competent change-maker & not apolitical (as Obama & his campaign have claimed so often), this then just proves his lies, no?

sonofeucrates:

defined: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements.

Obama can not make a primary or national election legitmate, only the government can in accordance with their law. The Michigan Primary was a legal and legitimate election in accordance with the law.

If, if you knew the history behind Michigan's complaint; you would know the state has been complianing to the DNC since 2000. <link> Read and little bit more and learn the history of Michigan's complaint.

"The Michigan Primary was a legal and legitimate election in accordance with the law."

Well, of course. The Michigan primary was held in accordance with Michigan state law. The DNC, however, is not bound by Michigan state law. It is bound by its own rules.

Obama 08!

The high road, while it's fantastic in certain circumstances, is a bad thing if it always puts you above the people. Obama has the responsibility to let the voters have their say, and, for once, to acknowledge that breaking the rules might be a good thing (especially if the rules are ridiculous and undemocratic). So...in short...he wants change, but only if we follow the rules set up by the establishment (but not really because the SDs shouldn't vote their conscience and he might lose)...and he won't break any established rules, even if in doing so, he's showing that he doesn't care about the people and making himself look bad in the process (mainly, because it's obvious that he's behaving this way because it won't work in his favor).

Seem contradictory to anyone? Kinda gross?

pwoxby,

Exactly, which is why the SDs can turn over the PD vote, and no one can say anything about it. Because those are the rules, right?

Exactly right. Those are the rules. ;)

Obama 08!