How Obama campaign disenfranchised MI voters

[metta 0]

Obama Memo On MI Re-Vote

TO: Interested Parties FROM: Robert F. Bauer

RE: Michigan Primary

DA: March 19, 2008

In the short time available, I have reviewed the proposed legislation to establish the June 3, 2008 primary, considering primarily those issues that bear on the central question of whether this election can be conducted successfully without undue risk of legal challenges, including those challenges arising out of errors or other breakdown induced by the schedule the State has proposed.

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative—questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

[GaryC 7]

Judging from all the "Obama disenfranchising these voters" and "Clinton disenfranchising those voters" posts I would say that both of them are in it for themselves and neither one cares about the voters. And this is the choice the dems have? I feel better about McCain every day watching this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Judging from all the "Obama disenfranchising these voters" and "Clinton disenfranchising those voters" posts I would say that both of them are in it for themselves and neither one cares about the voters. And this is the choice the dems have? I feel better about McCain every day watching this.

Unfortunately even the Republicans are going to have to make (to them) distasteful compromises to pledge support to that guy.

Hardly worth singing and dancing about, unfortunately.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

MI voters did not have an opportunity to vote for Mr. obama as he honored an agreement that the main candidates entered into - to withdraw their names from the ballot. Clinton wasn't honorable enough to make good on her commitment. She shouldn't benefit from that. If a delegation from MI was to be seated, they would have to elect one - fair and square. MI decided not to do that.

Besides, delegate poaching Clinton can't really complain about disenfranchising voters. She's actively trying to do just that around the nation. She can't win democratically, so she just goes on and tries to grab her perceived entitlement by any means necessary. I don't want such a person for President. I've had the undemocratic vote-for-me-or-else types running my country growing up. I know them when I see them. Never again. Not for me.

ETA: The reasoning discussed in the memo (but not presented in the OP's post) is rather sound. Maybe the OP would like to address and discuss any inaccuracies or false premises / conclusions in said reasoning. But it's always easier to just make non-sense claims.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog