Now On to 'Florigan'!

Sunday May 11, 2008, 2:01 pm
"Out of desperation, Hillary is putting all her chips on the injustice done to Floridians and Michiganders, even though she said early in the process that their votes "shouldn't count." Never mind the hypocrisy here. Never mind that Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe was the one who first insisted the rules be enforced."

The question is why did Michigan and Florida break the rules?

Sunday May 11, 2008, 2:22 pm
The question should be.... "at least 5 states broke the timing rules and moved their primary dates. Why were only Florida and Michigan punished? The DNC rules call for 50% of the delegates not to be counted if the timing rules are violated...not all. Why is Dean and others telling us 100%? The DNC only has control over the delegates not the actual votes of the people ...why aren't the actual votes being counted?

Below is a letter from Carl Levin that gives an insite as to what actually happened and why Michigan "broke the rules"....

Letter from Sen Carl Levin D MI April 05, 2008 6:49 PM



In 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule providing

that four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -
could hold their presidential primary or caucus in January, with the
rest of the states following. The rule dictated that the early states
hold their contests in a specific order - with New Hampshire coming
third - and no earlier than designated dates between Jan. 14 and Jan.
29.

While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not
selected for one of the four early contests, we appreciated the new
rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating
process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire
lock. We announced that we would abide by the new calendar provided
that other states did the same.

But last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he
was going to schedule his state's primary before the date specified,
clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan

Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee
if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the

committee refused to act.
Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by

deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a
primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15.


The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce
its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to
second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also
moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard
Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to
violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself
decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire,
it set the stage for the present impasse.

Sunday May 11, 2008, 9:29 pm
Interesting. Well, I do hope that it gets resolved one way or another and quickly. I agree that rules are rules but it would appear that Michigan and Florida aren't the only ones who violated. I think the slate should be wiped clean and a revote should take place. That seems like the fair thing to do at this point. It would also prevent a circus from happening at the DNC in August.

Monday May 12, 2008, 12:52 am
This is of interest...

"If Sen. John McCain holds both states for Republicans in November, Democrats must put together 47 offsetting votes in the state-based, winner-take-all Electoral College.

Ohio and Florida are the foundation of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's last-ditch attempt to convince fellow Democrats that her strengths with Latinos, women, seniors and the white working class play best against McCain in roughly 10 swing states.

Sen. Barack Obama's victories in nearly every primary since February have rested on African Americans, upscale whites and young people. He has consistently performed poorly among key populations in Florida - Latinos, seniors and Jewish voters - and in Ohio among older women, Catholics and the white working class, what some call the "blue-collar, blue-hair vote."

It was perhaps inevitable that the history-making Democratic candidates would open a race and gender divide by stirring intense group loyalty. But now conservative Democrats are worried.

Sixteen members of Congress from Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Nevada and other swing states wrote in a letter posted on Clinton's Web site Friday that her Pennsylvania victory last month was a "wake-up call."

"Hillary has racked up victories in bellwether states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Indiana that are absolutely vital to winning the White House and maintaining our Congressional majority in the fall," they wrote."

http://www.care2.com/news/member/176597074/739775

Monday May 12, 2008, 9:28 am
Maria V writes:

"Sen. Barack Obama's victories in nearly every primary since February have rested on African Americans, upscale whites and young people."

As far as African Americans go, that argument really doesn't fly in states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Colorado.

It's taken much more than blacks, upscale whites and younger voters to carry him through to this point.

If Hillary's support base had as much depth as you suggest, she would have clinched the nomination weeks ago but she hasn't.

Why isn't she closing the deal?

Why is the "more experienced" senator Clinton lagging so far behind?

Wednesday May 14, 2008, 2:00 am
Thanks Michael, good points all...

Wednesday May 14, 2008, 9:18 pm
It's ridiculous to think either of them would consider having the other as a running mate for the Vice Presidency! I'm offended by the media trying to offer up the possibility . . . The whole process makes me sick.