... that fellow democrats are perfectly fine with the idea that my vote doesn't count. Usually they spout something about rules as if that justifies it.

Curious that. I find it hard to trust them afterwards.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

...was the only elected Democratic official in the state who supported moving the primary. You know where to focus your ire.

Nor that simple:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; Page A06

DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 8 -- For Debbie Dingell and Sen. Carl M. Levin, the standoff has been brewing for years. The Michigan Democrats have long worked, mostly behind the scenes, to change an electoral calendar that places vast importance on results in Iowa and New Hampshire, states that bear little resemblance to the industrial heartland.
...
Before the leapfrogging began, it appeared that Iowa would hold its caucuses on Jan. 14, followed five days later by caucuses in Nevada. New Hampshire would preserve its customary premier primary slot on Jan. 22, and South Carolina would hold its primary Jan. 29.

The candidates planned their travel, staffing and media buys accordingly, but then Florida made a move.

Defying the DNC, Florida moved its primary to Jan. 29, which prompted South Carolina Republicans to jump to Jan. 19 and retain their state's distinction as the first Southern state to vote. New Hampshire law requires the state's primary to be at least seven days before any similar contest, so Secretary of State William M. Gardner declared that the vote would move up by at least a week. That gave Michigan its opening.

After the 2004 election, the DNC agreed to review the schedule with an eye toward tempering the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. It added Nevada and South Carolina, states with more Hispanic and black voters, respectively, as the second and fourth stops on the primary tour.

Michigan's political leaders were disappointed not to be added to the first four but went along, expecting that other states would abide by the new calendar. When the dates started to shift -- and particularly when Gardner said New Hampshire would move up -- they considered the deal broken.

Levin and Debbie Dingell took their case to DNC Chairman Howard Dean last month, complaining that he was standing by silently as New Hampshire broke its promise. They asked Dean to urge Democrats not to campaign there.

"Someone," the two wrote, "has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position."

Instead, the DNC warned Michigan that any delegates chosen Jan. 15 would not be seated at next summer's convention in Denver, the same punishment that Florida Democrats are suing the party over. Rules and schedules are essential, one DNC official said, to ensure "fairness and predictability."

NYT August 22, 2007 - The biggest force behind the Michigan move is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.

But lest Michigan get too feverish with early-primary envy, they should know that it doesn’t always work out that way. Take a look at what’s happening in Florida, which moved up its primary to Jan. 29. The Palm Beach Post points out some unintended consequences of that move: mainly, the state still isn’t getting much attention from the candidates. (As an aside, our colleague Jeff Zeleny also reports today on the Florida Democrats’ resolve to keep from blinking when they face off with the Democratic National Committee over the primary front-loading issue this weekend.)

October 09, 2007
Read More: Primary Calendar

Off the ballot in Michigan

Politico - AP is reporting that Obama, Edwards, and Richardson [as well as Biden] have all filed paperwork to pull their names off the ballot in Michigan, following a pattern that has had -- so far -- Hillary following the field on these Iowa-pleasing process measures. [UPDATE: Clinton and Dodd are staying in.]

The four-state pledge, in other words, is more or less holding, even as quite powerful figures -- including Senator Carl Levin, in this case -- rage against it.

A prominent DNC member from Michigan, Debbie Dingell, called the candidates' decision "a coordinated effort in the last minutes available to pressure other candidates to take names off the ballot."

"This election is not for president of Iowa , it is president of these United States," she said. "There will be a primary election in Michigan on January 15th, there will not be a caucus. Those candidates who do not even want Michigan voters to consider them have sent their message to Michigan about how they feel about Michiganders," she said.

Michigan to move up its primary
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:15 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: States, 2008

From NBC News' Chuck Todd
According to sources inside both parties, the two state parties in Michigan have agreed to move the state's primary -- legislatively -- to Jan. 15. This is a compromise date out of respect for Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, who really wanted to move the primary to Jan. 8. Others wanted the primary on Jan. 22 as a way to, essentially, play ball with the other early states. There was a nice window being created for a Jan. 22, 2008 event. But by moving to Jan. 15, this will put pressure on the other early states to either entertain a December event or lobby the two national parties to not sanction Michigan at all.

The state senate is going to move a bill next week and it will be legislatively driven; the state will pay for the primary, not the two parties.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

...to the vote - opposed by all 17 Dem Senators, but signed into law.

Heh, I picked that factoid up from an incoherent Clinton supporter rant, claiming that in Mich., the D's had been ripped off by the R's, just like in FL. As I look at the full story on michganvotes.org, it seems you had plenty of complicit Ds in the House (and the revised bill passed unanimously in the Senate).

..."It appears your governor... ...was the only elected Democratic official in the state who supported moving the primary. You know where to focus your ire."

Now you state, "it seems you had plenty of complicit Ds in the House (and the revised bill passed unanimously in the Senate)".

So, anyway, despite all the BS being tossed, MI and FL weren't the only ones to move the date around, but are the only ones penalized for it. Now obviously it all comes down to political game playing. (thus recriminations tossed at DNC and Dean) But in the end they are disallowing real votes cast by real people in a real contest for political, not legal reasons. They are making it up as they go along. That, is BS.

Too much schadenfreude from supposed compatriots for my taste.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

I did say "I picked that factoid up from an incoherent Clinton supporter rant, claiming that in Mich., the D's had been ripped off by the R's, just like in FL. As I look at the full story on michganvotes.org,", but I'm sure you have a valid reason for ignoring the context.

"MI and FL weren't the only ones to move the date around, but are the only ones penalized for it." True, but they were the ones moving the dates around without DNC approval. You have no quote above with a date past Oct 9, 2007. So your claim that "They are making it up as they go along. That, is BS." is total BS. Who is making it up as they go along is the Clinton campaign, who made no objection to the rules at the time they were made. Only later, when they figured out they were the only suckers for the Mark Penn "inevitable" pitch.

You're not really disenfranchised. You can write in any candidate you like. As someone who counts votes in my local district, I can give you some hints. If the person you wish to vote for is not a well known figure, you must include their home town. You must spell their name correctly (exactly correctly). No hearts, kisses or other decorations. Just the facts, M'am.

But you're talking about primary votes. That's entirely different. That's really up to the parties (since primaries have absolutely no constitutional connection). It's a real shame that legislatures can insert themselves into something that is clearly only party business. But heck, look at what happened to the 14th amendment, and that went through the whole rigamarole, being a constitutional amendment and all. Primaries have never gone there.

Snark aside, a 2 party system is badly flawed. The primary system that it requires is thoroughly flawed. But if you think that Clinton took 55% in a basically uncontested race means anything, you're hopelessly flawed.

.. in dealing with your backtracking and BS, Gordon. You clearly meant what you said, provided no cite or link, and now lay it off to some Clinton ranter. What the F*ck ever.

And you also want to keep interjecting Clinton into it as if it were her campaign that caused the mess. BS. Of course each campaign will react to changing situations as they see fit. Both have and I expect they will continue. But its not about them. They didn't void my vote. Its true however though that only one wants to keep it that way.

Thanks for the civics lesson, and I'm glad you can count. Why even bring up the GE? You seem to change the subject for the sake of vanity often, I've noticed. And if you think even one Obama supporter voted for Clinton in the MI primary I'd suggest a recount in every election you ever participated in for your district. Whats more -again you head for the weeds to thrust and parry the wind-- neither I nor the Clinton campaign have suggested that the original vote should stand, preferring a revote instead as first remedy. You know, done properly. But if Obama unecessarily pulls his name yet again I think he should have to live with the results. Which is essentially what he is doing by standing in the way of a re-vote in MI.

You had your chance to vote. I'd like mine. You, Obama, and the other Obamabots seem to have an issue with that. Your stance will cost Obama MI if you're not careful. Not too bright.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

it's one of these.

I found the article silly, but I was silly myself in thinking that perhaps there was a grain of truth in this:

The presumption of much of the national coverage about Michigan, to start with, has been that the Dems did this one to themselves -- a presumption based, in large part, on Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's endorsement of a January 15 vote, a date far ahead of the anticipated February 9 primary. All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill. The bill originated in a Republican-controlled Senate and passed by a 21-to-17 straight party-line vote -- with every Democrat casting a no vote.

And yes, it was terribly rude and unthoughtful of me to inject Clinton into a thread entitled "Hillary Clinton (3)". On a subthread about Bill Clinton's oft-repeated claims that there's less than a 1% difference in the popular vote, and how that is only true if you include Michigan's "primary".

If I wished to change the subject for the sake of vanity, I think I would be talking about me, wouldn't I? But I notice that you often reply to arguments that haven't actually been made. What do you do with all that straw at the end of the day?

Just for the record since my life has moved on:

"As someone who counts votes in my local district, I can give you some hints. If the person you wish to vote for is not a well known figure, you must include their home town. You must spell their name correctly (exactly correctly). No hearts, kisses or other decorations. Just the facts, M'am."

That's the unnecessarily snarly and gratuitous statement to which I referred. You were talking about yourself while scooping armloads. Neet.

And I guess you could make a reply to my post and interject Hillary in this thread, but then it would no longer be relevant to my point. Its an angle I was definitely not on, just one you seem to want to make, presumably because you think it has merit of some sort, relevant or not.

You were wrong about Granholm and I proved it. Then, it was you who continued gathering hay by saying, "But if you think that Clinton took 55% in a basically uncontested race means anything, you're hopelessly flawed," which, of course, I have never implied any such thing in my entire life, much less in this thread, until after your comment.

Thus the projection, "you often reply to arguments that haven't actually been made," is sloppy, and bafflingly so. I consider you to be quite bright.

And now back to my point, said another way. Primaries are paid for by the taxpayers. The parties gave up total ownership the second the check cleared. In a just world, anyway. I paid, I voted, was told to sit down and STFU while others in the party under the same circumstances were welcomed to participate. I paid and received no representation in the delegation. No, its not a Constitutional right to vote in the primary. Its a right I paid for and that is enjoyed by the public at large.

Nulling my vote is disenfranchisement, barring my participation in an otherwise fully public election. You can disagree and many apparently do. A bas relief, exposing principles of convenience.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

...my comments are unnecessarily snarly and gratuitous is truly shadenfreudeliscious.

And I guess you could make a reply to my post and interject Hillary in this thread, but then it would no longer be relevant to my point. Its an angle I was definitely not on.... Right. A post about Hillary Clinton. A comment that the Clinton campaign's claim of "less than 1% difference" is only true if you include Michigan as it already voted. So your comment wasn't on topic, doesn't include any acknowledgement that it wasn't on topic, yet you're pissed that didn't immediately see that your protestations weren't on topic? Oh yeah, you've already admitted to a somewhat cantankerous posting style.

Thus the projection, "you often reply to arguments that haven't actually been made," is sloppy, and bafflingly so. Only because you prefer to be baffled. You misconstrued me to create a strawman which you demolished. Pardon me if I'm not dazzled. It didn't actually touch me.

Primaries are paid for by the taxpayers. Everything is, unless you're a tax cheat. The questions are, was it paid out of your taxes, and should it have been? For Michigan it looks like the answers are "yes", "no". But that's all within Michigan.

I'm not happy your Michigan primary was hijacked (with Michigan Dem complicity) and doesn't count. That doesn't mean I think it should count as it stands, and that was exactly the point of my comment. The Michigan Dem primary was a charade, they knew it and they did it anyway.

As I said before in this thread, the whole primary process is both a theoretical and practical mess. But that doesn't mean that I'm impressed with your state's rather pathetic attempt at playing chicken with a process that's a whole lot bigger than them. Or with your argumentative style.

"Right. A post about Hillary Clinton. A comment that the Clinton campaign's claim of "less than 1% difference" is only true if you include Michigan as it already voted. So your comment wasn't on topic, doesn't include any acknowledgment that it wasn't on topic, yet you're pissed that didn't immediately see that your protestations weren't on topic?"

This is a fair rebuke. I was certainly concentrating solely on the disenfranchisement angle, not on counting the vote as it stands. Is something I'm rather PO'd about, as you can tell. My comment pulled this out of your somewhat broader context and, well, the rest is history.

Some have used the initial MI vote to make an argument, true. Though I'm not aware that anyone in any official position has suggested it actually should stand as is, nor has the idea ever been given any serious chance of happening.

What made the primary a charade was contestants pulling out of it. Had they not, it would have been a fair and representative election. I suppose the remainder of the contention is over states rights (Does a State -the public- have the right to hold elections they pay for when they will?), the rights of individual representation, equal public access to the election process, and perhaps the right of political party's imposing their will on taxpayers generally, and specifically to taxpayer detriment.

As the quote way way above shows, MI moved their primary date in response to others underhanded maneuvers. MI's reaction could be fairly criticized, but they did not start the process unraveling.

I still hold that Obama pulled his name off the MI ballot solely for political reasons, continues to block resolution to the matter for same, and his supporters by and large follow his lead.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

I think Obama (and Edwards and the others) pulled their names off to be good Democrats, but that is by definition a political reason.

As to "blocking", Obama has no procedural or legal standing. The fight is between the national party and the Michigan party. It's kind of like if your neighbors (both of whom are friends; both of whom can be jerks) having a marital fight and say that you are the one (and only one) who should arbitrate. Heh.

why was the fact that Clinton and Obama both had to agree to the re-vote process part of the equation?

To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.

...is trying to pull a fast one.

The fight between Michigan and the DNC was declared by September 2007. Not one delegate selected yet; no declared candidates taking a position. Four months until Iowa. Granholm made a bad bet, and now doesn't want to pay.

i'm a big fan of hers since her miami radio days. (i used to call in to her show a bit.) i liked her piece of a few years ago on ChoicePoint (election scandal) with greg palast a lot. i adore RR and am sorry she's had a rough period in general of late. she deserves better.

I think the audience deserves better and she should be fired. The left was in an uproar over the comments of Rush, Savage, Coulter and Imus..., but seem to think its okay for a democrat to act like this. Hypocrites.

i never begrudged rush or coulter their speech and savage i'm unfamiliar with. randi got fired for her ('whore') speech in my view as the audience disapproved, but they claim firing her was about an ad hominem attack, which i think is disingenuous bull. the whore remark was additional to the attack, angry invective that was accurate and pertinent via a vis corporate sell-out. obviously she didn't mean clinton was literally selling sex.

imus didn't either, i think. actually, i'm not sure. 'ho' could be pure racial epithet maybe, i dunno. still, a line none of the others crossed that i know of.

anyway, i'm biased toward randy. very much so. very little objectivity admittedly. still, i appreciate your point. hey, consider me worse; i'd have said it on-air instead of off. and include all the politicians in washington to boot. do they deserve it? leahy sure doesn't. kucinich and paul and many many others wouldn't, whom i'd speak well of on-air as well. and i'd say all that too. i'm not as angry as randy but enough. but maybe she's too angry. some downtime for angry commentators of any stripe right now may be well.

i'm not real thrilled with air america's line up outside of her or their format. i hope randy takes off and turns up elsewhere leaving daily MP3s in her wake. i'd like that.

There's "free speech" and "idiotic speech". Ms. Rhodes, IMHO, is guilty of the latter in light of the fact that she is a "star" at Air America, which last I checked, was hoping to attract listeners. I am progressive and tolerant as all get out, but when I hear "speech" like this on the street I disregard it, let alone from the radio or telly. Consider the Source.

_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

i think it's atypical of her though, which is really what brought up my sympathy in surprise and had me considering her recent rough patch. and her risen outrage. (i believe she'd gladly chuck her job and even her sheer employability if it somehow dented this total horrorshow of contemporary america.)

but then again, i haven't been listening to her recently or even regular enough over the years to have a good gauge of what really is typical for her.

to bring up imus again; i was surprised by his ho comment until someone explained to me that he's a shock jock not unlike howard stern. i didn't know that. the few times i briefly would catch minutes of him it may have bored me enough to switch channels but what i heard seemed innocuous.

so there's context involved as well when i regard these personalities.

from air america's standpoint, your point is absolutely strong, patently so, and central.

i never thought that the best place for her. i don't think she's of the sort to be among a roster of commentators unless she actually works well *with* them as opposed to simply alongside them. i could see her and greg palast working well together for years, for example.

i'll be surprised if she stays on after her suspension is up -if she lets it take it's course, using it as breaktime.

it's a heck of a time for her; economics on one hand (the air america gig) and unknown other options on the other hand. i speculate she's looking at her options and weighing economics versus all other considerations.

***

on the street though, if i heard someone call all the leading candidates whores, i'd turn and applaud or give a thumbsup or smile or something, but if it was just the leading Dems i'd give the likelihood to simple OKC republicanism.

the use of the word 'whore' in and of itself wouldn't make me think twice as far as propriety goes. perhaps that's what i'd be doing; 'considering the source'. the coarsening of our culture has reached everybody i know of.

Ironically I disagree with both counts...
Audience: 'The manager of the venue that hosted Rhodes recalls that the audience loved her act, but she and her business partner were shocked by Rhodes’ language.' -from the Foxnews article

The 'Left': crooksandliars 500+ comments -majority negative

...but i have no dispute otherwise. i dispute such 'counts' merely because what i found differed from the counts you put forth, buttt that doesn't mean a thing to me in the discussion here because on the whole i found the heart of the spirit of your own dispute, as even [above] 'the left' agrees with ya and splains it to me. -and it was indeed in those C&L comments i found much. -oh, sure, i read the articles and learned what sort of context the incident was in -i hadn't known it was a 45 minute stand up routine -and that informed me some but mostly to the advantage of understanding the incident's immediate context -the broader context given me was what randi's become and her audience's observations of it.

like i'd said, i's got bias. i'd grown up listening to randi on miami talk radio, she's an old and familiar and welcome personality to me. -but from what i read in the C&L comments, these past years have left her putting out more shtick than substance, more shrill than wry or incisive, much less 'investigative' than product. a lot of yelling essentially. and so on.

i didn't read far down the comments, certainly not out of 500+, but i was sympathetic to #15, and also those critical.

so i get it.

anyway, negative waves of F words do suck. it's like Oddball said in Kelly's Heroes. i really really gots negative waves fer negative waves...

yes, there were plenty who felt like i but there were more that didn't and they were for me the informative ones. who actually listen to her show.

zuma sad.

huffpo article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo

“When I was hearing her say those things, I was like, somehow, you know, appalled. And my partner was really offended,” Valdez said, noting that Rhodes’ dirty language topped that of comedian Dave Chappelle, who appeared at her place in 1997.

“He was not as bad,” she said of Chappelle, adding that Rhodes performed for a “mature,” over-21 audience that she suspected was generally an over-40 crowd.

“We promote culture, music, art,” Valdez said of her showplace. She said colorful language isn’t shunned, but “it’s got to be tasteful.”

one of my all time favorite movies :)

Friends all tried to warn me
But I held my head up high
All the time they warned me
But I only passed them by
They all tried to tell me
But I guess I didn't care
I turned my back and
Left them standing there

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

Joey tried to help me find a job
A while ago
When I finally got it I didn't want to go
The party Mary gave for me
When I just walked away
Now there's nothing left to say

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

Years have passed and I keep thinking
What a fool I've been
I look back into the past and
Think of way back then
I know that I lost everything I thought I that could win
I guess I should have listened to my friends

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

Burning bridges lost forevermore

that was cool, thanks, glad to have it to sing.
mine too. that was absolutely one of eastwood's best movies, and Oddball was one of my fave all time movie characters.
still is.

Woofwoof!

Randi Rhodes Quits Air America Rather Than Apologize For Hillary Clinton "F*cking Whore" Remark; "There's Relief And Joy" At The Station

Update: The Huffington Post has learned that Randi Rhodes quit Air America after being asked by the network to apologize for her inflammatory remarks against Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

A source at Air America, who asked to remain anonymous, said, "Many people screw up and then apologize and move on. Like Imus. Like David Shuster. Like Jay Rockefeller on McCain. Like Obama on Rezko. Like Hillary on Bosnia. Randi Rhodes refused to apologize for her obscene comments and has chosen instead to terminate her relationship with Air America."

The source also said that there is no love lost between Rhodes and her colleagues at the network. "No one is upset. She made the move but there's relief and joy."

It remains unclear who will substitute for Rhodes' time slot in both the short- and long-term, but the source said the network is looking at Rhodes' departure as an opportunity to rebuild. "Sometimes it's for the best that the leading player leaves so you can rebuild with better talent."

more

i expected it.

she and air america made a poor match. her and most many others would be a difficult match.

i imagine she'll start over from scratch on a site of her own. that's my guess.

She needs to win nearly all the remaining contests, analysts say, and persuade superdelegates that she has a better chance than Obama of beating John McCain.

The Christian Science Monitor, By Linda Feldmann, April 4

Washington – Bit by bit, the walls are closing in on Hillary Rodham Clinton. By just about every measure, including total votes, total delegates, and money raised, she is trailing Barack Obama in their pitched battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. And in the most important category where she's still ahead – superdelegates – her lead is shrinking.

Thus far this week, three superdelegates – party leaders and elected officials who can support whomever they want at the August convention – have broken for Senator Obama while Senator Clinton hasn't won any. It is highly unlikely that Clinton can overtake Obama in the "pledged delegate" count – those won in primaries and caucuses – but it is also impossible for Obama to secure the nomination just on pledged delegates. Thus, the superdelegates will decide the nomination.

Thursday's stunning announcement that Obama had raised more than $40 million in March, with 218,000 new donors that month, dealt another blow to Clinton. Her campaign has not released its own March figure yet, but said it will come in below Obama's.

So, can Clinton actually still win the nomination? In theory, yes, analysts say. But she would have to win just about every remaining contest, and then persuade enough superdelegates that she has a better chance than Obama of beating the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in November.

CQ Politics, By Rachel Kapochunas, April 3

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, sought Wednesday to reassure nervous Democrats — including those in Florida — that he and Florida party chairwoman Karen Thurman were committed to finding a way to seat delegates from the state at the presidential convention in August. But he said nothing that suggested that everyone involved in the dispute had even the outlines of a deal.

The DNC penalized Florida of its entire delegation to this summer’s national convention in Denver because the state violated national party rules when it chose to schedule a primary on Jan. 29, before the Feb. 5 cutoff. The DNC defined Feb. 5 as the earliest day on which all but a select handful of states were permitted to hold nominating contests. Michigan was also stripped of its delegates for the same reason.

The state party proposed a plan to hold a new primary, mostly made up of mail-in ballots, but the idea quickly fell flat. Concerns were raised regarding authenticating the mail-in ballots as well as the logistics of holding a new election. Neither the state party nor the national party are willing to finance a new election.

http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_sexism_watch

Back before the first primary, they were documenting media attacks at around 3:1 (attacks on Clinton vs attacks on Obama). That's when Clinton was ahead.

Then, after Iowa for a few weeks, it was more like 1:2 (Clinton:Obama).

The media attacks whichever Dem is ahead, and roughly in proportion to how far they are perceived to be ahead.

And they slobber all over the leading Republican.