It's the conversation parents dread. The only thing worse is no conversation, and instead finding a stray condom in the washing machine. Meg and I often wonder what we would say if one of our kids was to tell us that they were (or planned to be) sexually active. Would we encourage abstinence? We also wonder what we would say if one of our kids did what we did- that is, get married in their early twenties. Would we encourage them to wait, or would we stay silent and let them live with their own choices?
It's hard to predict the emotional ties that shape a parent's response to their kids, but we hope we would encourage both sexual responsibility and waiting to get married.
Abstinence is not realistic. It was a huge moment last week when Bristol Palin stumbled onto this truth on national television, almost convincing herself as she said it- "everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all." Then Sarah Palin appeared on set and surprised everyone even further by saying this about abstinence- "It sounds naive."
I am so grateful to the Palin family for being willing to share their experience on the national stage. It can't have been easy, considering that abstinence is the standard line for religious conservatives. My appreciation for their family has grown enormously. They are real. They have put real issues on the national agenda.
LEE GONZALES CONVENTION BLOG 8/27/08
**********************************
My Viewpoint on Hillary Clinton's Speech Tuesday at DNC
It is no secret that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and thus, proud of her inspiring message about strongly supporting Barack Obama, along with a sincere call for party unity.
Hillary cares deeply about America 's future, and passionately believes we ought to imagine an even greater nation--and that Democrats can deliver on this aspiration.
As she spoke about Democratic Party ideals, Sen. Clinton pointed out in the race for the White House we must keep going, and it is time to get going in terms of mobilizing. I took it as a call to arms for the Democratic Team of Obama-Biden. She included gracious comments for both Barack and Michelle Obama, and that was greeted with enthusiasm by convention delegates.
Overall, the speech was very well received. It will be interesting to hear what the political analysts will say with their coverage.
It would be inaccurate to say we have one hundred percent harmonious consensus relating to Sen. Obama's nomination, but the naysayer numbers are dwindling in my opinion. There are a few strident supporters in both camps.
But in life we know at times there are arguments among family members that must be resolved so it is not unusual to have some level of bickering between campaigns in the same political party, which need resolution.
In my opinion Hillary Clinton's speech was right on target and we will see how it plays out for the unity aspects of this campaign for President. But my guess is it will help with our success. Let me know what you think.
LEE
8/27/08
http://leegonzales.blogspot.com/ _______________
Lee Gonzales is a Democratic State Representative , 49th District, Flint/Genesee
BANKERT RADIO/VIDEO (a.m. and internet) 6/7/08, A WEEK IN REVIEW
______________________
9 AM/9AM/9AM
WFLT FLINT AM RADIO 1420 A.M. 9 AM - Your family law questions
This is a call in program 1-810-239-5733
todays topic NON- Retroactive modification of child support, a bad law
see: http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic... [ you will have to scroll down..]
________________________
10AM/10AM/10AM
LIBERAL AND LIVE- Saturday 10 am till 11 am.
Terry Bankert on Flint Talk radio/video
http://www.flinttalkradio.com/... A WEEK IN REVIEW OF GOOD MORNING FLINT!
From anywhere in the world call 1-810-235-1970. I would like to talk to my facebook friends.
____________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 6/7/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people...
9-9:30 A.M. 6/7/08 on WFLT call in live 1420 AM Radio 1-810-239-5733
NON RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPOORT OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY LAW QUESTIONS.
SEE:
http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic...
10: a.m. TO 11:00 a.m. LIVE ON Internet radion
Liberal and live Saturday 10 am till 11 am.
Terry Bankert on Flint Talk radio/video
http://www.flinttalkradio.com/... During this hour I will re cap my blog Good Morning Flint from the last week.
______________________
06/06/08-MILITARY SUICIDE
http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic...
(If you like this article please forward to your friends, if not just keep it to yourself.)
Family Mediation and Divorce Practice.
http://attorneybankert.com/ Join my political party of preference, http://www.michigandems.com/jo... Join me in creating a new voice in The Michigan Democratic Party, become a Precinct Delegate.
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people... Link here for a broadcast OF THE GOOD MORNING FLINT ON FLINT TALK RADIO
http://www.stickam.com/viewMov... TODAYS SHOW AT
Liberal and live Saturday 10 am till 11 am.
Terry Bankert on Flint Talk radio/video
http://www.flinttalkradio.com/...
Hillary just sent out the following message to her supporters:
Dear Friend,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you -- time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us -- and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
I wanted to share an email from a Michigander to Howard Dean in advance of this Saturday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting.
Dear Howard Dean,
I am a Michigan citizen who voted in our primary last January 15 and am very concerned that our votes won't count and that all our delegates won't be seated even though we did our duty by going to the polls. Our election was certified.
We supported you when you ran in 2004, we went to meet-ups, we sent money to your campaign, we were excited at the prospect of having you as our next president and we believed in you. Then the Iowa Caucus happened and your dream (and ours) was quickly shattered. Since the system of caucuses and primaries tripped you, you of all people should be yearning and wanting to change it. Had there been a different way to select a nominee you might have won. The USA and the world would have been much better for it!
Debbie Dingell and Carl Levin urged you several years ago to consider updating the arcane system of selecting a presidential nominee by holding a national primary day or regional primaries. I understand that you neglected to consider it nor to do anything about it and allowed the current showdown with Michigan and Florida to take place by not preventing it. By disenfranchising Michigan and Florida you will allow the faulty system to continue unchanged because other states won't have the courage to force a showdown as Michigan and Florida did, for fear they would be punished.
If you're confused by the talking points emanating from Planet Clinton over the seating of Michigan's delegates, fear not. You need to think outside the proverbial ballot box and think like a Clintonite.
So put down that copy of the national and state Democratic Party rules. Cleanse from your mind the legislation that inflicted the January 15 Train Wreck Primary on us. Take everything said by state party officials with a grain of salt enough salt to get us through this past winter. Toss your copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Robert's Rules of Order, and your Logic 101 textbook from college days into the dumpster. And forget everything you've learned about the facts and timeline of the dispute over our state's delegates.
You need to be reading the ultimate authority over on Planet Clinton. I call it Hillary's Rules of Procedure. For your convenience, I took the liberty of translating them from medieval Law French into recognizable English:
I wanted to respond, briefly, to the post about "How Obama makes us competitive everywhere."
As the primary season winds to a close, the Democratic Party is left with a choice between two historic candidates, with barely a fraction of a percentage of the 4,000 pledged delegates awarded separating them.
As our Party prepares to move into a general election campaign against John McCain, it becomes clear that the choice our Party must make is between more than just a candidate with more popular votes (a sign of broad support) and a candidate with more pledged delegates (an advantage won in red-state caucuses - a testament to the campaign's organizing prowess).
The choice is between an experienced, tested candidate who will beat John McCain and usher in a new progressive era for this country and a candidate who could beat John McCain to fulfill promises of change.
...the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership. ... I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. ... As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race. ... I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.
Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain.
Well, I don't know if her candidacy is a unifying force in the party, but I do think that quitters suck. I also agree that she has a responsibility as a female role model, to continue her candidacy for as long as she can. Hillary is not merely a potential Presidential candidate; she is a symbol of achievement for American women. Obama might be the candidate for hope, but Hillary is the one that we point to, when we tell our little girls that they can be President someday.
Yeah, I know she probably won't win the nomination, but she definitely won't win if she quits.
en. Hillary Clinton continues to stand up for the voters in Michigan and Florida as she campaigns in Florida this week. Florida, as you well know, has a dark history when it comes to votes not being counted and voters being disenfranchised, saying "I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. They should count them exactly as they were cast. Democracy demands no less."
Hillary outlined her case for the inclusion of the Michigan and Florida delegations in the nominating process in a speech on May 21st in Boca Raton. As I have done on this blog and in other forums, Sen. Clinton echoed NAACP chairman Julian Bonds, made it clear that counting our votes is, fundamentally, a civil rights issue:
The union [the Founding Fathers] ultimately formed was far from perfect. It excluded many of our citizens; people like Congresswoman Brown, me, my daughter. But it was an ideal that set forth a goal that we have consistently worked for.
Fortunately... this nation was blessed by men and women who refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote.
This just in from our friend Xavier, HRC penned this letter to Obama, asking for his cooperation in seating Michigan and Florida:
Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama,
This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.
One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.
I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.
Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.
I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Based on Obama's previous statements and behavior toward us, I doubt that Obama will work with Michigan for a solution.
Ironic, really, since he's constantly telling people to elect him due to his ability to work with anyone.
Should Hillary Clinton lose the nomination, there's been talk that Obama might offer her the vice-presidency or she might consider running for governor of New York, but Ezra Klein points to another suggestion from a commenter at New York Magazine that's sure to be controversial:
...if Obama wins in November, Hillary's days of running for President are over. So how does Obama win the White House and Hillary still win too?...It's a job for life and she can have as much or even more longterm impact than even the President has in two terms. No more campaigning, no more digging into her personal life and again, it's a job for life. In late July, she goes to Obama with the deal. Put me on SCOTUS if you win and I back you for POTUS.
Klein's opinion...
It's not the craziest thing I've ever heard. Clinton is a trained, and by all accounts, brilliant, lawyer. Many of the issues she's demonstrated real passion for, from women's rights to health care to labor standards, frequently come before the Court.
Some of Klein's commenters take exception with the idea that Clinton is a brilliant lawyer (apparently she flunked the DC Bar exam), but others feel she's tailor made for the Supreme Court. The discussion going on over there is worth reading - depending on whom you support. The Clinton lovers, Clinton bashers, Obama lovers and Obama bashers are out in full force.
As for my opinion, I'd like to see it happen. Can you imagine the frenzy of outrage from the wingnuts? They'd be frothing at the mouth and screaming about Hillary's liberalness. Okay, that was kind of sarcastic for something as serious as the Supreme Court, but I honestly don't think Clinton being liberal makes her more partisan than our conservative Justices. In fact, I think she'd be much fairer and even-handed in her rulings than either Roberts, Alito or Thomas (who side with big business and Republicans).
Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams has released the following statement, urging Sen. Barack Obama to join the Clinton campaign in calling for a party-run primary to ensure that Michigan voters are not disenfranchised.
Michigan will be a key battleground state in November. Disenfranchising Michigan voters today will, in the heat of a general election, provide Senator McCain with a powerful argument to use against the Democratic nominee. We cannot allow this to happen.
The people of Michigan must be counted and their voices finally heard. What the people of Michigan need now is just action, not just words.
The Clinton campaign is calling for a new primary, because as Marc Ambinder notes, the judge's ruling does not necessarily require one.
Judge Nancy Edmonds's ruling DOES NOT order a new primary. She writes that the "the court agrees the issue of severability is beyond the scope of the claims." In other words: the parties themselves ought to figure out whether they need new primaries or not.
Full statement from Maggie Williams below the fold.
Been waiting with bemused interest to see what Jack Lessenberry had to say about the impending demise of the idea of a new Michigan primary. Not that I hang on Jack's every word and take it as gospel, but I like his style of writing and his sense of history on Michigan politics. He's been around. Seems to be a man of integrity. And he can certainly crank out the words in a way that shows he doesn't equivocate his views based on popular opinion or give you the sense that he is in love with his own writing, as some Michigan columnists seem to do.
First of all, let's paint Jack's frame of mind on the main players. His dislike of Hillary Clinton just leaps off the page at you. When you title a column "Hillary Rodham Nixon", well, you could really stop right there, but Jack takes the knife and seems to relish twisting it as hard as he can.
One of the best TV reporters in this town, a man with many years experience, told me, "That was truly Nixonian." And that's exactly what it was. Somewhere in the cosmic muck, whatever passed for Richard Nixon's soul had to be quivering in ecstasy. Yes, Tricky Dick - who spent his early career learning and refining the art of character assassination - has a disciple. Someone just as ruthless, unlikable and nasty as he always was.
Whatever else this campaign has done, it has revealed the real Hillary Clinton. Yes, she is intelligent. But she is also virtually impossible to like, especially if you look at what is really there.
He is not a fan of Jennifer Granholm. (awww, c'mon Jack - she has good policy) The day he met Obama, he had cynically set himself up for disappointment, based on his experience with the governor.
That was when Jennifer Granholm was running for governor. I was all excited till I went out to breakfast with her - and found, to my dismay, almost nothing of substance.
But he loved Barack Obama-
When the meeting was over, someone called and asked me what I thought. I was mildly surprised by my answer:
Yes, I said simply. Yes, he just might be all that.
In person, Barack Obama is even more charismatic than on TV. He is tall, lithe, coordinated. He is thoughtful and funny at the same time. His enormous appeal seems to be built on a combination of intellectual and social intelligence. One of the people present was, I knew, a Hillary Clinton supporter. Obama clearly sensed that, bore in, tried to win her over.
I asked him a question about the nation's decaying infrastructure; would he, if necessary, support something like a new WPA, the federal program that put the unemployed to work during the Depression? Obama responded with a sophisticated plan for a program that would assist states and communities to do just that, by using a pool of matching fund money.
His program made sense, but what impressed me more was that he had clearly studied the issue, assimilated the knowledge, and was able to call it forth without seeming like a policy wonk.
Jack is clearly an Obama supporter. He has no love for the Democratic establishment here in Michigan, and he has no problem saying so. "Corrupt party hacks" is how he put it.
What the Obama forces seem to want is A) either for Michigan not to be seated at all or B) for the delegates to be divided equally without a new vote. Sorry, that would be just plain wrong. As wrong, that is, as Clinton's earlier attempt to suddenly have the meaningless and illegal primary count. I have roundly beaten up on Hillary Clinton and her campaign plenty in this column.
So now it's time to give the local Obamaites a slap. If they want to win this nomination, and the general election, their candidate needs to be prepared to compete anywhere and everywhere. Barack Obama's candidacy this year has already shattered all the rules and expectations. So now is the time for him to come into Michigan and campaign like a tiger. Senator: Show us why we should vote for you, and for the future. Defy the odds, and get in here. You've been doing what they said you couldn't do since Iowa. Michigan, more than anywhere else in the nation, needs a new vision.
If you can't take on heavy hitters the likes of Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick and Jennifer Granholm (yes, that's sarcasm) how do you expect to knock off John McCain and the full Darth Vader power of the United Republican Dirty Tricks Machine in the fall?
Besides the benefit to Obama of introducing himself to Michigan voters now, in the spring (as opposed to playing catch-up after the convention), this would benefit the state as well with renewed enthusiasm for the Democrats in general, not to mention jobs (albeit probably temporary), money from advertising and visitors to the state, the national media spotlight in June... we gain much more than we lose.
All that being said, this isn't going to happen. This is going to be decided by some DNC rules committee, maybe a floor fight at the convention. And for all of those who like to bring up the rules - well, OK, let's play by the rules. As of now, the rules state that we will not be seated unless we hold a new nominating primary or caucus by June 10th. There is no provision for a "50/50" split as it stands. The DNC will probably vote to change those rules to avoid catastrophe - but right now it is an argument that doesn't hold water.
Denying this vote doesn't punish the party leaders at all. Going to primary Carl Levin? Get Debbie Dingell out of politics somehow? They were the two masterminds originally behind this. Granholm is termed out. Brewer, you get to go through the unions, and good luck with that. If you want to punish Hillary, well, a victory for Obama here would do that quite nicely.
Your choice, but it looks like the establishment is going to choose for you today.
In a last minute schedule change, Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that the Senator will hold a 9am event in Detroit, MI - where she'll accuse Senator Obama of obstructing a re-vote in the state.
"She'll make the case that every vote should count, that the people of Michigan should not be disenfranchised, and that snubbing Michigan is going to hurt Democrats in the general election," says campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee. "We have an opportunity to prevent that; Senator Obama is standing in the way. So she wants to go to Michigan to press that case herself."
Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm (a Clinton supporter) has legislation for a new primary ready to go - legislation Clinton herself supports - and campaign aides say Obama's campaign is raising objection after objection in order to stymie a re-vote in a state she's likely to win.
It would appear that the much-talked-about "Michigan Mulligan" is inching towards becoming a reality, with Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick saying "we're close."
The proposed date? June 3rd. (The do-over--in whatever form--must occur before June 10th to count towards the Convention, according to DNC rules).
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Michigan congresswoman said Friday that the state's Democrats are working on plans for a June 3 primary that would give them a say in the tight presidential nomination race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said the primary would be statewide and would be funded through party money. She is one of four Democrats who are not endorsing either candidate who are working together on a plan for a repeat primary.
Clinton won a primary the state held in January, but Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. He had it removed because the primary was held too early to comply with national party rules, meaning no delegates were at stake.
Florida also had its delegates stripped for holding a primary in January. The Florida Democratic Party offered a plan for a mail-in primary Thursday, but admitted it didn't have a good chance of being approved. Kilpatrick said the mail-in approach wouldn't work in Michigan.
Kilpatrick said discussions on the plan would continue Friday. "We're hopeful. We're close," she told reporters after appearing at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.
Other Michigan Democrats working on the plan include Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, Sen. Carl Levin and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger.
Kilpatrick said although she is optimistic, Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey has expressed concern they may not have the time or manpower to pull it off. She said they are trying to work through those issues.
To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two candidates' campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.
Michigan Democrats need to act quickly because the politically divided legislature will have to sign off on the deal and approve how to spend the privately raised funds for a new election. Members of the Democratic-controlled state House and Republican-controlled state Senate leave at the end of the month on their two-week spring break.
Florida Democrats said they will make a decision by Monday on whether to hold a dual mail-in and in-person re-vote. But the plan floated this week faces opposition from the state's Democratic congressional delegation, and Obama has also expressed concerns about security and accuracy of a mail-in vote organized so quickly. Democratic National Committee rules require the vote to be scheduled by June 10.
Hillary Clinton, speaking before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, where she expanded on her Hispanic Agenda -- Una Vida Mejor Para Todos -- spoke about her campaign's efforts to have the voices of voters in Michigan and Florida heard, calling the exclusion of the nearly 2.5 million Americans from the democratic process "wrong."
She outlined two options moving forward, which echo the "Dear David" letter written by Clinton Campaign Manager Maggie Williams to David Plouffe earlier in the morning.
In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don’t see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states.
Regardless of the outcome, Sen. Clinton said we have a "basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts."
Sen. Clinton called on Sen. Obama and his campaign to join her to make sure that there ia "non-partisan solution" to the problem.
This comes on the heels of the Obama campaign expressing deep reservations about using the mail-in option in both Michigan and Florida (Florida's Congressional Democrats have issued a statement opposing a re-do of any kind). Despite Sen. Obama's position on mail-in votes in Florida and Michigan, he co-sponsored a bill last June that would establish a vote by mail grant program.
My thinking is that the Obama campaign is in favor of a limited-window caucus (as the Edwards campaign was when it derailed the inclusion of all candidates on the Michigan primary ballot). I haven't seen any studies of it, but would a vote-by-mail operation increase the number of senior citizens (a population that trends HRC) that participate? I would think that the limited-window would function to exclude working-class and blue-collar workers (who also trend to HRC, especially in rust belt states).
Here's a good video explaining the lead-up to Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot.
I believe that Jack Lessenberry is closer to the truth than most Michigan Democrats would like to admit. Michigan's Democratic establishment is playing hardball and using brute force to prevent a fair fight in Michigan.
I don't think Senator Levin planned it that way at the outset, or that Levin, Granholm, Dingell, and Brewer had a "secret meeting" to decide their strategy.
These are all savvy politicians. They know what they want, and they know how to get it. They know that this is the most important election in decades. They know this is the biggest opportunity for Democrats in decades.
They know just as well as any of us does what the difference is between a caucus and no caucus in Michigan, and seating the delegates as they stand or not seating the delegates at all.
They know which candidate they support too. They have done the math and picked their pony. What they've ultimately chosen is good for them, but that's no good for Michigan or the Democratic Party.
You tell me which candidate you support, and I betcha I can tell you what you think about a caucus in Michigan. You tell me what you think about a caucus in Michigan, and I'll tell you which candidate you support.
This ain't rocketscience.
I promise, I will not be boycotting Clinton if she wins the election by the Michigan Margin. I'm a Democrat, and another Republican president could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
But you can bet the farm that other folks will boycott! This has the makings of a true disaster for the Democrats. If Florida 2000 haunts us to this day, how are we gonna feel if the Clinton operation pulls off this ham-fisted delegate rob in Michigan, and it makes the difference between President Democrat and President McCain? They always say, "Democrats always manage to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory" ...
The only near-fair solution is a showdown in Michigan and Florida. So long as the Democratic establishment in Michigan is not boxing with gloves on in this election, why should the voters, why should I?
We should be demanding a caucus, and we'll only be getting a caucus when Democratic activists say, "Either we caucus or heads are gonna roll!"
The following are key arguments that I believe support a Michigan Presidential Caucus.
ARGUMENTS:
(1) Michigan deserves to have clout in this election. So long as our delegates do not count, Michiganders do not have clout.
(2) Our 128 delegates could be decisive. The race for delegates is expected to be very close at the time of the convention, with both candidates near, but not at, a majority. Michigan could tip the balance.
(3) Michiganders deserve to see the primary candidates up close and hear the candidates debate the issues that matter in Michigan, like the health of the Great Lakes and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Michiganders will not have this opportunity if January's results stand.
(4) Michigan voters deserve to be able to choose between all of the candidates. Most of the candidates names were removed from Michigan's ballot, and "Uncommitted" won the "youth vote," the "black vote," and over 40% (200,000) of the overall votes.
(5) Michigan deserves to have our delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention. As it stands, the DNC will reject the delegates distributed at Michigan's January 15 Primary because Michigan advanced the date of our Primary in defiance of DNC rules. They will restore our delegation's voting credentials if and only if we hold a caucus.
(6) Whichever candidate wins the nomination, they must win Michigan to win the presidency. The opportunity to campaign in Michigan prior to the nominating convention would strengthen the nominee with Michigan voters.
It's the conversation parents dread. The only thing worse is no conversation, and instead finding a stray condom in the washing machine. Meg and I often wonder what we would say if one of our kids was to tell us that they were (or planned to be) sexually active. Would we encourage abstinence? We also wonder what we would say if one of our kids did what we did- that is, get married in their early twenties. Would we encourage them to wait, or would we stay silent and let them live with their own choices?
