by James Oliphant
Sen. Hillary Clinton was in Michigan Wednesday, racheting up the pressure on Sen. Barack Obama and using language more suitable perhaps for a Central American country. She called for "full and fair elections" in the state to help determine the Democratic presidential nominee.
Thursday, she received some help from USA Today's editorial board, which opined that voters in Michigan and Florida deserved to have their voices heard. Of course, at the same time, the editorial noted the tremendous obstacles that stand in the way of any re-vote, particularly in populous Florida.
But even as the paper's editorial board was showing Clinton's effort some love, a front-page story in the paper revealed that 10 wealthy Democrats have volunteered to finance a re-vote in Michigan by throwing in $12 million. Coincidentally, all 10 have ties to the Clinton campaign, including New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, Maryland millionare Peter Angelos, and financier Roger Altman.
Asked whether those wealthy donors were trying to aid Clinton in financing a Michigan revote, campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded by saying the notion was "absurd."
"Of course only Clinton people have come forward to say they are willing to finance it because Obama is opposing it," Singer said.
Under campaign finance laws, the most an individual can donate to a federal campaign is $4,600. The money put up to finance a re-vote in Michigan wouldn't count as a contribution to Clinton's campaign, however.







Comments
An election took place. ALL the Democratic candidates knew the rules and abided by them. Now some want to re-do the rules and the election. That is not how voting and a democracy works.
Anyway, I suggest these wealthy Democrats use their $12 million on something more noble: like actually helping those in need, not political games.
Posted by: John D | March 20, 2008 12:34 PM
O.k. let me get this straight. Big wigs finance another vote, help get the numbers needed to surpass another candidate, get you into the White House just because they 'LIKE' you? Come on stop playing the Voters and fools. This is a back room deal; you scratch my back, and I'l scratch yours......
Posted by: Oh Please | March 20, 2008 12:52 PM
You know what?
If the Democratics don't want Forida & Michigan votes, that's fine.
Come election time, we'll just give them to the Republicans.
;-)
Posted by: GotIt | March 20, 2008 1:05 PM
"Under campaign finance laws, the most an individual can donate to a federal campaign is $4,600. The money put up to finance a re-vote in Michigan wouldn't count as a contribution to Clinton's campaign, however." So argument is that Hillary supporters finance an election that would at least for nominating purposes benefit Hillary would not be considered a contribution?
Posted by: Mobley | March 20, 2008 1:15 PM
This is so typical of the Clinton's.
Hillary agreed, in writing, to the DNC rules for this election BEFORE the primary even started but now that she's getting her arse handed to her by Obama she want's to change the very same rules that she agreed to in the first place.
The last thing this country needs right now is the Clinton's back in the White House where Hillary will claim she's on top of the issues facing America all the while Bill is boinking his new intern right under her nose.
Posted by: American Citizens who hate the Clinton's | March 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Can we blame Clinton for this mess? Absolute YES. Would have Michigan voted if Clinton name was not in the balot papers? Of course NO. Kucinich would have been the only one.
You can't have your cake and eat it. Let us move on with the nomination as approved by DNC and after it is over, the seating of the MI and FL delegates can be negotiated, not in the middle of the game just to aid someone who would do anything even bring chaos to the party just to win the nomination.
Posted by: baba | March 20, 2008 1:22 PM
If either party was going to botch its own primary election process, it was going to be the Democrats. I'm disgusted with the lack of strategic discipline and infighting between state and national party leaders. Republican lawmakers apparently got the whole date-change rolling, but the RNC only penalized their guys half the delegates. That was, like, SMART. The Dems give themselves so much credit for their intellect, but as far as I'm concerned, they don't know how to play the game well when it really count.s
Posted by: A. F. Cook, www.redzonepolitics.com | March 20, 2008 1:41 PM
I guess this adds to the long list of big-time donors that the Clinton's will owe favors to...Nice
Posted by: Weiss | March 20, 2008 1:53 PM
I agree that FL Democrats should get a re-vote. The Republicans in that state sandbagged the Democrats by moving their primary. The MI Democrats, on the other hand, have only their Democratic governor to blame.
Still, I'd be more than willing to let them vote, provided Hillary admits that she didn't see this coming. Hillary once again should have been out front of this. Her experience should have led her to foresee a close primary season when she was going to need these votes to get the nomination.
Hillary is all about her "experience." But apparently her experience isn't worth a darn. She can't even FIGHT for people BEFORE she needs them. She has to wait until AFTER she needs them.
Posted by: Barrack O | March 20, 2008 2:21 PM
Hillary Clinton is seen as a divisive figure. ONLY because she's a tough as nails female who is willing to scrap with the boys to get done what she wants. If Obama is such a great Hope and Dreams fulfiller he should not WHETHER OR NOT it benefits him support the voters of Florida and Michigan. I guarantee you there will be a huge flock of people rallying against him in a general election. He DOES NOT support all the voters of America because it doesn't favor him, PERIOD. What a great uniter. He's Change for the same, only under a different name. "Stop Hillary, ignore millions of voters who supported her. It doesn't help secure my victory. Darn Clinton's up to their tricks." Furthermore, Hillary Clinton said way way way back in the beginning of this cycle she'd fight to see Florida and Michigan counted this DID NOT START after Texas and Ohio. Watch old news clips people. P.S. I voted for Ron Paul!!
Posted by: Obama Unites? | March 20, 2008 2:32 PM
It's been obvious for a long time that the DNC is in bed with Obama, Let the people speak.
I emailed Nancy Pelosi and asked her to let the process play out before she comments on it and let the super delegates make up their own mind and not be pushed by her.
The response I received from her was that since I did not belong to her congressional district she could not answer any questions from me.
WHATS UP WITH THAT.
Posted by: peter | March 20, 2008 2:57 PM
Anyway, I suggest these wealthy Democrats use their $12 million on something more noble: like actually helping those in need, not political games.
Posted by: John D | March 20, 2008 12:34 PM
Yeah Lil Johnny Man Boobs,
Maybe they should use their money to help all the people who are being screwed by this Republican-led crap economy because Wingnuts like you don't care....which is exactly why your team (GOPer's) is currently losing elections all over the country.
Posted by: John E | March 20, 2008 3:31 PM
You know what? Obama will probably allow those two states to be seated after he knows he's nominated as he is no better than Hillary. Some rules were meant to be broken folks. The DNC could allow those states anyway if they wanted to. Donna Brazille explained it to us on one of the news shows one day. There are other rules written in so that when this happens they can still be seated. So all of you trying to call Hillary a cheater. Please. As far as I"m concerned Obama is the one that needs to give up his bid for the presidency because we are handing McCain the job in the fall if he gets the nomination. Flat out. At least Hillary is a viable, electable candidate.
Posted by: Ellie | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM
You know what? Obama will probably allow those two states to be seated after he knows he's nominated as he is no better than Hillary. Some rules were meant to be broken folks. The DNC could allow those states anyway if they wanted to. Donna Brazille explained it to us on one of the news shows one day. There are other rules written in so that when this happens they can still be seated. So all of you trying to call Hillary a cheater. Please. As far as I"m concerned Obama is the one that needs to give up his bid for the presidency because we are handing McCain the job in the fall if he gets the nomination. Flat out. At least Hillary is a viable, electable candidate.
Posted by: Ellie | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM
Yay!! It is clear Hillary will do or say ANYTHING to win this nomination, and all of her tactics failed. Lies failed. Diversions failed. Changing her position failed. She couldn't even buy it, but she tried!
I am happy to see there are level heads in Michigan that can see through the "transparency" and do the right thing. Others could learn from this.
Posted by: Susan, PA Voters | March 20, 2008 4:00 PM
If Barack Obama thought the Michigan primary was going to count, he would have put his name on the ballot and he would have campaigned there.
We can redo it if she likes, and her wealthy pals can pay for it, but if Obama wins that primary, I hope this will be the last attempt to change the rules that everyone originally agreed to.
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | March 20, 2008 4:16 PM
To bad so sad if Obama took his name off the ballot, he was on the ballot in Florida and still lost by 17 points!
Count both State's. We want our voices heard, we spoke loudly!!!
Like we really need someone like Obama representing our great Country! Oh well, if they give this to Obama, I guess the Republicans just got another vote this fall.
Shirley, MI
Posted by: ShirleyD | March 20, 2008 5:31 PM
Hillary and Obama agreed to the rules but Hillary wants to change them to favor herself. Now she wants her special interests supporters to pay to have the rules changed to try to favor her. Is this how she'd run a country?
Posted by: Marie | March 20, 2008 9:15 PM
Deranged and Demented Johnny E., no man boobs on me, but you are one big dumba-- of a boob!!
Posted by: John D | March 20, 2008 10:59 PM
Which candidate is a religious opportunist.
Which candidate only wants some of the electorate counted.
No it's not Bush, Obama
Posted by: hhkeller | March 21, 2008 8:51 AM
split the delegate from both state down the middle save million s of dollor s and move the hell on
Posted by: randall mitchell | March 21, 2008 9:14 AM
As an Obama supporter I am proud that he has not said no to the redos but rather he will abide by the DNC rules. This is a character
that I can appreciate. Hillary is behind largely because she made the choice to channel her energy toward the "Big States" and she thought she
was a "Shoe In" and never expected to need us after
Febuary 5, 2008. So those
primaries that occured after Super Tuesday really
were, for her, going to be just "an exercise in Glory"
So perhaps this explains why she did not make an issue of Fl and Mi. But now
she needs them and the Pouting, Blameing and Fuss-
ing starts. Hopefully the
Dems in Fl will make sure that come November,O8 they can turn out and elect a
State Government that will
be sensitive to their needs. This is what Obama
is calling for. We need to stand up in our State and Local Governments so that we can bring about the change in Federal Government. A Dem who would
threaten to vote for McCain
would assure more of the same. Is your vote worth that?
Posted by: CPD | March 24, 2008 12:44 AM