With all this talk about redoing the election, I’m kind of laughing inside. The Democratic party created this mess for itself and now that it looks like Hilary Clinton doesn’t have the nomination sewed up, they have to try and fix it. The fix might be a little more difficult than people think.

While most Fatmixx readers are probably well aware, I’ll give some background. The Michigan and Florida Democratic parties felt as if Iowa, New Hampshire, and the super Tuesday states had too much say in the nominations process. As a result, they moved the primary earlier in the year to give themselves more relevance in the process. This violated national Democratic party rules and the party decided not to seat the delegates. This was all done under the assumption that it wouldn’t really matter, since there would be a presumptive nominee (read Hilary Clinton) after Super Tuesday. Now that Barak Obama is actually leading, and that every delegate is important, the 210 Florida delegates and the 165 Michigan delegates could be the difference in making the nomination.

It should also be noted that since the delegates were going to be stripped from Michigan, Obama, along with all the other candidates, except Clinton, had their names removed from the ballot. For those voting in the Michigan Democratic Primary, the choice was “Hilary Clinton” or “None of the Above” (You can’t write in a candidate). Not only could you not vote for any other candidate, but your vote would also be ignored.

Michigan has an open primary. You just ask for the ballot of the party you want.

Those last two sentences are key. Michigan has an open primary. You just ask for the ballot you want.

Now that there is talk of a redo primary there is one thing I’m not hearing discussed: Who gets to vote in it.

I can’t speak for others, but I don’t maintain a party affiliation. I don’t for several reasons, but one of them is that I hate getting called by the party for donations. I donate to whom I like and have donated to candidates in at least 3 different parties over the last 4 years. I also don’t maintain a party affiliation because I don’t have to. If I want to vote in a primary, I just ask for the ballot that I want.

Since there was only one choice on the Democratic ballot and the delegates were going to be seated, I opted to actually make my vote count and I voted in the Republican primary. There was an internet move to get Michigan Democrats to vote in the Republican primary in an attempt to prolong the Republican primary. I know at least one or two people who opted not to vote in the primary since “it didn’t matter.” Hardly a scientific survey since I’m only including 3 or 4 people here, but it does give an idea of the problem.

Who gets to vote in the redo?

Do you limit it to those who voted in original Democratic primary? I have no idea how many, die hard Democrats voted in the Republican primary since their Democratic votes wouldn’t matter, but it wasn’t trivial. And how many decided to stay home, since their votes didn’t matter? Can you disenfranchise a large part of your own party…especially when all they wanted was for their vote to actually count? Can you disenfranchise those who were trying to spoil the other party’s election? Those seem like the hardest core supporters.

Do you limit it to registered Democrats? I deliberately don’t register with a party, because I don’t have to. Michigan has an open primary system. Is is acceptable to change the eligibility rules after the fact? Does the party want to exclude the more moderate residents of the state or party-undeclared minorities? As far as I can tell, there is no advantage in Michigan to declaring a party, unless you want to be involved in the party. I have to wonder how many voters in the Primary had not declared a party. These are going to be the voters who will make or break the general election for the Democrats. A choice not acceptable to this group may not be able to win the state.

Do you open it up to all registered voters in Michigan? This would allow people to vote in both primaries and would allow Republicans to play spoiler. It would almost assure that Hilary Clinton would win Michigan. But if you don’t allow all Michigan voters to vote, then how do you recapture those people who wanted their vote to mean something but were prevented from doing so by party ruling?

Forget about the question of “mail in ballots” versus “limited polling places” and who is going to pay for it all. There is a more fundamental question. “Who gets to vote?” is not trivial. The question of the eligibility of the voter will skew the result, no matter how it is decided. I can’t speak for Florida, but for Michigan this could be a serious problem.

The National Democratic party made their own bed and now they have to lie in it. There isn’t a solution. The Party tried to enforce some arbitrary rule about who gets the most influence in the process and now it is coming back to haunt them. The solution may have to be to divide the remaining delegates up as the national popular vote falls. It isn’t a pretty solution and it might not be “fair,” but it seems less wrought with danger then a re-vote.

I can’t write anything about this now, but I would be remiss if I didn’t note that Sen. Chris Dodd has dropped out of the race based on his poor showing in Iowa. Here’s the letter he sent out to his email list:

Dear Friend,

I count the past year of campaigning for the presidency as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service.

Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from that campaign tonight.

But there is no reason to hang our heads this evening — only the opportunity to look towards a continuation of the work we started last January: ending the Iraq War, restoring the Constitution, and putting a Democrat in the White House.

I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:

The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.

You’ve been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I’ll need you to stick by my side despite tonight’s caucus results.

So, one more time, thank you for all of your efforts throughout the course of this entire Presidential campaign.

We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we’ll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.

I’ll never forget you, and what we’ve fought for, together, over the past year.

Chris Dodd

He was the best candidate, but I really hope there’s a push to put him in a leadership position in the Senate. I’m not happy with Reid, that’s for sure.

My main concern with Obama the candidate is with what seems to be a low-grade ineptness that occasionally flares up from his campaign. I say low-grade because I do believe he’ll make a competent President with a decent cabinet and staff. Nevertheless, he’s done some downright stupid things along with some silly things in this campaign.

The latest example comes frmo the new debate over mandates for universal healthcare programs. They released a fact check that attacked Paul Krugman, “Arguably the most progressive voice in American media.” Ezra and Atrios cover the simple point about the quality of the attack. Worth reading.

The bigger point, though, is the fumbling around by the campaign in order to find a way to differentiate themselves from Clinton. It’s been pretty silly, and more importantly to me, bad policy on top of that. First, they picked on Social Security as an issue, attempting to spread the “OMG, Social Security is bankrupt!” Republican line. It’s stupid because it’s false. The War on Terror, including both Iraq and Afghanistan, costs over $150 billion. The Social Security expenditures were $586 billion, and the projected shortfall in 2042 when the trust fund runs out is 27%. Do the math… if we can step up for the war, we can step up for the population bubble, and these numbers don’t even worry about adjusting benefits or increasing the payroll tax cap.

More importantly, all of the Democrats running are willing to do the various things that Obama has proposed. It doesn’t even differentiate him but does aid those who would be happy to gut a program that is supposed to serve as a safety net, not a large retirement portfolio.

The healthcare debate mentioned above covers the same ground. This is a debate that they invited by making mandates an issue. Now that they’re getting a guys actual opinion on that issue (something he’s been consistent and reasoned about), they’re crying foul. It’s just lame, let alone (once again) tenuous at best on the facts.

These folks will be running parts of the government and they’re having trouble with the basic messaging of the campaign. It doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence, especially compared to some of the other candidates running. I do think he’ll make a good President. I do wonder, though, about the people he has around him. They’re not impressive so far.

Definitely glad I watched that. I now know that I should really be looking at Willard in 2008.

(via Balloon Juice)

I never heard this story prior to Huckabee’s polls picking up a few months ago, so maybe you haven’t either.

Republican partisans like to talk about “Bush Derangement Syndrome“, where folks like me blame Bush for all the world’s ills. It’s a false charge, and a lazy attack on the credibility of critics of the Bush administration.

Less discussed, though much more prevalent and institutionalized is Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Almost all of the Republican candidates for president suffer from it, and the media suffered from it (and, in some cases, still does) during the 90s. Irrational hatred and “paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of” the Clintons, to paraphrase the CDS sufferer Charles Krauthammer.

The story I mentioned is the story of Wayne Dumond. Here’s a rundown from Murray Waas:

As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.

Confidential Arkansas state government records, including letters from these women, obtained by the Huffington Post and revealed publicly for the first time, directly contradict the version of events now being put forward by Huckabee.

While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee’s intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond’s behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.

…

In 1996, as a newly elected governor who had received strong support from the Christian right, Huckabee was under intense pressure from conservative activists to pardon Dumond or commute his sentence. The activists claimed that Dumond’s initial imprisonment and various other travails were due to the fact that Ashley Stevens, the high school cheerleader he had raped, was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, and the daughter of a major Clinton campaign contributor.

The case for Dumond’s innocence was championed in Arkansas by Jay Cole, a Baptist minister and radio host who was a close friend of the Huckabee family. It also became a cause for New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy, who repeatedly argued for Dumond’s release, calling his conviction “a travesty of justice.” On Sept. 21, 1999, Dunleavy wrote a column headlined “Clinton’s Biggest Crime - Left Innocent Man In Jail For 14 Years”

…

After Dumond’s release from prison in September 1999, he moved to Smithville, Missouri, where he raped and suffocated to death a 39-year-old woman named Carol Sue Shields. Dumond was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison for that rape and murder.

But Dumond’s arrest for those crimes in June 2001 came too late for 23-year-old Sara Andrasek of Platte County, Missouri. Dumond allegedly raped and murdered her just one day before his arrest for raping and murdering Shields. Prior to the attack, Andrasek and her husband had learned that she was pregnant with their first child.

Read the rest. This story is outrageous in ways that even I can’t believe. These people hate Bill Clinton with a passion that is beyond measure. Two women paid for this with their lives. Mike Huckabee should be ashamed and should drop out of the race. This is partisanship taken so far that he let a rapist go in the face of numerous letters from the rapist’s victims, from the parents of that Clinton distant cousin, and from law enforcement.

We don’t need that in the White House.

Read the whole article. The story is unbelievable. These people don’t care about the law, they care about Republicans winning elections. They are evil and a blight upon our country. Grown-up Republicans, please, please, please take your party back. We need you.

Via Kevin Drum, I found this Times article describing the fast and lose way Giuliani is playing with statistics in his speeches and advertising campaigns. It debunks a number of his most commonly used statistical claims, some relatively minor but others quite significant. Worth a quick read just for that insight.

I’d rather draw your attention to a telling statement by Ramesh Ponnuru buried in the piece:

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review magazine, said Mr. Giuliani’s plan “may be the best of the Republican health care plans.”

“The trouble is that the exact statistic he used was misleading,” Mr. Ponnuru said in a recent interview, elaborating on a blog post he wrote. “It became an argument about the statistics, and he dug in and defended it when he was wrong.”

That’s exactly the problem. He shares Bush’s inability to admit when he’s wrong, and like Bush and Cheney, will dig in and attack, attack, attack when he’s given evidence of his errors. It’s like having Bill O’Reilly as a candidate. Incompetence and stubbornness are a bad combination. Just look at President Bush.

This isn’t just an isolated incident, but a pattern with Rudy. Now that an honest-to-goodness scandal is brewing around him, one that Rudy insists is a non-issue, this is how he’s behaving:

Giuliani, who is normally friendly to reporters, bristled past them, and campaign staffers were unusually physical in keeping the press away. Several campaign aides told campaign reporters to return to the press area, and some of his security detail manhandled reporters. On other occasions, reporters have been free to video Giuliani as he is shaking hands and signing autographs after events, and he often informally takes questions from reporters.

Our current President hides from protestors. With a Rudy presidency, we could have the second coming of J Edgar Hoover’s secret files or COINTELPRO.

WATCH THIS! It’s an interesting idea, and I’m curious to see where it goes. I hope these people that participate, though, don’t get in trouble for taping their end of the phone call. Remember to ask for permission, folks! This is a neat way of leveraging YouTube for a campaign.

I don’t agree with him on most things, actually, but on the important issues of the day, this is the ONLY Republican who is both consistent and intellectually honest.

I know it’s early, and I’m reluctant to start hanging my hopes on one candidate, but Sen. Dodd is the one guy I see being consistent and honest on most issues. He is showing leadership, not trying to play to the so-called “middle.”

Today, The Nation is blogging that Dodd is taking the lead, once again, on pushing for a restoration of constitutional rights:

Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. “We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation’s historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists,” he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 “citizen cosponsors” for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.

I’ve written several posts over the last few months about how Dodd is pushing for the repeal of the Military Commissions Act. He is committed to restoring respect for habeus corpus and the Geneva Conventions, understanding that our job in the world is easier when we follow our own principles. Sometimes, especially reading the Republican debates, it seems like he’s the only guy running who cares.

It’s hard to sell the high road. It’s hard to overcome the traditional tools of the marketer, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). When a candidate is willing to step up and fight for principles even though it’s a tougher sell than FUD, that gets my attention. When he’s doing so and I agree with him on the issue, that gets my support. It’s really that simple.

There’s a startling lack of leadership in the Presidential field. Of the Republicans, only Rep. Ron Paul tried to take a non-easy position on Iraq and got smashed for it during the debate. The fact of the matter is that every other Republican candidate and many of the Democratic candidates are all hiding on these issues. These are important issues, perhaps the most important of the day, and we’re simply ignoring them.

What bothers me is that these issues of principle transcend the Iraq issue. Our ability to influence the shape of the world we’re moving into is diminished in proportion to our loss of prestige. Every time we have to buy and bully reduces our ability to lead on issues that matter to Americans. From negotiating better working conditions for workers in other countries (thus raising their wages to be more competitive with American wages) to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, our behavior in the world has hurt our bargaining position.

So, I’m happy when candidates like Dodd are willing to speak out about these issues. We need more candidates to do this, and we need our next President to understand how to repair the damage done by President Bush. I’ve said it before, but I’m probably voting for Dodd in the primary. You should consider it, too.

Update: Forgot to credit Atrios for the pointer to the Nation post.

I’m pretty sure at this point I’m voting for him in the primary. You should consider it too.