He's the guy who wrote and article on a "compromise" for FL/MI that has some really swell reasoning:
One principle is based in law, the second in pragmatic politics.
Watch closely now, we're going to dive off the edge of the world.
In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to "cure" the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.
This will get really strange in a little while, but let's do pragmatism first:
If more than 2.3 million Democrats in Michigan and Florida are told their votes didn't count even though their party leaders were willing to revote, that could anger them, to put it mildly. If they blame Obama for not supporting the revote while still blocking a fair solution by the Rules Committee, essentially not permitting their January votes to count, they are likely to be angrier still — if, that is, he is the Democratic Party's nominee. In a close election that could mean the difference between the Democratic candidate carrying or losing Michigan and Florida.
They surely will get ticked off, you folks have fanned the flames real well.
Now the Obama campaign would say that they neither objected nor approved; they just raised "concerns." That is a fact. But here is an unavoidable inference from other undeniable political facts: Had Obama instructed those supporters in Michigan and Florida who were opposed to the revotes to support them, and joined with Clinton in endorsing the revotes, the new rounds of voting would have occurred.
Here is where this got really strange, the "concerns" were quite valid, like the little matter of the complete illegality of the scheme under one state's laws, MI, and the other state's, FL, refusal to have anything to do with it. Oddly enough there was a completely legal and feasible remedy, called self-financed caucuses - but Hillary doesn't like them and froze the deciding entities, the State Parties. The actual impediment to a solution was Hillary. Does this qualify Lanny as a liar? I know the popular word is spin. (puke)
Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).What do you make of the idea that Hillary ought to get not only the votes with her name on them but also the ones that didn't want her? This from an election she said didn't count. So people who cared enough to vote anybody but her in an election that didn't count are hers? I sincerely hope that the Greek concept of hubris bites him. Remember the night of the fake Florida election when Hillary said, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure your votes count?" Who was it exactly that interfered in any possible fix? She lied to those people by telling them she had a power she didn't have. Oh I know all about the wiggle words "my power" since she had none.
How about this, Lanny, delegates at 0.5 vote, uncommitted to Obama, and since the supers interfered along with Hillary (offender shouldn't benefit) 0 super delegates. Besides which, the State Parties deserve none for their willing boosterism of the original offense and the elected officials could have had sway and chose not to.
But wait, this "concerned Democrat" wasn't done making an ass of himself, nope, more stuff for Obama. You see Obama had the temerity to be winning. Four things pissed him off:
1)Edward's announcement stepped on Hillary's WV win
2)majority of delegates speech stepped on Hillary's KY win
3)announce head of VP search while Hillary still breathes
4)Bill Richardson - Judas
Lanny, you are a puke and you guys ran a stupid and divisive campaign and you've lost in delegates and minus a complete bolt by automatic delegates to you it is over. I really like the juxtaposition of your compromise and your political strategy whining. From the time you wrote that stupid compromise post I've been waiting, knowing you couldn't, just could not refrain from further asininity in pathetic rhetoric blaming Obama for a bit more.
Obama has divided the Party, he's mean, he sucks, he deserves no votes, it was our turn, he can't win without our votes and we'll make sure he gets as few as possible and he can't win anyhow and I'm a girl and I can play politics anyway I want and if you say anything I'll cry and...
Holy Cow. Hillary has played a rough game for a Democratic Primary, it is politics and it does get rough, but she's used some Republican boosting methods and then claimed victim hood. Your campaign has been out maneuvered and out PRed at every turn, almost, and you try once again to use the victim card to justify freezing your supporters? Your campaign whines about caucuses and black votes while your candidate would be no one at all without the last name?
I don't find either of you to be the be - all - end - all of possible nominees, but I do find yours to be the lesser. Your candidate has a record of "old news" that was never addressed that goes right to the heart of her qualifications to be a President and you had not one battle on that front. You dragged every possible association and even imaginary ones in on your opponent and you claim dirty pool? You claim the opposition is alienating Hillary supporters? Does this sound like kicking a horse that's down? If it is, you and yours need to not be in any position of power and if this is what it takes, so be it. You ginned up the sexism card while you played on the edge of the racism card. Obama and his campaign have never hit you with sexism, it may have played a part with some, but you've seen to it Obama was blamed for it.
I objected from the beginning to your candidate's short term thinking and I'd say your campaign proves my assertion.