Brazile: I'll Quit Democratic Party If Superdelegates Choose Our Nominee

CNN:

With Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York nearly splitting the delegate count in the race for the Democratic nomination, party leaders have a major dilemma on their hands: a tie ballgame heading into the convention....

...CNN political analyst Donna Brazile railed against the scenario. "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said.

Read the whole story: CNN

Comments

[Researchguy66]

Well, bless your heart. Here's your hat...come back anytime.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Good for Donna Brazile to speak out about this potential voter disenfranchisement.

Look how the "establishment" wants to keep power over the people to veto their wishes if it doesn't suit the "establishment".

Democracy in America is a farce.

[AnninCA]

Voter disenfranchisement?

LOL*

The Democratic Party has open primaries for the most part to ensure that Independents can vote if they like. But we have a right to not let anyone waltz in and just usurp the name.
We have the right to maintain our identity.

That's the purpose of super delegates, who are all very long-time Democratic members who actually do more than jump on the bandwagon for one time in their voting lives. These are people who work day-in-day-out on behalf of Democratic party members.

So any "Independent" who doesn't like the party rules should have absolutely little say-so in this matter.

There are consequences to not committing to the party. This is one.

[Liam]

Primaries are not votes. We use the same term, but primaries are private groups (the parties) determining who they want to support under their banner.

Because the Dems and the Repubs are so large, people tend to think of their primaries as equivalent to national voting.

But really, before you get too worked up over "disenfranchisement" of members of the party in the selection of the nominee, does it also bother you if the Green Party or the Libertarians or the Socialists pick someone in a back room deal, without having an open primary involving everyone who is registered in those, much smaller parties?

Voter disenfranchisement comes in if someone isn't allowed to vote next November. Period. If the Democrats want to change their rules so that the party insiders choose the nominee, fine. They'll end up driving people away from the party, but there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about the leadership of a group making choices like that...

Even if the concept of the "super delegate" does feel sort of hinky.

Liam.

[HowardRoarke]

Snooty much?

At least in the caucuses the voters either join the party, or pledge to its ideals and platform, and assert they are not members of any other political party.

But I thought you were the one who said primaries were what matter, not caucuses. So why are you saying it is okay for independents to participate in primaries, but if they choose the wrong candidate the results should just be ignored?

Now that Obama has shown he wins the most primaries, he wins the most caucuses, he wins the most elected delegates, he wins the popular vote, and he is even ahead when you included declared superdelegates... in other words, when the most AMERICANS get behind him, you retreat to "it's a private club, we can refuse anybody".

[artsandminds]

AnninCA "Voter disenfranchisement"?

Yes, look up the word- If the majority of registered voters, choose Obama and a group of party insiders decide to go against the voters and choose Clinton, than the few will be supplanting the will of the many. It astounds me how pro-Clinton sheep are so happy to go along with voter disenfranchisement as long as it benefits them, such hypocrites. One way or the other you will loose, you can’t beat McCain without independents.

[BobOnThis]

Super-delegates or Super-Orwellian Pigs!

In Washington State democracy has been rigged & usurped... and the majority of washingtonians being independent, myself included, are prohibitted from exercising our right to vote... without affiliation to the idiots on the left or right!

Not only has the caucus been rigged but so has the primary in our state! It has been corrupted by corrupt people in corrupt places for the corrupt purpose of controlling you and your vote! Doesn't sound anything like democracy to me.

If I don't lie and check a box of affiliation... my vote doesn't count!

Yeah, I've got a big problem with the people & process that created that system, certainly not democratic in the purest sense, gerrymandered and rigged for shizzle!

We've allowed the democrats & republicans to create a caste system, and divisive society, where honesty is rarely in an individuals best interest... there's certainly little room for honesty in political, or religious, debate!

Honesty has always been the 'big bane' to the purveyors of gods & governments.

Democracy has been usurped by modern sorcerers, wizards, illusionists, gerrymanderers, and moral authoritarians of every stripe!

Those that stole it should be imprisoned for conspiracy to violate civil rights & the democratic process... not in positions of prominence.

[shaggles]

It's really hard to tell how many Dems vs Reps vs Independents in WA because we don't declare a party when we register. It makes sense in the caucuses and primaries to have to pick a party. Why should people who refuse to identify with a party have any say in that parties nominee?

[Liam]

I agree. It doesn't make sense. I make use of it here in NH, being a registered independent (have been for as long as I can remember actually caring about politics).

There's no real reason why I SHOULD have any say in the choosing of one or the other parties' major candidates... As long as they let me, I will, but it really doesn't make any sense. This isn't a national election, it is a private group (albeit a big one) choosing who they're going to put up and support.

Liam.

[AnninCA]

Wow......You guys really are weird.

I couldn't figure out the way your caucus system works at all from the press.

Can you fill us in?

[AnninCA]

You are ungrateful. The party ALLOWS you to vote in our primaries.

You want now to tear down our party rules.

Well, I am so not surprised.

And anyone who didn't hear Obama stir this crap up was sleeping.

Shame on him. Shame on anyone allowing this to even continue.

[AnninCA]

These people are sounding pretty stupid, frankly.

AND it's more about railing for their candidate, obviously.

How DO these nuts get these plum jobs?

[vsign]

The caucus states have messed everything up. These states save money by having caucus' instead of primaries. This year, the caucus' got taken over by Obama supporters. Yes, they were more energized to spend 3 hours to vote than working people. Yes, Obama had more money to organize in these states (Oprah $). He has racked up his delegate count primarily from these states. But the white people who voted in these caucus' are the elites and the pacifists!!

Now the super delegates need to set this right for working people who did not get a chance to vote in a primary. If the Democratic Party, that I love, is going to keep the working class members, the super delegates need to help us. Out of the two candidates left standing, Hillary represents the working class. Do it to keep the party, that I love, together.

[TurnThePageGA]

Where is the enthusiam for Hillary in these states? Are you suggesting her support is thin and wide? BTW, It is what I said back in September when she was lapping the field of democratic candidates.

[justsaynotofascism]

"This year, the caucus' got taken over by Obama supporters. Yes, they were more energized to spend 3 hours to vote than working people."


-- What the hell are you talking about? My neighbors and fellow caucus mates are as hard working as anyone else. How dare you! Elites & pacifists? Try average people struggling to make ends meet in this f'cked economy. We are the working class and I resent your line of BS. We spent those couple of hours caucusing AFTER the day's work ended.


"Now the super delegates need to set this right for working people who did not get a chance to vote in a primary."


-- Those who vote(d) in primaries have(had) MORE of a chance to vote as the polls are open morning, afternoon, and evening. NOT SO for caucuses.

Either you're extremely ill-informed, or you're a Hillary propagandist. Which is it?

[dremac007]

Working perhaps. Class I doubt it. You so-called working class is as blinded by stupidity as the classless upper class of the so-called other party. You both are shortsighted misguided and self-indulgent. I mean really both classes/parties have failed to realize the obvious truth namely that cutting/raising income taxes is not the problem/question. The rediculous idea of taxing someone's income is the problem. The obvious truth is that more governmental and private insurance is not the answer to the healthcare question the health insurance is the problem both private and public. Eliminate the insurance profitterring and price manipulation and everyone can afford healthcare. All you have to do is pay the hospital and your doctors half of what is being paid to the insurance companies and you get all the health care you could ever use.

[AnninCA]

It appears you are correct. I never thought it would make such a difference!

What gives? People are scared to stand up for Hillary for fear of being called "racist?"

That theory doesn't sit well with me, to be honest.

The Hillary Haters shouldn't be a big factor. They are over voting Republican, anyway.

So why is it so slanted?

[Politiking]

Just because the rules doesn't fit the picture where Obama is included you are not going to support the very rules you help ratified? How about seating the Delegates of Michigan and Florida? Now that you see the inevitable, you want to change the rules? Your answer instead of helping to fix the flawed rules is to quit. Typical politician.

You and the DNC including Howard Dean are to blame for stripping MI and FL its delegates. Now, you don't have a ground to argue/contest because of the stupid DNC rules. You should have caught this last 2004 elections.

[AnninCA]

No doubt the in-fighting will continue on the Florida and Michigan issue. That's fair, but it was agreed upon and that's that.

Obama told Florida fund-raisers he would support seating the delegates. Hillary spoke out to keep her own promise. Both candidates know that Florida is terribly important in the Fall and for fundraising.

However, the attack on Super-delegates makes me really wonderabout Obama's fear. Why so nervous?

I would think he'd be clicking his heels.

[PamMD]

'Bye, Donna. If I need to find you, I'll check at Obama headquarters. You sound just like the 3 year old child who threatens to take his toys home if he doesnt' get to call the shots.

Where were you on this issue before? Why didn't you raise objections a year ago? A few months ago? A couple of weeks ago? Could the timing have something to do with the projected win by Hillary Clinton, due, in great part, to the superdelegates she has tenaciously courted for at least a year? Hillary has my respect for her political savvy.

And to the dope who threatens to vote for McCain if Hillary wins the nomination.... how will you feel when your kid or grandkid is dumped into Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan? Will you still be proud of the way you voted?

Wake up, people. The stakes are truly high this time. Don't forget that McCain has discussed throwing a Hundred Year War in the Middle East.

[TurnThePageGA]

We aren't threatening to vote for McCain if Hillary wins. We are threatening to do so if this is decided by superdelegates. If Hillary has one more "Pledged" delegate than Obama at the end of the process I will and I hope all democrats will support Hillary. But if Obama comes to the convention with a 50 plus lead in pledged delegates and the super delegates negates this I will be skipping down my ballot and will work to ensure everyone in my sphere of influence does the same. You can take that to the bank.

[BigBen]

Do you mean physical influence ,emotional influence, or what exactly does your threat(ensure) amount to?

[PamMD]

So you'd vote for McCain The Insane if the nominee is decided by superdelegates?

Are you on record if McCain gets elected and we end up in a quagmire in the Middle East for the next 100 years that you HELPED this lunacy take place?

Seriously, don't toss your vote around like it's meaningless. A protest vote is a dangerous idea when the stakes are so high. Please reconsider what you've decided.

[eanderso]

"President Clinton was the 'first black president' until the REAL one came along.
Remember racism comes in many colors, and you are proving that."

Isn't it possible to prefer Obama or Clinton because one prefers their message, rather than voting for Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman? It's ridiculous that so many people on the HuffPo and beyond are trashing the voters on either side with charges of racism and gender bias, rather than giving them credit for voting for the candidate they believe will do the best job. Is it not possible that we actually have two strong candidates and that voters actually have legitimate reasons to vote for each that are independent of their race and gender?

I'm a 37 year old white male, and I'm for Obama because of the sense of optimism that he stirs in me. I loved Bill Clinton as a president and have some of that same optimism when I think of him being sent as an ambassador to the world, which is how Hillary has said she'd use him, because he was and continues to be a very good diplomat. But I think I'm in good company in believing that the last person we need as president at this point is someone so deeply entrenched in the system. Obama may stumble as president, but at least he'll be stumbling forward. I don't get that same sense of optimism from Clinton. Pragmatism has it's place, but this is not a moment to play it "safe." This is a moment to think big, and I believe that Obama is thinking big.

[ntmessage]

Thats fine. What do you say about all those that voted the opposite way and now have their votes remaining uncounted? Is it ok to stay silent when you see others in your party being disenfranchised? Is the way you want to start achieving big ideas are with a system rigged at the last minute? Do you really feel that the ends justify the means? I wouldn't. The discussion here is why Donna and others support corrupting a process that will end up with losing the moral authority for change. The world is watching.

[Liam]

But what people ignore when they talk about the disenfranchising of people in FL and MI are two things:

1) Although it's come to be treated the same, the primaries are NOT national elections. They are party decisions, completely unconnected to our government. That's why different states have different numbers of delegates for the different parties and why one party can decide to have "Super Delegates" to give insiders a larger amount of end control over who the nominee is.

Think of it as though similar to when MoveOn.org recently polled their members to decide which candidate to endorse. MoveOn.org has a leadership. They opted to poll members, but they could just as easily have decided to commit the full weight of MoveOn (whatever that might be) behind a candidate of their own choosing.

Theoretically, if you don't like how the Dems or the Repubs do their primaries, you can form your own party and nominate whomever the heck you want.

But more importantly is:

2) It's not like anyone has retroactively decided to discount the votes in those states. The DNC made it clear that they didn't like the sudden jockeying for ever-earlier positions in the nominating calendar and put their foot down. Both FL and MI were well advised early on that the party was not going to count their input into the selection of the party candidate if they moved up their primary.

Ultimately, the Democratic Party decides who they want to put their full weight behind, just as MoveOn did. They nominate their candidate in whatever form they choose. The party decided to exercise some control over the process by telling states that if they moved up their primaries too far, they'd not be counted. If MI and FL had wanted to be counted, they could have opted not to change their dates.

Liam.

[eanderso]

I'm sorry but...what are you talking about? Oh wait...I won't bother replying because Liam already said everything I would have.

[BigBen]

If 99% black voters support Obama are we to believe that they decided en mass for the best candidate?Or as you say(that rather than giving them credit for voting for the candidate they believe will do the best job.)we believe that race was the main factor.I know what it looks like to me. IF it walks like a duck etc etc etc.

[eanderso]

Ah BigBen...That's not really my point, is it? My point is that ALL supporters of either candidate are being painted with the same broad brush. Not every Obama supporter is black, nor is every Clinton supporter a woman. You've basically taken a left turn while pretending to respond to my original post.

That said, where precisely are you getting your statistics regarding black voters? Or are you using the word "if" in the way that FOX News uses "Some would say" to appear to be quoting a credible source when you're actually just making something up. If you're going to quote stats to support your opinion, then please post a source.

[eanderso]

"President Clinton was the 'first black president' until the REAL one came along.
Remember racism comes in many colors, and you are proving that."

Isn't it possible to prefer Obama or Clinton because one likes prefers their message, rather than because voting for Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman? It's ridiculous that so many people on the HuffPo and beyond are trashing the voters on either side with charges of racism and gender bias, rather than giving them credit for voting for the candidate they believe will do the best job. Is it not possible that we actually have two strong candidates and that voters actually have legitimate reasons to vote for each that are independent of their race and gender?

I'm a 37 year old white male, and I'm for Obama because of the sense of optimism that he stirs in me. I loved Bill Clinton as a president and have some of that same optimism when I think of him being sent as an ambassador to the world, which is how Hillary has said she'd use him, because he was and continues to be a very good diplomat. But I think I'm in good company in believing that the last person we need as president at this point is someone so deeply entrenched in the system. Obama may stumble as president, but at least he'll be stumbling forward. I don't get that same sense of optimism from Clinton. Pragmatism has it's place, but this is not a moment to play it "safe." This is a moment to think big, and I believe that Obama is thinking big.

[BigBen]

And most people felt that Bush would be more fun to have a drink with. Good luck,Slim Pickings.

[ntmessage]

Donna's position is not only intellectually dishonest but an anathema to what the Democratic Party has stood for all these years. Outrageously she supports disenfranchising millions of voters in MI and FL and now when things may not go her way she will not support counting some of the delegates. Ignoring that the punishment for states moving their election dates around should not have resulted in interfering and suppressing the Democratic sacrosanct right of voters to be heard; the only intellectually honest action at this point is to count all voters OR all delegates (wouldn’t you count everyone? - DUH!) - Not some voters and some delegates to suit her now ideologically corrupt views.

[Thurber]

You're being purposely dense (I hope). Not counting illegal elections is just as important as counting every vote cast in legal ones. If FL and MI voters want their votes counted, schedule a legal primary. Nobody is stopping them, and nobody forced them to vote earlier than permitted. They did so on their own, knowing it was breaking the rules, but HOPING TO HAVE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR VOTE AMPLIFIED ANYWAY. Oops.


It's that simple and it's called democracy.


Welcome.

[BigBen]

The primary in Florida was in fact legal. The central committee just refused to recognize it. But it was in fact LEGAL and VALID. Sorry buddy.

[ibsteve2u]

"On the Senate floor on Friday, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida -- a Clinton supporter -- predicted a "potential train wreck" when deciding what to do about the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan.

He opposes Dean's suggestion to consider a new vote."

Questions that I have:

a) Did the Bush family move to control Florida politics in order to position themselves to help legitimize near-shore oil drilling should it be possible that global political and economic events could be manipulated to make it seem necessary?

b) Does the automotive industry that is famously headquarted in Michigan hate the idea of adopting increased fleet mileage standards and other Earth-friendly measures that would decrease our dependency upon foreign oil but negatively impact their profit margins?

c) Does the oil industry benefit if near-shore drilling around Florida were legitimized and/or if fleet fuel mileage increases were revoked or delayed?

d) Did the Michigan and Florida Democratic leadership WANT to look like they were taking money to put the candidate most reknowned for being "corporation friendly" into the Presidency by treating their Party's rules with the same amount of respect that Bush has for the Constitution?

[ljsfolly]

The supers came to be early 80's and they need to be taken out of the equation if they have to decide who we voted for. I think Donna has it almost right. I would hate for her to quit the party but I would like for those in her position of not wanting to be deciders as bushie would say, to stand up and say we vote like the voters did and go home.

[clocknova]

If Hillary wins the nomination fair and square, I'll vote for her, albeit reluctantly. But if Obama goes into the convention with the popular vote, and these so-called Super Delegates give the nomination to Hillary, I'll vote for McCain. I realize the the Supreme court is more important than the Presidency or Congress, and that the next Pres will likely get to appoint three or four judges, but f**k you!

[DKLA]

Rush, is that you?

[BigBen]

Don't you mean F**K America? Off to Canada are we?
Maybe buy an island somewhere where we can be king?Or maybe just beat the S**T out of your wife.

[DeccaDo]

I am glad you feel this way. So many of us believe that "We The People" are suppose to be the ones who count, not super delegates. Many of us already believe the game is rigged, and have grave doubts about our democracy. A move to cancel the popular vote, and ensconce the candidate with the most "clout" would truly injure the party in voters eyes.

[BigBen]

Tell that to the Florida Democrats who just held an election."We the people" only counts when we the people agree with the outcome.

[Liam]

The thing about FL and MI is that there's no fair solution. The candidates agreed not to campaign or run there, because of the Party position on the early primaries, and then Clinton broke her word and did so anyway, thus taking those delegates essentially unopposed.

Of course she'd want them seated, they're delegates in her court. But the fact is that she and the other candidates agreed to keep their hands out of this particular cookie jar. She's now been caught as the only one to break that agreement and is arguing that we should now retroactively make it OK.

Had that decision been made before the primaries and all of the candidates had a fair chance to compete in those states, she might not have taken all of the delegates.

To me, this feels like a political ploy. Get your opponents not to contest something, win by default, and then try to change the rules.

Slimy politicking. Feels like a lot of what I've seen out of the Clintons this time, which is sad, because I used to respect them.

Liam.

[clocknova]

Sounds like something Karl Rove would do, no?

[Liam]

This definitely has a Rovian odor about it. I'm sure Karl isn't working with Clinton, but these are exactly the sort of tactics I found so revolting in Bush.

I suppose I shouldn't expect better out of politicians. But still, I really wish Edwards had stayed in the race and Hillary had dropped out.

Liam.

[Hope42]

What do you mean Hillary broke her word and appeared there? Hilary flew there the afternoon the vote was over to celebrate her victory. Obama ran television ads for 2 weeks prior to the vote in Florida. Said he had gotten permission to do so. What's up with that??

[Liam]

As I understand the situation, the candidates agreed not to run in those states, not to campaign, and that the states wouldn't count per the DNC.

Hillary ran unopposed. Again, if my information is correct, the options on the ballot were "Hillary Clinton" and "Unopposed".

Obama ran ads prior to the vote when he learned that she had left her name ON the ballot. The ads didn't ask people to vote for HIM, just to vote for "Unopposed" rather than voting for Hillary.

Now, I live in neither state, I didn't see the ads or the ballots in question. But if this is an accurate representation, then there's no way the current results from the two states should be counted. How fair is it, if none of the other candidates' names were even on the ballot?

Liam.

[rollingdivision]

Democrats have set themselves up for huge fights in their convention. Super delegates, Florida, Michigan, Clinton Obama death match, racial factionalism, a brokered convention and the pièce de résistance political insider super delegate Democratic presidential candidate selection. It's like they sat around and tried to figure out how to screw up an election they should have easily won. Go figure.

[BigBen]

Barak was the only one who ran commercials in Florida. Hillary did not campaign in either Florida or Michigan.She did go to Florida to thank those who voted for her since they amounted to over 500,000. She refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan but so did Kuchinic and some other Democrats. Barak encouraged Democrats in Michigan to write in other options. So he in effect had it both ways. Refused to leave his name on the ballot but canvassed nevertheless.So it was not as simple as you suggest.

[Liam]

Again, my understanding is that Obama did not run ads asking people to write him in, he ran ads asking people to vote for "Uncontested" (or whatever the option was), rather than voting for Clinton.

It wasn't likely to work, because he was asking people already annoyed that their votes weren't going to be counted to aid in their votes not counting. Anyone likely to vote that way was just as likely to stay home and not bother voting at all.

And even if he had campaigned to get people to write him in, the fact is that write-in candidates, even well known ones, rarely get the kind of support the pre-printed candidates get.

I don't have a problem with Kucinich leaving his name on the ballot, he never had a chance to win anyway. But of the three contenders at the time (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) only one of them left her name on the ballot after they'd all pretty well said they weren't going to.

I'm not asking to award the state to anyone else, I'm simply saying that the DNC said those delegates were not going to be seated. The candidates made agreements based on that statement.

We quite simply do not know what the result would have been in a fair election in MI, because two of the candidates weren't on the ballot. And so I still think this is Hillary Clinton weaseling her way into an uncontested win and then asking to change the rules. If she'd gone against the DNC's plans earlier, publicly, she might have had a point. But she waited until she was running essentially unopposed and then, once the tactic worked, began talking about how the poor people of those two states deserved to be heard.

If they deserve to be heard, they deserve to be honestly heard. Hold the primaries again with everyone's name on the ballots.

But the primaries as held are tainted and not valid results. As such, they should not be counted.

Liam.