Sharpton: Don't Seat Fla., Mich.

WASHINGTON — Seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention would be a grave injustice, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday in a break with prominent civil rights leaders.

"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"As former presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic Party to select its nominee for president."

Sharpton, a black activist and radio talk show host, sought the presidency in 2004.

NAACP chairman Julian Bond also wrote Dean recently, taking the opposite position. Bond said failure to seat the delegates would disenfranchise minority voters in Florida and Michigan.

Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and former Justice Department official Roger Wilkins also wrote Dean urging the DNC settle the issue before the convention for the good of the party.

Berry _ who oversaw the 2001 report that studied the disputed 2000 Florida election and found thousands of voters, particularly black voters, were disenfranchised _ said she is also concerned about disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters, although she didn't make a recommendation on how the DNC should resolve the dispute.

The DNC penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries to earlier dates in violation of party rules. Both states were stripped of their delegates, and the party's presidential candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state. Florida lost all 210 delegates, including its superdelegates; Michigan, 156.

Since then, waging a hard-fought delegate battle with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has pushed hard for both states' delegations to be seated. Clinton won Florida's primary Jan. 29 and Michigan's Jan. 15, but was the only candidate to appear on the Michigan ballot after the other candidates removed their names.

Sharpton said he disagreed with those who say minority voters in Florida and Michigan will be disenfranchised.

"That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters," Sharpton wrote. "To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."

The DNC has said it would allow both states to hold a different contest, probably a caucus, that would comply with party rules. Either state can also appeal the penalty to the DNC credentials committee, which will not meet again until this summer.

Comments

[azphil]

Rev Al is right! The time to dispute this procedure was in the weeks and months before the polls.

This just a blatant attempt by the desperate Clinton campaign to "steal" the delegates from these uncontested primaries. She did sign the declaration along with all the other candidates, so if she reneges on her promise now how can we believe her in the future. Mind you with those so called "non-campaign" visits to FL before the primary we just knew this was going to happen.

[AgathaX]

This reminds me rather of the suit by the teachers union in Nevada that the Clintons supported. The suit was utterly baseless. No knowledgeable person would have believed that the suit had a snowball's chance in hell. However, the mere fact of its existance kept it alive in the media as though it had real viability. Until, of course, it was summarily dismissed by the court.

The same is true here. This is all about talk. Say something outrageous and, so long as no one on the otherside dismisses you, the media will keep repeating your rhetoric. The only way the MI and FL delegates will be seated is if they do not change the outcome.

[PLUMPLUM]

They can't be seated because I did not vote. I made no effort to go out even though it was my day-off from work. Surely there thousands in the same position given the number of voters in Florida. I was of the assumption that the delegates and votes would not be relevant. I even thought that Obama's name would not be on the ballot given the situation in Michigan.

I was following the same rules that Obama, Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates agreed to keep with regard to Florida.

The NAACP should be embarrassed. They have bought into the dirty trick game. If they want the votes to count, then they should make sure they sponsor a redo so I can vote.

[olderdem]

If Hillary could have had a national primary 2 months ago, with no campaigning by either party, she would have won. In Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. In Florida, there was pre-voting before Obama's message was starting to get heard.

Obama's campaign is about getting his message out -- personally reaching the voters. Hillary's campaign has been about holding on to her lead based on the Clinton name. Time works against her.

Counting Florida and Michigan at this point would be a travesty.

[ikuchyacokov]

can't seat Michigan when Clinton was the only one on the ballot....­Florida is proving WAY too expensive on tax payer dollars to redo....If a possible redo, it would be a caucus on the DNC's bill and I think would result in a split delegate count between the two of them essentially nulling the two states impact and finally ending the MI, FL drama....a­nd the NAACP argument that the minority vote would be disenfranc­hised.....­looks to me like everyone would be disenfranchised and that that arguement does not hold water. seems like a Clintonian cheap shot, clutching at any possible avenue to take to steal victory...­and then there's this nice little ditty.....­NOT so super for the two faced Clintonian hate machine

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004179017_apondeadlineclinton12.html

[TurnThePageGA]

Not usually with Rev. Al, but on this he is spot on. Born and raised in Florida. Delegates will have be allocated after some kind of do over.

[GDliberal]

I agree somewhat with Rev. Al.
We have no way of knowing how many people didn't vote in MI. or FL. because the DNC said that their votes wouldn't count. So the original counts shouldn't be allowed. If the states and the candidate(s) want them to count they should be done over. That's the only way to get a fair and accurate count.

[cthomp7280]

While Sharpton does ruffle feathers, his point is neither racially charged or off-base. You cannot possibly claim a victory in a game where there where no competitors. Did the N.Y. Giants play the "uncontested" in the Super Bowl? No. Did the San Antonio Spurs play the "uncontested" in the NBA Finals? No. Desperation brings out the irrationality in people.

[US55588144]

You as well as Sharpton are so badly opinionated that it's pathetic. Hillary won Florida, Obama was a contestant and lost. End of story. Hillary won Michigan, the others dropped out of their own choosing. Too bad. Hillary's delegates should be seated. If Obama had won Sharpton would be singing a different tune!

[liveandlearn]

AMEN!

[stoprollingover]

They did not drop out of their own choosing. They were told by the DNC that the primary there was not legal. They were playing by the rules set out by the party. What is it about that you don't understand?

[EspressoAtNoon]

Sharpton is absolutely correct!

If voters were being disenfranchised then why did the parties protesting now remain silent when the decision was made before the primaries and why did they sign on to these rules?

This is the most disingenuous political spinjob and I applaud Sharpton for speaking up.

How can the NAACP claim that black voters are being unfairly disenfranchised when the entire state (of all races) are being disenfranchised? There's no racial underpinnings. The only african american who would be getting disenfranchised would be Barack Obama for trying to change the rules in the third quarter so that the other team can win.

[MichaelO]

Sharpton, Sharpton, Sharpton. When you chirp, it always seems like there might be this... I don't know, racial tinge to it that, to my last recollection, Obama was trying to elevate himself above. To say that almost two million votes don't matter... tell you what, Sharpton, do Obama a favor and don't endorse him. He doesn't need and albatross around his neck going into the GE.

[detriangulation]

Julian Bond is African American and favors seating the delegates. It is wildly irresponsible to assert Sharpton is the one race baiting just because his position would seem to favor Obama while Bond, a black man, must have the ingenuous position simply because it seems to favor the white candidate. It was Clinton that started the charged language about "disenfran­chisement" when she began her gambit to violate the very rules she'd explicitly agreed to, once she saw favorable results. Sharpton makes the point that many voters who would have otherwise voted didn't because they were told by the DNC and by all major candidates­---INCLUDI­NG CLINTON, straight from her own mouth---that the primary wouldn't count. Therefore, those who didn't turn out would in effect be disenfranchised if the results were to count now, because the usual onus upon an individual voter for failing to turn out doesn't apply---not in a "contest" that wasn't suppose to count!
However, I don't see any viable solution in Florida's case other than to seat the delegation based on those anachronistic results, results fueled by Clinton breaking yet another pledge when she found loopholes to campaign in FL before the vote! But Hillary and Barack were on the ballot, and it would be politically dangerous leading up to the general election to discount the Floridian delegation at the convention.
However, Obama and Edwards weren't on the Michigan ballot, and there's no way in heck the DNC is going to allocate delegates based on a 55% Hillary win against "uncommitted!" If Michicgan and the DNC can't afford the cost of a new primary, then I think a new caucus is the best solution. I don't know how much money 2 rounds of caucuses would save compared to one all-day primary, but if the former is cheaper, and they have a morning caucus AND an early evening caucus, it would allow for more participation by voters who otherwise would be too constrained by their workshifts to participate, which is a typical Clinton complaint.

[liveandlearn]

However, Obama and Edwards weren't on the Michigan ballot

because THEY REMOVED THEMSELVES FROM THE BALLOT!

[AnninCA]

Welcome to identity politics!

Boy, this will be fun to watch.

[Pippi]

Punish those that follow the rules? Not only that, reward those who don't?!?! That makes absoulutely no sense. If they seat those delegates, they will have a big problem. Talk about unfair! The outcome of Florida and Michigan could have been totally different had all of the candidates campaigned there, but those with a sense of respect for the rules followed the request of the DNC. To blatantly disregard that and be rewarded for it is just wrong. If these delegates are seated and Hillary wins the nomination, I will not vote for her! Michigan and Florida knew what the price of moving the primaries up would be and they went ahead and did it anyway. They disenfranchised the voters, not the DNC.

[anghiari]

AnninCA=Hillary lite,

Sharpton whom I never agree with is nevertheless spot on ...this endorsement stinks of politics and lots of folks including Julian paying off old Bill Clinton IOUs!