I want to say something to everyone in this discussion, because I am very, very saddened by something: This whole argument seems to be breaking down along lines of which candidate people support, when really it has NOTHING to do with Clinton or Obama. I personally have been ***OUTRAGED*** about Dean"s decision from the moment he made it. At that time, all the candidates were on all the ballots and the election was wide open. For me, and for anyone concerned about voting rights, fairness and democracy, the issue is clear and has NOTHING to do with the candidates!!! It pains me when, each time I say my position on this, someone responds with "Oh, typical Clinton supporter, just wants to win at any cost" or whatever. WHAT? This has NOTHING to do with who I support. Frankly, Clinton and Obama were the LAST two out of the field I would have ever picked! But yes, at this point, I do come down between the two for Clinton. But that has NOTHING to do with me being passionate about seating the FL & MI delegates. I was already just as outraged and passionate about it waaaaaaaaay back when I was supporting Edwards and still shell-shocked that my beloved Al Gore had really chosen not to run. The entire issue is about VOTING RIGHTS. Can"t we all get behind that? I know, I know, a rule was broken. But the voters didn"t break it. Why should they (we) be the ones disenfranchised?
P.S. AND, fyi to all the Obama supporters reading this: I would be just as outraged about Dean"s decision and just as committed to getting the FL delegates seated had Obama won by a landslide. It isn"t about the candidates. It is about the VOTERS. The voters of Florida and Michigan number in the millions. Should our party leave us out of the process?
No Seats For You!
Recently there has been increasing discussion, sparked initially by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, about the Clinton campaign's real motives behind pushing for a revote in Florida and Michigan. The likelihood of only modest pledged delegate gains from the two contests suggests that Clinton is, instead, aiming for the superdelegates.
Combined, Michigan and Florida have 54 superdelegates, all of whom were stripped of their status when their states were stripped of their pledged delegates. Among them, Hillary Clinton is expected to have substantially more supporters than Obama, the product of longtime friendships and her advocacy in favor of seating each delegation.
The Obama campaign should argue forcefully that these superdelegates should not be seated in Denver, regardless of what happens with revotes in the state. To be sure, the people of Florida and Michigan had no say in the decision of their states to move their primaries forward. While the original votes in January clearly cannot be counted, a revote does seem to be a reasonable remedy, and one that seems likely to be pursued.
But the superdelegates played a far different role. At the least they were complicit in allowing their states to violate DNC rules. In many cases, they were the leaders of the charge. Not only did they knowingly violate party rules for the sake of increasing their own political influence, they recklessly endangered the voting rights of millions of Democratic voters. They are responsible for the chaos in which the party now finds itself, having done so with the belief that there would be no consequences. It is essential that the national party prove them wrong.
The Clinton campaign will concede that Democrats played a central role in moving the primary up in Michigan. Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a man who has long despised New Hampshire's first-primary status, led a movement that resulted in a bipartisan bill to move the primary to January 15th. That bill was eventually signed into law by Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
But the Clinton campaign - and many of her supporters - have argued that Florida Democrats had no choice in the matter. In a state with a Republican controlled state legislature and a Republican governor, the Democrats, they argue, were forced to break the DNC rules, entirely against their will. It is, of course, true that the state legislature in Florida is controlled by Republicans and that Governor Charlie Crist is one too. But this argument, like so many disseminated from the Clinton campaign, is deeply deceptive.
After speculation began that Florida might consider moving its primary to January 29th, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson gushed to the Palm Beach Post about the possibility of preprimary candidate forums in Florida; he expected, according to the Post, that the "lure of the delegate-rich early Florida primary" would help convince candidates to attend. Later, when the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, Senator Nelson took the national party to court.
The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort. Then in June, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the early primary. The elected officials and party members that make up the Florida superdelegate pool no doubt played integral roles in violating national party rules.
If revoting does take place in either state, it will occur only after the DNC Rules Committee approves a new plan. But, as Karen Thurman of the Florida Democratic Party confirmed, such a new plan will only be produced if it includes the willing participation of both candidates. Each campaign has begun to make separate demands; Clinton, for example, has already ruled out the possibility of caucuses in either state. The Obama campaign should make their own demand, and should be unbending in its insistence:
The Michigan and Florida superdelegates violated the rules of the Democratic Party. They should not be seated at the Democratic convention.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, yes, yes! Isn't it ironic that although our party was disenfranchised twice in presidential races, giving George Bush the power to eviscerate this country with his lies and corruption, Howard Dean and the DNC set us up to disenfranchise great numbers of Democrats yet again--and in Florida, no less. Are we working out a karmic issue as a party, or what?
I could smack Howard Dean for not coming up with a reasonable compromise long before voting occurred, and I feel the onus is on him to sort out this mess. And why shouldn't Florida, such a crucial swing state that gives us a sense of how Latinos, older people, and the military will vote, be a permanent early player?
The same people who got kicked in the teeth by the Supreme Court are getting kicked in the teeth by our own party, and by Howard Dean in particular. We have to find a way to hear from the voters in Michigan and Florida. A mail-in primary seems the most reasonable compromise. And both the Clinton and Obama camps should be considering the suggestion to not let the superdelegates vote... perhaps in exchange for permanently moving up Florida and Michigan.
If we can't get it together to fix this problem as a party, in a way that's fair and keeps the party unified, then how on earth are we going to bring the country together to resolve the big challenges we're facing?!
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We (the Florida Democratic voters...and especially pups like me who are ARDENT Gore supporters) are the SAME PEOPLE who got kicked in the teeth in 2000, but really we all did, as when a fair and proper election process is obstructed, as the repugs did then, we are all hurt, and our country is hurt. And the repugs, via the shrub administration, have gone on for SEVEN YEARS and counting totally hurting us. And now along comes Howard Dean, just when Florida voters were FIRED UP and ready to vote, vote, VOTE, and says: "I know what let's do! Let's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and cause a nuclear implosion within our own party at the same time, AND kick all those loyal, long-suffering Florida Dems in the teeth by--*tee HEEEEEEEEE/Dean Scream*--disenfranchising them again! Yeah! Let's take away the votes of millions of Florida Dems and, what the heck, let's throw in Michigan for good measure! Why? Well, because we have to enforce an unfair, arbitrary, arcane, bizarro little rule, that's why! That is FAR more important than not alienating and disenfranchising a huge, already much-scarred voting base of our diverse, loyal Democrats, right? And surely it won't matter because the election wouldn't come down to the convention, anyway? Muah! Muah! Muah ha ha ha HAAAAAA: I am Howard Dean, hear me ROAR!"
Didn't see this nuclear implosion coming, did ya Howard? Funny, because those of us in Florida saw it flash before our eyes the MOMENT--the SECOND--you yanked away our delegates. It was before any votes were cast, before anyone was stupid enough to take their names off any ballots, before, before, before: so to all the Obamabots who keep informing me that I only have the opinion that the delegates should be seated because I'm "obviously a Clinton supporters who will do anything to have your candidate win", take note: the race wasn't even between Clinton and Obama when Dean did this and I instantaneously became OUTRAGED and began doing everything in my power (which is basically NON-EXISTENT in this situation, other than writing some letters to the editor, but anyway) to reverse his decision. It is so, so, so NOT about Clinton or Obama for me. Yet Obama supporters KEEP on informing me that it is, that I care nothing about the process, only about advancing Clinton. Assumptions, MUCH?! I mean, no matter when or where I state my opinion, I keep getting hit in the face with Obama supporters saying really horrible things to me that I won't even repeat, attributing bad motives to anyone who wants the delegates seated. When the truth is, I'm fighting for my vote to count, I'm fighting for all Floridians and Michigan folks, I'm fighting for ALL OF US, because this is about FAIRNESS and INCLUSION...two things that Obama supposedly is all about.
And meanwhile, look at us. Look at how we are all lashing out at each other, me included. I hope Howard Dean is happy. We should be unified (even if we support different candidates) in our mission to take back this country, not circling up the firing squad, but here we are. And I blame basically one person: HOWARD frickin' DEAN! And my wrath extends to Donna Brazile, too. They did NOT have to do this. I get that they had to do something, but THIS?
Didn't they realize how this would "play in Peoria", so to speak? Did they not get that Florida Democrats would be OUTRAGED beyond any and all description? Did they not remember what Floridians, and our entire party, went through in the 2000 election? HOW, just HOW could Howard Dean do this? It defies all logic.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers -
I am a fan of PeppermintTwist!
Back atcha!
BLLSHIT! Bigotted, partisan party rules should not be allowed to take authority over STATE OR FEDERAL (ELECTION) LAW! Period. Especially when those rles do nothing other than constrict, and restrict, the peoples right to be heard, and the their democratic freedom.
Actually, federal election law has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. The federal election law leaves it entirely up to the parties to select their nominee - and there is NO LAW about how they have to do that. In the past - the party heads got together, had a meeting and did it - no elections, caucuses or anything else. Why do you think every state has a different method of going about this?
Why do you think the Dems way is different from the Repubs?
Also - in a post above someone said that Dr. Dean made the decision about not seating the delegates of FL and MI. NOT TRUE.
The decision was made by a large committee of the DLC - in which several high-ranking Hillary campaign officials took part - AND THEY ALL VOTED IN FAVOR OF not seating the delegates. Obama was not even considering a run at that point - and neither he nor anyone representing him was present that day.
Dylan,
Regardless of the perceived Clinton "motivation/strategy" (perceived since none of us can really know unless we're a part of the campaign), I find your suggestion that re-votes be done but not have the delegates count very patronizing to FL and MI voters as it arrives at the same disenfranchisement in which we already find ourselves. We are not little kids to be given the "lollipop" of a vote without representation at the convention.
"The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort." Now this is a deeply deceptive statement.
1) The Florida primary date change was driven by a property tax "relief" (read tax cut) amendment, Amendment 1, pushed by the Republicans. Attaching that amendment to the primary date change, presumably, would have decreased the Democratic opposition they surely expected. It passed anyway but at least I had my say against it.
2) Additionally, The 100% bi-partisan effort had to with wanting to have a verifiable paper trail and given all our previous election problems here in FL (you DO remember 2000 don't you?), that should have been a 100% mandate.
3) Now this reason, one about which FL voters SHOULD be angry, had more to do with a "We are just as important as NH, Iowa, etc." pissing contest decided by the "Executive Committee" of the Florda Dems Party - not the voters.
On Jan. 16th, Sen. Obama's campaign told the St. Petersburg Times, ""Our position and the position of the DNC is clear -- neither the Florida nor Michigan primaries are playing any role in deciding the Democratic nominee...." - open mouth, insert foot it seems. See link for full story:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/16/State/Obama_stirs_fight_wit.shtml
The fact the candidates agreed not to campaign here had no detrimental effect on Sen.Obama. He ran ads here on TV, we have newspapers, radio and access to the internet - we all knew who he was. He got 30% of the vote. The candidates were allowed to fundraise in FL and Sen. Obama was the first says this Tampa Bay link from September "07 regarding his presence at a fundraiser:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
That he"s NOW had time to fine tune a message since our primary does not mean, IMHO, that we should bear the cost of a re-vote. Interestingly, when asked about ensuring FL would have a say in the nomination process during that fundraising trip, he said he would "do what's right by Florida voters." He obviously believed he'd be the presumptive nominee before the convention. Then, with a magnanimous sweep of the hand, he could (as is the rule) seat the FL delegates. But that hasn't happened and now, he's got all his surrogates out there to fight seating the delegates as is AND any re-vote (evidence Rev. Al Sharpton's threats of a lawsuit). That's just plain hypocrisy in the face of a poor political strategy.
I don't think a re-vote isa smart economic decision for MI or FL. I say give him the "Undecideds" in MI (even though some of them went to other candidates not now in the running) and let the FL vote stand, seating the delegates as is. If not that, then let it go to the Credentials Committee and have those in "power" tell us they don"t want our vote to count - before November. I just hope my fellow voters here and in MI remember how hard the senator from Illinois fought to not have our voices heard in the primaries.
Thank you. Brilliant!
Thank you!! Just tired of all this. The DNC, along with the FL Dem. Party "Executive Committee" need to make a responsible, LEADERSHIP decision here - either way and let the chips fall where they may. Now I hear on the news FL Dems have proposed a part write-in and part walk-in re-vote. I don't know how many ways I can say WHAT!!! Who and how will verify the signatures on the mail-ins? What's to stop a mail-in voter from doing a walk-in given it is highly unlikely verification of signatures can take place before levers are pulled. Really now, this is getting stupider and stupider AND we still don't have a say!
i don't like this idea at all. super delegates may not be a great group to be deciding the presidency, but every state has them and they all want their seat at the table. denying them would hamstring relations within the party for a decade. i do see the reasoning behind removing the votes of the ones who ended up sabotaging everyone else's votes, but an eye for an eye in this case would result in a worse PR nightmare than it is already. a full re-vote may be expensive and seem pointless, but it's still the right thing to do. if i may snark for a moment, a truly fair solution would be to have the superdelegates *pay* for the re-vote. run that one up the flag pole and see who salutes!
Yes! Let's not let their votes count. That is democracy in action (snark).
I get it. Folks don't want a revote for fear Obama will not win it. If you can game the system that way, I guess you deserve to win, even if it cuts a large group of people out of the process.
This was not a problem until Mrs. Bill Clinton realized she's a loser.
Everybody knew the rules going in.
No do overs.
Don't seat them.
Absolutely wrong, of course.
Clinton has been calling for the FL primary to count all along. At the same time, Obama was telling us flat out that our votes are "worthless" and "meaningless" and you know when politicians call our votes "worthless" and "meaningless" , it really gets on our nerves down here in FL.
Actually, it was a bunch of Hillary campaign people at the DLC meeting who called for them NOT to be seated in the first place - so her calls for them to be seated now is pretty disingenuous......
EXACTLY! You GO, gwhizz! I'm clicking "I'm a Fan of gwhizz" as we SPEAK!!! TELL IT!
When the Democratic leadership came up with this punishment, it still looked like the D season was going to be like the R season: a quick run for Hillary to the nomination. Therefore, the punishment appeared back then to be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, since Florida and Michigan wouldn't have much of an effect on the outcome. Now, suddenly, it looks like that punishment might hurt a little, and Clinton is screaming, kicking, and whining. What kind of punishment is only given when it isn't a punishment at all? Can you image the following scene:
Judge: I fine you $500.
Defendant: But I can't afford $500!
Judge: Oh. OK then, you're free to go. Promise to be good in the future.
If I wanted to support a party that only follows rules when they feel like it, I'd still be a Republican.
So, when the problem in Florida has been caused by Repubs, and the Florida voters are unhappy with being cut out, you think it's just fine, right?
What kind of Democrat are you that you are fine with just cutting out so many people?
They should not be seated! Why have rules at all? What other rules can the Clintons break while they are at it? If it were IL that were in the situation the Clintons would be saying "rules are rules".
As a Florida Democrat I have strong feelings about the due process, or lack thereof, accorded Florida voters this year. First, nobody asked us if we wanted an early primary. The state politicos arbitrairly decided then announced their decision and we, the grass roots voters, had to live with it. There was no referendum or even an opinion poll taken as to wether we would like this idea or not. Now, after coming to the polls in record numbers as as in the other states despite the controversy and being told "don't worry, your vote WILL count...we promise!" we are told "too bad, your screwed again". The election system in Florida has been constantly under a cloud since the famous Hanging Chad incident threw the wrong man into the White House in 2000. All we want here is a fair chance to vote our choice in a free and fair election system like everyone else has enjoyed this primary season. This doesn't seem too much to ask since it's supposed to be the stated reason for our military incursions around the world since the Korean war. I personally fought in Viet Nam for what was described as an "excercise in a free and fair electoral process". Yet here I am in my own country and denied the very same thing that our troops are dying in Iraq for on a daily basis for the citizens of that country. Seems like an irony of the highest magnitude to me. If we as citizens of the state of Florida and more importantly the United States are to be denied our guaranteed constitutional voice in choosing a president in the most imporant election of our lifetimes by the unfair practices of a few political hacks then we might as well be living in a separate country. We're sure taken into consideration when it comes tax time or the individual [political parties need spending money. In a state that could well be crucial in a close election this fall, this decision will probably turn many Democratic voters away from the polls with a bad taste in their mouths again and may make the difference in who takes the oath of allegiance this next January... a point the Democratic National Committee might due well to consider.
I, personally, can't wait for the DNC to call me again asking for money. I plan to tell them my money is "worthless" and "meaningless" and won't count anyway so why bother.
I agree that the super delegates should not be seated at the convention. I also believe as the leader of the dems, Howard Dean should stick to the rules and there should not be a replay of the primary. Rules are rules, however, we don't need to lose voters that we are going to need in November.
Why can't we just split the delegates down the middle in both states and definitely do not allow the super delegates in at all. This appears to be fair and just, and just think of the money we can save.
Because we didn't VOTE "down the middle". We voted 60-30-17. Splitting the FL delegates would be nothing more than vote-stealing on Obama's behalf.
What a sequence of disingenuous suggestions: split the delegates down the middle...same as don't count the votes, since Clinton came out ahead; definitely do not allow the superdelegates at all...same as don't seat the delegates because the majority of them will be pro-Clinton. This would change if it appears that Obama might get the majority of the delegates in FL and MI.
And finally, the truth comes out...cittykat2 is a fan of Fox News and a closet Republican as you can tell by what she terms "fair and just" and by her urge to economize on issues important to most of the public.
There's no reason to spend the money and drag out this already long primary season even further so that they can have some 51-48% contests in MI and FL. Neither Hillary nor Barack would win by margins large enough to justify the cost or the drama. I'd rather leave it up to the superdelegates than deal with the shenanigans of a MI and FL do-over. I'd be equally furious if they let the results stand and allocated delegates that way, pretending like there were never any rules.
I'm a Floridian and a Democrat. I voted, knowing that it wouldn't count, and have accepted it. As should Hillary. I don't want to pay for another election - they're saying a revote will cost $10 million - $10 million my sorry state does not have. They're also saying that that Florida Democratic Party will pay for it, but I'll believe that when I see it.
People need to take responsibility for their actions. BO and HRC knew what was going to happen in Florida and Michigan, and as people near the top of their party, they should have put more pressure on the DNC to not move the primary.
But they all agreed, and they should take their punishment - oh, that means I get to take mine too.
Am I happy? No. Am I proud? No. But when was the last time any Floridian had anything to be proud of with regards to politics?
Guess you haven't heard that there are a bunch of Hillary supporters that are willing to pony up part of the money to have a revote. Why not have one if it's paid for by folks on each side?
I'm a Democrat and a Floridian and you don't speak for me or any of the Floridians I know. My vote and the votes of every Floridian and Michigander are every bit as important as the vote of an Iowan, an Arkansan or even a Nevada caucus partcipant. Justice and fairness would be served if our vote, the FL and MI votes, were actually honored, but I can see that isn't going to happen. The proposal for a revote is a lousy and reluctant concession to the great democratic principle of counting every vote. So why are Obama's supporters throwing up the road block of "rules are rules?"
I find it almost amusing when I hear Democrats and liberals embracing bad rules based on poor judgment. If the Obama campaigners aren't willing or able to correct the mistake of the leaders of our party, what should we make of their promise to work with the Republicans to do away with politics as usual?
Take note of the willingness of some Obamans to accept the vote (despite the rules) but split and seat the delegates evenly, a cute way of really not counting the FL and MI votes. Equally as cute, the willingness to accept a revote but not seat the superdelegates, thus defeating the notion of equal treatment for FL and MI.
There is a load of pseudo-logic being spread around on this blog and it smells as bad as the stuff that is usually spread around. I'm more than a little tired of reading the sophistry of the self-righteous.
You are so right on, cynicalisimo. I'd like to see how some of the people who are so keen to "punish" us, the millions of voters in FL & MI, would feel if Dean had decided to take THEIR state's votes away by not seating THEIR state's delegates. Everyone should be outraged about this.
Posted March 12, 2008 | 09:22 AM (EST)