Breaking the Rules
Let there be no mistake. The only reason why Michigan and Florida are now back in play and causing such heartburn is because the junior Senator from New York, one Hillary Clinton wants to change the rules. There is nothing democratic about this process we are all enduring at this moment. This is not about ensuring that the voters' voices are heard. This is, pure and simple, about breaking the rules (again) in an attempt to change the result.
I remember receiving an email from Hillary Clinton's campaign after the Florida primary back in January, celebrating her "resounding victory" there, and thinking to myself, "what is she on?" Why is she trying to pull the wool over her supporters' eyes? She didn't win in Florida. There was no contest there. And the pundits of the world agreed with me. I distinctly remember John King on CNN absolutely shutting down the possibility that either Florida or Michigan could or would count. As far as I remember he said it was a mute point. John King. He knows what he's talking about. I felt comforted. I also remember having a discussion with a friend about Florida and Michigan back in early February. He was convinced that Hillary would pull some kind of shenanigans and I shut him down, too. "No way," I said, "no way." "Not possible!" "That's idiotic!" Thems were the rules. It was all very clear. Michigan and Florida broke the rules and that was that was that.
Boy, was I ever wrong. I guess I was operating on the (naïve) assumption that those rules would be followed, that clear, logical thought would rule the day. But I was the idiot. The Democratic Party is not operating in a logical world, in a logical way, in a logical fashion. The Democratic Party is kow-towing to the Clintons.
If Howard Dean had any spine at all he would have cracked his whip a long time ago (maybe not the best analogy this week but hey!), and said "no!" Both state parties went in to this with their eyes open. They both knew that they were breaking the rules and chose to break them anyway. It is a bit late now, in hindsight, to cry foul. That is what Howard Dean could have said. And he could have gone on to say something like this: what Hillary and her supporters are trying to do now is akin to going to the ref after the third quarter of a football game and insisting that you get to play the second quarter over because you discovered, in the third quarter, that the opposing team's star player, was, well, better than you expected, and you want to change your tactics. Or, another one, changing the three strikes you're out rule to four strikes in a baseball game at the bottom of the ninth inning with the bases loaded. It's not fair, it's not right, it's not how the game should be played. (I'm not the best sports analogist you will ever find - if you have a better one, please, feel free).
Add to this the news that Puerto Rico is now moving to change it's caucus to a primary because, according to the Clinton supporting Democratic Chair there, the race is so "competitive" and you've got to wonder, should we be calling in the international election monitors? Is this a bastion of Democracy where apparently the rules can change depending on whether or not the Democratic Establishment likes the results?
And that in itself bares the question: How much does the Democratic Establishment want to have Barack Obama in the White House? I've heard him speak ... we all have ... and we know that when he talks about Washington he describes it as a place where "good ideas go to die," a bureaucratic hell hole, where cronyism is rife, where divisive politics is politics as usual, where lobbyists rule the roost and nothing gets done. These are hard truths. These are truths that much of the political establishment does not want to hear from a young idealist from Illinois. They would rather resist his message of change. Who does he think he is, coming in like this, disrupting the status quo? "Stop him now!" they cry. And they are trying in every way they can. Breaking the rules, changing the rules...
If this was the Super Bowl would you stand for it?
Loading comments…
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
Even with MI and FL back in play, there not enough delegates left to be won in contests for Hillary to overtake Obama -- unless the rules are changed again to please her. -- Hence she has to be counting on superdelegates overturning the result. I don't doubt that she would be happy with that.
The question is with the DLC, which wants her to win for reasons of its own.
If Obama is nominated without being severely damaged by the dirty campaign that is being waged by his opponents, he is probably going to defeat McCain in the fall.
If Clinton is the nominee, the stench of her victory will probably turn off enough voters to give McCain a win.
But an Obama victory would not only be meaningful to the nation, it would change the Democratic Party drastically. It would become the truly national party that the DNC has been trying to build. And that might be more of an anathema to the DLC bunch than a loss to McCain.
After all, they are the Republican-lite ones who have been blocking almost all opposition to the Bush-Cheney program. And that is why the Congress has such a low rating.
Is there much belief in their concern for what is best for the nation?
How dare you compare this with the Super Bowl?!! The Super Bowl is important.We have to (pretend to) keep it clean. Here there need be no such pretense. Everyone knows it's only politics.
And for your information, it is being played by the rules. Hillary Rules. ("Heads I win. Tails, we toss again!")
I read an interesting post about why HILLARY CLINTON REALLY DOESN'T WANT REVOTE in either state. (I wish I could remember and give credit for analysis, because it was very good!)
To paraphrase: If there was a re-vote in Fl. or MI., it is most likely that she would not do any better (if as well) as the record reflects from both state's current voting records. Most likely, her popular vote (and delegate) would decrease (Remember, Obama was not on ballot in Michigan and you can bet if Florida has re vote, there will be campaigning this time!).
Check the current records, does anyone think she will do as good in a direct contest with Obama as she did when he wasn't even on ballot (MI) and when he didn't campaign in Florida?
In fact, a revote would probably be more of a benefit to him than her!
Would like to hear what others think (please, no off point attacks or promoting virtues of either candidate). Thanks.
"If there's a rule that ignores my vote, and prohibits me from participating in our Democracy, then I'll break that rule anytime, happily so."
--Thomas Jefferson
(No, not the Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, but another Thomas Jefferson, who loves Democracy and Representation just as much.
But had any of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson included, been asked about it, I'm sure they would have said:
"Let's fight to see that the more than 2 million Michiganders and Floridians, who voted on the only day scheduled for them to do so, let's see them included in our Democratic process, not excluded from it!")
I like David Plouffe's idea: Split the delegates from those states evenly between Clinton and Obama, 50/50. Now, Clinton will not like that, because it still brings Obama closer to the magic number, making the "superdelegates" increasingly superfluous.
You "pro-democracy" Hillary supporters don't want that, do you?
I'd go for that one at this point, because it's looking more and more like there will be nothing. HOWEVER, we MUST keep the supers from those two states from voting in the convention!
And by the way, I'm an Obama supporter, and while I would happily vote for Hillary in Nov if she's the nominee, I'm not a huge supporter of Hillary!
Sigh. Why do Democrats keep attacking Howard Dean? Why does it take a non-Democrat, like me, to point out to registered Democrats their own rules and procedures?
Dean is the elected Chair of the DNC, not head of the DNC Rules Committee or the Credentials Committee of the convention. He doesn't appoint the members of those committees, but he is charged with enforcing the rules that they agreed upon.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/dean_statement_45.php
There are a number of examples of Clinton surrogates attempting to undermine Dean's authority as the Chair -
Carville http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qfX28_5FSc&feature=related
Emanuel & Schumer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KzK7bc9DG4 etc.
If anything, I would submit that Dean has gone out of his way to avoid any sort of favoritism & keep the focus of activists where it should be - defeating Republicanism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs1TLoLXhp4
Agree, unlike Clinton, who will praise McCain, agreed to the rules when she was convinced she would be coronated, now wants the rules changed to suit her.
I heard her say Michigan should be seated based on the vote - where she won 55% against "uncommitted"... I'll grant her that she has remarkable composure to present something so ridiculous without breaking into a smirk.
The underlying intent of your article is good; however you misrepresent a few points.
The Florida situation is largely to blame on the republicans since it is Republican controlled house/senate. But this is not likely to matter since they will be unable to have a "re-do" and will likely seat the results as is, albeit with only 1/2 a vote (not too much damage to Obama).
The Puerto Rican change from caucus to primary is very likely a result of the intensity of this campaign thus far. It has been stated (and rightly so), that due to the anticipated turnout, their caucus places would not be able to handle the expected number of voters.
Now, from your article, it did get me to think on something: Obama's recent earmark strategy. This may be a monumental misstep by him. In showing the public that he will indeed strive to be a transparent public official (love that!), he may have alienated himself from the very super-delegates support he crucially needs to win. His mentor and colleague, Richard Durbin was none too happy about his full disclosure. If his mentor was a little riled by it, I can only imagine what the fence sitters feel about this.
could you post a link to the story about Richard Durbin disliking Obama's transparency regarding earmarks? I remember him not liking the moratorium on earmarks, but can find nothing about him being upset regarding transparency....
It was a little blurb and it was infered from Durbin's demeanor uponing leaving chambers for the earmark vote. Can't help you other than that.
But you have to admit that the rest of congress is a little nervous about this and its potential to gain some traction.
i wonder if her campaign would be trying to change primaries into caucuses (cauci?) if he instead were winning the primaries. It's unabashed, it's shameful, it reflects more a thirst for power on her campaign's part than it does a wish to help the country. While I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton cares deeply about this country -- especially health-care reform for children -- based on her passion, I deplore what looks to be a sense of entitlement to the throne. If she wins, the Democratic Party will see a mass exodus of its next generation of voters. Of course, they may not care, since their income bracket is just as healthy under Republican leadership.
Your last statement about the "political establishment" only highlights the need to change the makeup of both Houses of Congress and both parties for that matter by infusing change here as well, not just at 1600 Sesame Street. As far as the redo voting is concerned. I am hopeful that the mudslinging that has emenated from one junior Senator from New York will stick in the voters' minds if and when they get to redo their vote. A new round of elections in Michigan and Florida might just get enough people to vote for Sen Obama after the outright vile campaign tactics employed by Sen Clinton. I liked Hillary in '93 but her actions now have turned this 56 year old away from the Clinton's who I proudly supported in 92 and 96.
Ms. Carrigan... what I have going here is a terminal case of "on the one hand, but then on the other". On the one hand, Michigan and Florida State Democratic Parties broke the rules, and there are penalties, and that's that. But then on the other hand, Michigan and Florida voters didn't break the rules, they probably weren't even asked -- how can we hope to nurture good will toward the Democratic nominee in November if we disenfranchise the delegates to the convention (or do you think this question is irrelevant to the election overall?)
Personally, I think there should be a "do over" in Michigan to mitigate the fact that only Hillary Clinton's name appeared on the ballot. As for Florida, I say we take the election (and the delegates) as it stands; HRC 'appeared' in FL for a fund-raiser and Obama aired a 'national' ad that just happened to spill into FL when no other primaries were happening -- that's campaigning on both sides and both of their names appeared on the ballot.
Other than that, I'm running out of hand.
I say that we allow both states to vote again, because the VOTERS were not asked in either state. HOWEVER, I then say that we seat the pledged delegates as earned in the voting, BUT we disenfranchise the superdelegates from BOTH states, since they were instrumental in getting the dates changed for the original vote!
Or something like that. The remaining problem is who's going to pay for the do-overs?
Lucy Carrigan has said *exactly* what I've been thinking today: any re-vote in Florida and Michigan would be all about just doing a favor for Hillary Clinton. It's all for her. Because what she needs is more contests, more wins, more momentum. The clock is running out. Without Florida and Michigan, she needs to win 64% of the rest of the delegates just to catch up with Obama. In Montana and Oregon too. So this all about campaign strategy, not democracy.
The sad fact that Democrats are forgetting is: the damage has been done. When Clinton threw the kitchen sink at Obama, she gave the Republicans all they need in November. It also helps that many of her supporters now dislike Obama so much, having followed her lead on this negativity, that they won't vote for him if he's the nominee. Meanwhile, she has angered the African American community even more, and the only scenario where she'd get the nomination would be one that combined a lot more smearing with at least a little stealing.
Had Senator Clinton bowed out gracefully after Wisconsin, seeing the uphill climb was nearly impossible, Obama would have been able to consolidate support, ride the wave of enthusiasm, and prepare for the onslaught of GOP attacks in the summer and fall. Instead, he got the onslaught of GOP attacks courtesy of Clinton herself here in late winter and early spring.
This is already going on until April 22. An eternity from now. And with Florida and Michigan possibly scheduled for June? Are you kidding? McCain may not need to raise any money to beat the Democrat. We will be so exhausted, divided and demoralized by then, it will be a breeze for him in the general.
The rules are the rules. FL and MI knew that their delegates would not count. Clinton agreed. Obama agreed. FL and MI and the Democratic party agreed. Since these 313 delegates are not available, there are now only 3,737 delegates (instead of 4,050). so only 1,864 are needed to clinch the nomination.
Let me say it again!!
Only 1,864 delegates are needed to clinch the nomination. Obama needs about 260 out of 685. Any questions?
The 4049 delegates are the elected and superdelegates from the 48 states and other contests that followed the rules - thus the 2025 needed to clinch the nomination.
If Michigan and Florida's delegates are included (in their entirety) that raises the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination to something like 2181 or 2182.
There's nothing new about making sure that urban America play second fiddle.
First they'll find a way to engineer the results to "empower" the wealthy suburbs, then they'll come up with a big "We love our cities" bullshit campaign for the general election... Then they'll either get their asses handed to them, or "discover" that the economy can't handle urban renewal programs as "robust" as advertised, and the city folk will have to wait 'til next time around, while we bail out our giant Corporations.
Lip servicing the "vote warehouse" is just SOP for GOP lite... The Limosene Liberals of the suburban commuter class do it all the time. As soon as something looks like it might not suit them it's an "unfair advantage."
Perfect time for the urban Democrats to leave the security moms clinging to the little blue inner tubes floating around in the red sea. We've seen this play out since the security moms bailed on us in the eighties, and gave us the Reagan Democrats and the defunding of everything urban.
Urban America shouldn't get fooled by the same shell-game again.
To use your football analogy, you're down by 3 points in the end of the 4th quarter and only 10 yards out of range to make a field goal. So you go to the ref and ask him to overturn a 10-yard penalty you got in 1st quarter and would he please move the ball up 10 yards for you.
I'm a Florida voter and I DO NOT feel disenfranchised. My eyes were wide open too as was everyone else in the state. I'm not happy about it but I no more want to sin by cheating than to lose by being cheated. And besides...This is Florida (TIF). We're used to this shit.
It is unbelievable for Hillary Clinton to say that that the election in Michigan was fair especially when you see her saying before the vote that everyone knows it will not count. This is being dishonest but we have seen that the last thing on Clinton's mind is honesty which counts for very little in her value system. This is when important people in the party shoud speak up and at the very least try to restore some standard of decency to her campaign.
MI "fair"-- that really killed me...how could it have been fair when she and Dennis Kucinich were the only Dems on the ballot?
and the b*tch still ran only 10 points ahead of "Uncommitted" -- HA!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
