The Silent Superiority: Why Florida and Michigan Superdelegates Should Not Be Seated

Lost in the shuffle of what's fair for the voters of Florida and Michigan is the question of what's fair for the superdelegates hailing from these two states. You know them: the esteemed party leaders who, according to insiders such as Geraldine Ferraro, possess the requisite vision, leadership and judgment to do what is best for the party even if it means overturning the will of rank-and-file voters.

By all accounts, the two states' superdelegates would be seated along with the pledged delegates in the current proposals for dealing with the 'situations' in Michigan and Florida. But why?

Given the current fiasco facing the party as a result of these two states moving up their primaries, shouldn't all notions of superior vision, leadership and judgment by these states' superdelegates be discarded? And shouldn't their superdelegate status therefore be forfeit?

After all, the principle advanced most frequently in the discussion of what to do about these 'rogue states' is that the voters in these states should not be silenced. Indeed. It's outrageous to think that we would select a candidate for president with these two critical states (or any state, for that matter) excluded. But where were these party leaders when each state was on the road to exclusion? Why, in 2007, weren't these folks exercising their superior leadership and vision to put a stop to the early primaries and get their states to comply with the primary plan that had already been agreed to by the DNC and the state parties?

And why are these same party leaders now in an uproar over the consequences of their own decisions?

Most likely, the uproar has everything to do with their inability to foresee how close this primary would be. Not that anybody could foresee it. But by deciding to move the state primaries up, and therefore subjecting their results to irrelevance, officials in Florida and Michigan were seeking to shape the national perception of the candidates just as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were able to do. Whether or not Michigan had such an effect is questionable. But in terms of Florida that influence is clear.

Remember that it was only three days after a stinging 2:1 defeat in South Carolina that Senator Clinton flew into Florida and claimed victory in what was nothing more than a political beauty contest. And while the practical value of the win was nil, the video feeds of Senator Clinton claiming victory in Florida no doubt improved her standing going into the biggest single day of the primary, Super Tuesday. (Note in the second video how she also claims victory in Michigan.)

We''ll never know how much media coverage of the faux win on the night of the Florida primary helped Senator Clinton the following week. But can it be reasonably argued that the victory speech and the press coverage didn't help Senator Clinton recover after being trounced in South Carolina?

So the leaders of Michigan and Florida put their markers down a long time ago. They figured that the best way for their states to influence the primary was to forfeit their delegates in exchange for shaping early perception of the candidates. And it's worth noting here that John Edwards suspended campaign operations the day after the Florida vote.

But the supers never envisioned a wire-to-wire primary nor considered how jilted their voters would feel if they had no actual voice in such a contest. They never foresaw even their own reactions to such an eventuality.

Among those who had a direct hand in the decision to move these two primaries to January and among the other 'leaders' who, if anyone, voiced concern last year that this could lead to disaster? Who, if anyone, voiced concern that the voters of these two states wouldn't have a voice in the primary?

This is one reason these 'wise' leaders should have their status stripped and should not be seated at the convention. If the premise behind the superdelegates is that they possess superior vision, leadership and judgment, the Florida and Michigan supers have collectively failed. This train wreck is a direct result of their lack of judgment and lack of vision and a lot of the subsequent sniping is a result of their refusal to acknowledge their dominant role in the entire ordeal. Blaming the DNC for their own decisions constitutes neither leadership nor vision.

Another reason to not seat the superdelegates is the simple need for some punitive measure. It is inescapable that these two states violated the agreed-upon rules. Without some associated penalty, the next competitive Democratic primary will tend toward chaos since the precedent of absolute forgiveness will have been set.

While the basic moral principle of democracy argues strongly for allowing rank-and-file Democrats from these states to have a voice, there is no moral compulsion to do the same for superdelegates. What's more, if the desire is to prevent this sort of line-jumping from happening in the future, expelling the supers of these two states will do just that. By penalizing those people who are most intimately involved with such a decision, the DNC would be immune to claims that it is upsetting the principles of democracy while still sending a message that will be heeded in the future.

Now that proposed revotes in both Florida and Michigan seem unlikely to occur, it is unclear what the path forward will be. But whatever that path is, it should not include seating the superdelegates from these two states. These supers have either had a direct hand in, or remained silent about, decisions that led to this crisis for the Democratic party. That alone is sufficient to disqualify them as superdelegates. We have already seen a large degree of public discomfort with the potential role of superdelegates in the nominating process -- so it's doubtful that there will be a public outcry in defense of the 'disenfranchised' elites who are responsible for so much hand-wringing and infighting.

Comments

[littleblackcat]

BRAVO! BRAVO! Wonderful post! It was the ones who thought they were in the catbird seats and decided they were holding their contests early no matter what the rules were who are now yelping about how they SHOULD count, trying to twist things to put the spotlight on "the voters whose votes won't mean anything". Too bad. By holding the primaries early despite being warned of the consequences, they have proven themselves to be nothing better than bush politcians. Change the law any way you want it and refuse to be held accountable. Just like bushit. "You better vote for my budget or you're depriving the troops of the things they need! You're not PATRIOTIC!!! You want the troops to suffer! You're SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS!!!" It's time to wake up and realize the country needs to return to the rule of law and being responsible. Hillary Clinton's going to Florida to "thank the public" was nothing more than a campaign ploy! It kept HER in the spotlight while Obama maintained his distance and kept his integrity by NOT going anywhere near Florida. HER name was on the ballot in Michigan, his was not. Again, a display of integrity by Obama. Clinton wants these delegates seated because she will NOT COME CLOSE to winning without them.

[Janskats]

A couple points..Given that there is some dispute about the Florida situation, especially..Floridians are claiming that they had no power over the Republican legislature moving the primary. If so, then it's questionable as to why they should suffer a penalty. However, the quandry is that, in redoing the primary, they won't do a "complete" redo..they want to eliminate all those who already voted. No, no, no! A do-over is a do-over! First of all, as would be the case in both states, anyone either not on the ballot, or not well known, would not have had the chance to campaign..to both have the chance to listen to the voters' concerns and to give the voters a chance to better know them. Of those in the race at the time, and those left "standing", it's obvious that Hillary Clinton had a far superior name recognition..and that the voters were already familiar with her stands on things. Not so, for Obama! He deserves the opportunity to campaign, as would have anyone else who stayed in the race. If this bizarre situation hadn't occurred, maybe the candidates now in the race would be different than we're seeing. Hillary Clinton can't just arbitrarily manipulate this situation to suit herself. Obama would be happy to rerun the race, but it should be done fairly.

[kato1]

I totally agree with the sentiments here and in the previous post. Every one of the dem candidates agreed with the DNC that the Florida and Michigan primaries would not count - now, and doesn't it figure, Hillary and Co. are trying desperately to go back on the agreement they made. It's so very typical of them and their "rules don't apply to us" mentality. Live with it. Honor your own commitment. Stop crying like the spoiled babies you are. The rest of us live with the consequences of our actions - so should the Michigan and Florida delegates and candidates who offered no protest at the time.

We've lived with a president who plays the game by Clinton rules - we don't need another. It's time for honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability in the White House. That leaves Hill, Bill and the rest of their ilk out.

[mimiow]

It really does not matter what the candidates knew, or who knew them it is about what the voters knew. They have been disenfranchised without their approval.

• By now everyone knows the slippery, non-transparent Obama and his heavily racial background. He counts that dreadful pastor as being as important to him as his own family; he even accused his grandmother of racism, but was it on the same level as pastor Wright’s? The stretch is abominable. You are born with your relatives, but you choose your bigoted, hate-filled friends on your own.
• I understand the anger and frustration of African Americans. What I do not understand is the desire to feed the hate. Most of us do not want that attitude in our president even though this current administration has been filled with such attitudes.
• In any event it doesn’t matter what Obama does, lies, or hides, because on this post most of you are so smitten with Obama that if there was a reasonable chance he could win either of these states you would be screaming for a revote. But then, Michigan and Florida are not backward caucus states who routinely disenfranchise huge numbers of people.
•

[inwonderland]

HuffPost's Pick

I am no fan of Al Sharpton, but he DID bring up a most important point about the Florida and Michigan primaries.

WHAT ABOUT THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS IN BOTH STATES THAT STAYED HOME BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THEIR VOTE WOULD NOT BE COUNTED?

Who speaks for them. Why do we seem to have such sympathy for those who went to the polls in full knowledge that their vote would not count when those who played by the rules and stayed home, have no voice.

WHY CAN'T HILLARY WIN ON THE ISSUES, PLAY BY THE RULES AND STICK WITH HER IRAQ VOTE? WHY CAN SHE ONLY WIN IF OBAMA IS PUSHED INTO THE GUTTER?

Because everything she has done...has been FOR HER. Not for the people..but FOR HER.
And, even though the electorate has had its soul tugged on by Fox driven Reverand Wright, NAFTA psuedo dust up and the rant of Gerry Ferrarro....they still know.

Barack Obama, flawed as he has admitted, is far superior to the faux Clinton leadership, a hubris that admits no fault, including her politically driven Iraq war vote, and thrives on harm-doing and underhanded olde America politics of fear and smear.

In its soul, Americans are tired of being sold hand me downs aka as the Clintons.

Their time has passed.

Florida and Michigan was playing in the Clinton sandbox, and they got it in their face.

It's over. And, well it should be.

MEDIA...STOP PLAYING THIS FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN PRIMARY AS AN OBAMA OBSTACLE GAME. IT IS THE FAULT OF BOTH STATE GOVERNORS AND THEIR GRANDSTANDING..STANDING ALONGSIDE THE TAKE NO PRISONERS Hillary and Bill.

[timinhi]

You are so absolutely full of bologney that we should make a sandwich out of you. That is the most convoluted logic in an asinine argument I think I have ever read. I think I can rephrase it: "What about the stupid idiots who, knowing that the primary was going ahead as scheduled and there was a distinct possibility that the DNC might under pressure, reverse its decision, were too f-in' lazy to get off their imbecilic asses and go to the polls for 15 minutes out of their insignificant lives to cast a vote that may well end up counting after all?--Who's going to speak for the idiots?"

You Obamites never cease to amaze me. Just to keep the superdelegates from being seated, you would happily disenfranchise over a million voters in Florida, based on insignificant, tiny anecdotal stories about voters who "stayed home because they were told their vote wouldn't count." And who was it that told those voters to stay home? Well, I know talk show host Randi Rhodes, an outspoken Obama supporter with friends and relatives in Florida, admits freely that she talked THEM out of voting because "their votes wouldn't count anyway." You sabotage the election, then you claim the results can't be trusted because it was sabotaged.

Guess what? Depending on where you live, your vote might not count LOTS OF TIMES. I live in Hawaii, which was predicted to be won overwhelmingly by Obama. Knowing that, I could have said, "Well, my vote for Hillary isn't going to make any difference anyway, so I may as well stay home." I took the time to vote anyway, despite my vote "not counting." If you're too lazy or dumb to get off your butt and exercise your rights, then don't complain later about the resuls.

The only reason you want to disenfranchise Florida & Michigan voters is because it will benefit Obama. If you could do the same with the other states Hillary won, you would. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Florida & Michigan were won by Obama, you'd be crying loudly about how unfair it is to not count them. You have NO integrity, and you are a disgrace to democracy.

SEAT THE DELEGATES FROM MICHIGAN & FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO HOW THE VOTERS VOTED! DEMOCRACY NOW!

[MikeL1]

Typical words from a far-left Clinton water carrier.

[ibsteve2u]

But would seating them be "DEMOCRACY NOW", or would it be caving in to corrupt backroom politics?

Did Florida and Michigan have an election where their voters were allowed to choose their primary date?

Or were they shafted by their state legislators without their input?

If I were a resident of Florida or Michigan, I would go to the next several elections with a copy of my legislators' vote on the date of their primaries.

And I would vote out any legislator that voted "Yea", because those people were not looking out for them; quite the contrary.

Their sole intent and purpose was to get the votes of their constituents locked in before the threads of Hillary's public personna began to unravel.

[LawProf]

"DEMOCRACY NOW!"? Hillary signed a binding written contract, pledging that she would not participate in the primaries in Michigan and Florida. I have yet to hear why she left her name on the ballot in Michigan.

[littleblackcat]

Florida & Michigan disenfranchised themselves by going against the decided upon rules. Obama did not campaign in either state so how do you know he would not have won there anyway? He has done beautifully in every state that he has been able to spend some time in so that people get to know him a bit. We humans are afraid of anything new to us and Obama is new. Had he spent large amounts of time in those two states, he most likely would have won at least one of them, perhaps both. The voters should have made a fuss about it when they saw they were being forced into politics as rewritten by bush, defy everything! We're in the mess we're in because we DON'T speak up when we should.

[mojomagic]

"WHAT ABOUT THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS IN BOTH STATES THAT STAYED HOME BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THEIR VOTE WOULD NOT BE COUNTED?"

This does not wash because all those so called "disenfranchised" voters would be able to go and vote in a new primary. The bottom line is the Obama campaign and the Al Sharptons of the country do not want the Florida and Michigan voters to have a say in this nomination because if they don't Obama has a better if not sure win. If the voters of Florida and Michigan have their votes counted, it would jeopardize Obama's nomination. There is no doubt if the shoe was on the foot, the Obama camp would be doing everything they could do including saying "Hillary will do anything to win." If one does not count Florida and Michigan, there will always be doubt about the legitimacy of a Obama nomination.

No one can predict what effect this will have on the general election, but if Sen. Obama loses the general there will be hell to pay and four more years of the Bush policies.

[Amberlass]

It is very clear that the Republican Legislature and Govenor planned this thing out very well in Florida to throw the Democrats into a tailspin, which is exactly what happened. Florida has once again been given to the Republicans on a silver platter, just as it was in 2000. They got exactly what they wanted - they have the DNC National Committee fighting with the Florida Democratic leaders.

It will probably be a McCane-Crist ticket in November.

[Markometer10000]

Tough to for the Dems to play the victim when the vote in Tallahassee was nearly unanimously.

Also, somebody else in this these comments indicated that the FL primary date was actually propsed by a Democrat

[lokywoky]

It is really sad to see all the misinformation on here regarding the Florida situation. First, yes, the proposal to move up the Florida primary did come from a Democrat. He wanted to move the primary to a date that would help Florida influence the actual choice of candidates (much like every single other state but Iowa and New Hampshire!).

Second. As far as the voting is concerned - this is where everyone does not understand how the legislature (any state legislature or the federal one) works. The date moving was an amendment to a package of other legislation that included the requirement for the State of Florida to stop using the touch-screen voting machines and to require the use of mandatory recounts and verifiable paper trails. Given the problems in the previous 3 elections - this package of election reforms was a very welcome and overdue one. The vote was unanimous in one house and with only 1 or 2 dissents in the other.

So saying that all the Florida Dems voted "for" moving the date isn't exactly the truth - since they were voting on the entire package - and no one wanted to vote against that nor should they have. And it was not a "conspiracy" by the Florida Republican Party and Charlie Crist.

Finally, the DNC - after the fact - decided that Florida was going to be penalized for moving their primary date up. AFTER THE FACT. HRC had several high-level campaign officials in the committee that decided this and they all agreed. She agreed not to campaign there. Obama did not have staffers in the meeting, but he also agreed not to campaign there. The ballots had already been printed so no names were removed - not because candidates did or did not decide to leave them there - but because it was not possible to remove them at that point.

The Michigan scenario is totally different. In the first place - they voted to move their date AFTER the DNC had already said that anyone else who did what Florida did would be penalized. I don't know much about what happened then - but the two situations are apples and oranges. And there WAS time to remove names from the ballots - all the candidates did so except HRC. Her excuse "she didn't have time".

As far as Charlie Crist - he is a very moderate Republican - unlike most of the neo-cons in the government today, and I see it as highly unlikely that he would be on the ticket with McCain. Crist is very popular in Florida and won his seat with a lot of cross-over Democrats voting for him. And he is NOTHING like Bush (either Jeb or W)

By the way - I'm a Kucinich Independent

[530Rose]

I agree wholeheartedly. In their attempt to have a greater impact on the choice of a candidate, Michigan and Florida opted not to follow DNC rules. In that choice, they have ended up loosing the ability to have ANY impact. When they learn that rules are rules, like it or not, they can return to having some influence in the election. What would happen if every state decided that they wanted to go first. And what about a candidate who thinks that DNC rules don't matter? Maybe that candidate should join the RNC (with her friend McCain).

[mojomagic]

I really think going earlier in the primary season doesn't have as much to do about having influence; it has probably more to do with having revenue brought into the state from all the MSM, candidates and volunteers during a high profile campaign. Michigan is one of the most distressed states in loss of jobs due to the automobile companies' cutting costs and jobs. Florida is one of the states who was hard hit by the mortgage crisis. Why should any not want some of the increased revenue that is brought into the state by vigorous campaigning. Iowa and New Hampshire make a lot of money for their states because they are first. I remember in 2004, the nominee was pretty much selected by those two state primaries.

Maybe the DNC should look at a plan that might rotate the primary schedule; so that other states can have a bigger slice of the pie!

[ProudLiberalDan]

The hypocrisy of not punishing New Hampshire for breaking the rules, but punishing Michigan and Florida so there were no campaigns is deafening.

There should be revotes by mail in both states.

But Michigan and Florida, two states with sizeable urban populations were right to try and help strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their undeserved sense of entitlement to whittle down the nominees for us. I didn't need, nor did I want their help.

To at least be consistent, strip New Hampshire too. (Like that would ever happen.)

What a caca process.

In 2012. One national primary with some form of runoff, either two-round or ranked-choice. That way every vote in every state has equal importance and equal value. And dump this whole "delegate" and "elector" nonsense. Empower voters and citizens, not "electors" or delegates, "pledged", "super" or "otherwise".

[foreverleft]

It would seem most of those against re-votes or seating based upon existing outcomes in either MI or Fla are Obama supporters. Granted, the party elites screwed up, not realizing the enormous influence both these states elections would have had on the nomination process if the dates had not been changed.
Half of Obama's wins resulted from an exclusionary process known as a caucus. All those delegates awarded for what-less than ten percent of the registered voters turning out for any of the17 wins.
He speaks with a silk coated forked tongue, a self-proclaimed Messiah leading us toward a new brand of democracy while playing games with more votes than he produced for half of his wins. Good for him.
Ultimately, his lust for power will be his downfall. His political career will end with the election of McCain because he and his wife just couldn't wait another four years to save this nation from itself.

[genmalia]

What is your axe to grind with Obama?

The party is fairly split between Clinton and Obama, which would stand to reason that half are for seating the delegates and half are not. It is not as if Fla. or Mich. didn't know what they were getting into.

And caucuses are a long-standing democratic tradition, noone has done much of anything to end them, and those who are complaining about it are the ones who lost them. Getting people to show up at a caucus is a demostration of organization and active support, as well as for those that pay attention to politics and policy.

I have never heard Obama claim to be the Messiah, though his foes often claim that he is. Is that why you persecuteObama? Because you don't understand and are afraid of what you don't understand, much like Jesus was crucified? I'm not religious, and I disagree with Obama on many things; my "messiah" he is not, nor is he the end-all be-all, but I would be very proud to have him as President.

I find it odd that you do not equate lust for power with the Clinton family. I am young, but old enough to know that a Clinton or a Bush has been in the top two spots of this country for most of my life. I reject that there are only two families qualified to lead this nation, and I prefer to have a candidate that does not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists or PACs. Obama is the only one left who can say that.

[foreverleft]

Caucuses are an antiquated form of democracy that favors activists. It ignores the elderly, the infirm; there are no absentee ballots.Typically, voters are not as obessed with politics as those that participate in activities such as this. They want to live their lives and vote as their personal or professional schedules permit.

Devoting hours of time and having to publicly declare their preference is viewed as bizarre. For many, political choices are personal and something that shouldn't need be shouted from the mountain top.

Mr. Obama is clearly a gifted individual, but turned me away when he declared publicly that he and Michelle might be "in a different place four years from now" in terms of our opportunity for him to become our president. I observed this statement myself. Such arrogance I have never before witnessed.

Of course Clinton is involved in her own reach for power. Frankly, despite all of her flaws, I believe it is time that this nation stood up for a woman. As a male voter, a 44th of the same gender does not interest me, no matter who it is.

I am resident of Michigan. I remember all too well how our president was elected in 2000 by just 5 votes-the majority of the Supreme Court, and will accept no excuses that as an American, my vote will not count.

[SonofLiberty1]

And I find it odd that you have "lust on the brain" so to speak...

Also, you are young... and I don't hold that against you but...

You aren't the only voter here, yes YOU have only known two families in the White House but many Americans, like myself, have known many more.

Plus the fact that you don't have any experience, other than voting, in the political process.

I have....

Not that, that fact should deter you or anyone else because your opinion shows that you don't have a good understanding of how our representative democracy works...

Yes, right now, the nation, as a whole, is split between Clinton & Obama.

But we aren't talking about the nation here, we are talking about Michigan & Florida where one candidate CHOSE NOT to file.

That makes a BIG difference.

Shame on Obama for NOT deciding to file.

It's his loss not ours.

[Economike]

Can somebody help me out here? Was the decision to move the primary up in these two states the respective state legislatures or the DNC. I've seem to have read both in the comments. If it was not the DNC what was there role in all this?

[ChrisInTennessee]

The individual states chose to move up their primaries, knowing full well that the DNC said their delegates would not be seated if they did so. Clinton, Obama and all the rest of the Democratic candidates signed a pledge that they would not campaign in states that moved their primary date before Super Tuesday.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules and now there are some who would say that it's not fair that their votes don't count. It's foolishness. I agree with the author - the superdelegates should be stripped of their vote, too - since they are among the "powerful" who could have stopped those states from moving up their date and we wouldn't have this fiasco now. It's not fair to the people of Florida or Michigan, but their political "leaders" put them in this position and those leaders should pay the consequences - turn them out, elect new democrats who will follow the rules and not disenfranchise their constituents.

Saying Clinton won Florida and Michigan is bullsh*t - she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan and none of the candidates campaigned in either state. Name recognition "won" the "elections" in those states, that, and many voters didn't show up because they knew their votes wouldn't count. Had Florida and Michigan followed the rules the rest of the country was held to, this would not be an issue!

[watchbird]

Did you read the blog? It was the Democratic Party leaders. Not the DNC. The DNC is penalizing the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties for ignoring the DNC rules and moving up their primary dates. And not the state legislatures.

[beachbob]

A distinction needs to be made between Michigan and Florida.

While the Michigan Democratic Party was responsible for moving up their state's primary, that was NOT the case in Florida!

In Florida, it was the REPUBLICAN Legislature and Governor (Bush!) who perpetuated this travesty, and therefore justice would demand that the Florida superdegates be seated but not the Michigan ones.

[princessofnowt]

courtesy of CSE post, about a page below:

Maybe check the record:

The Florida legislature voted via House Bill 537 to move forward the date of their state's primary to January 29th with bipartisan support 118 to 0 in the House, 37 to 2 in the Senate.

http://www.myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049&SessionId=54&SessionIndex=-1&BillText=&BillNumber=537&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillTypeIndex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=H&BillSearchIndex=0

[Suprshrink]

So What??? What if your legislature decided it was time that your state be important to the electoral process and the DNC obstructed their attempts to move the primary? Would you be willing to give up your vote? This is not about Clinton or Obama. It is not about Michigan or Florida. It is about the voters. We voters have only limited power in out political system. Our voice can be heard only through our vote. And if anyone would choose to take away that RIGHT they are creating a sub-class of citizens. Shame on Obama and his supporters who are willing to disenfranchise 2 million voters.

[rjcrane]

The decision to move the primary up in MI was done by a few top Dem leaders in the State: Gov. Granholm, Debbie Dingell and Carl Levin and possible a few others. I believe all were and are supporting Hillary and thought it would aid her to move MI's primary up. But their main stated reason to move up the primary was to give MI a bigger role in selecting the next president. They all knew doing so would violate their agreement with the DNC and put the delegates at risk but they were assuring everyone that MI's delegates would be seated anyway. In other words they took a big risk and screwed things up badly. Not only did MI lose its delegates but the state also lost a chance to make a real difference in the race because the actual scheduled primary date would have put the state in the spotlight bringing in the candidates, the media, and thus lots of dollars.

Mark Meyers is correct. Such bad judgment shouldn't be rewarded by seating these super delegates at the National convention and/or allowing them to make more bad decisions at the convention.

As for all of the talk about Hillary needing MI, it really isn't likely she would pick up many more delegates here as Obama would do well in MI if he campaigned here and his name was on the ballot. Hillary actually did rather poorly in the primary that didn't count getting 55% of the vote to 40% uncommitted with Kucinich and Dodd taking a small piece. When you consider that as many as 100,000 Dems in the state chose to vote instead in the GOP primary than cast a meaningless vote for Hillary, what does that tell you? What's galling is hearing her claim these states as "wins" for her. She didn't win in MI or FL anymore than she won in TX and NV where Obama picked up more delegates than she did.

THE ONLY reason Hillary wanted do overs in both MI and FL is because she hoped to get more votes from both states so she could go to the convention with the most votes - the newest and only goalpost that is left for her campaign.

My question is when are upcoming voters going to realize that the best way to beat McCain is to put the Clinton campaign out of business asap. Forget the issues between the two candidates and who has more experience, etc. The Dems need to unite soon behind a candidate so they can work on beating McCain and Clinton has almost no shot now at winning unless she makes a big mess at the convention with the super delegates.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[SonofLiberty1]

Judgement again by the legislature and Govenor who HAVE THE AUTHORITY, and not the DNC.

So, you RJ Crane, have had just as much CIVIC EDUCATION as many others...

Sorry but you have no real idea what you are talking about.

It's all about DISENFRANCHISING fellow Americans and how would YOU like YOUR VOTE to suddenly NOT COUNT???

[Pete Ross]

The primary date in Florida was set by a vote of the Republican majority Florida legislature and signed into law by Charlie Christ, the Republican governor of Florida.

To penalize Democrats in the State of Florida by disenfranchising them is wrong.

[jstock]

Many stayed home (we'll never know how many for sure) in both states, 'cause they ALL knew their votes for president would not be counted. In FL, nobody campaigned, and as a result the candidate with the overwhelming edge in name recognition "won." In MI, Clinton's and Kucinich's names were the only ones on the ballot (though Kucinich reportedly tried to remove his name, but got the paperwork in a day late.) As everyone in MI KNEW that their votes were effectively nonbinding and symbolic, many voters either voted in the GOP primaries (a little voter mischief) or stayed home entirely. Because they KNEW that these votes wouldn't count. In a competition one cannot change the rules as one goes along. I'm sorry that no equitable solution has been agreed upon, but it truly would not be fair to anybody but Clinton to count the existing votes. And, even Clinton supporters should want her to win fair and square. Don't you think?

[TheRobman]

The outrage that some people feel, and more importantly, the places where they are directing that outrage, over this issue is laughable.

In life there are rules, and when you break them there are consequences. The DNC and RNC run their respective parties and therefore they are allowed to make rules for their parties. It is true that they don't get to set the dates of the primaries for each state, but if a state wants it's delegates seated at the party convention they had better follow the party rules.

Is it fair that IA and NH always get to go early and therefore have a disproportionate influence on the overall election? No, it isn't, but that's an argument for another day.

This year, many states decided that they wanted to be more relevant than they have been before, so many of them wanted to go early. The DNC and RNC set Feb 5th as the earliest date that states could vote if they wanted their delegates to count, except for when explicit permission was given to go early. States were even offered EXTRA delegates if they agreed to go late!

When MI and FL decided to go early, they were told that their delegates would not be admitted to the DNC convention unless they moved their dates back to Feb 5th or later. They had plenty of time to re-schedule their primaries, so obviously they were OK with their delegates not being admitted, or if they weren't OK with that, they were taking a big risk, which so far looks like isn't going to pay off.

Once it was clear that MI and FL weren't going to move their dates to be compliant, the DNC asked all the candidates to skip campaigning in either state and the ALL agreed to do so, so for any candidate to be fighting for the rights of these states now is ridiculous. If any candidate disagreed with the decision to boycott these states, they could have raised their objections BEFORE agreeing to the boycott.

When the race is between two candidates where one candidate has name recognition and is running on experience and the other is fairly new to national politics and is running on the strength of his message, having neither candidate campaign in a state gives an unfair advantage to the candidate with name recognition.

I completely understand why MI and FL residents might be angry about this situation, and I'd like to see them vote out all of their representatives that had a hand in the decision to go early in the first place, starting with Carl Levin in MI. But to direct that anger at either campaign or to the DNC itself is ridiculous. I don't believe that the voters in these states are going to switch parties over it, after all BOTH the DNC and the RNC punished both states for breaking the rules. (The Republicans stripped away half of the delegates from each state). Apparently, Hillary wants a a re-vote where only registered Democrats are allowed to vote, so that's the group that she's worried about. Is anyone really suggesting that registered Democrats will stay home, or worse still - vote Republican, in the general election just because they're upset that their primary vote didn't count? Is anyone really suggesting that registered Democrats will vote for 100 more years of war in Iraq just to make a point to the DNC?

I don't understand why some people are angry with Obama over this, all his did was follow the rules and he's repeatedly said that he will abide by whatever decision the DNC makes. How much more flexible could he be? I am suspicious of Hillary's motives here though. Like I said before, if she was so concerned about the MI/FL voters, why not speak up before and why not refuse to sign the pledge to not campaign there? Why did her concerns only surface after she fell behind in the delegate race and she had "won" those 2 states? Call me a cynic if you will, but I doubt that she would have been quite so eager to seat the FL/MI delegates if she had "lost" in those two fake primaries.

Personally, I'm all for a re-vote and I don't care how they make it happen or who pays for it, but I think that the states should pay for it as they caused the mess in the first place, and if the local voters don't like it, like I said, they can try to vote out those leaders that helped cause this mess. I don't care if the revote is done via a mail-in ballot, a regular primary or a caucus, whatever works.

If a re-vote isn't possible for whatever reason, here's my suggestion on how to sort it all out. First MI, obviously the original vote can't stand as most of the candidates weren't on the ballot. The current opinion polls show Hillary and Obama tied at 41%, therefore any revote would likely produce a very close result so my recommendation for MI is to just split the delegates 50:50. As for FL, the original vote gave Hillary 54%, Obama 33% and Edwards 6%. The most recent opinion polls show Hillary still at about 54% and Obama at 39%, meaning he's picked up most of Edwards' voters, therefore I suggest that the original vote should stand and Obama should pick up Edwards' delegates. By my calculation that would net Hillary an additional 29 delegates.

[killmenow]

I appreciate your effort to explain everything and your suggestions for solutions. I think that they all made their beds, however, and they should lay in them. No re-votes, no splitting delegates, no nothing. FL and MI don't count this time. Sorry, but that's what had been decided and that's the way it should remain until the rules are changed for the next primary. Because a bad decision on the part of the DNC, the states, the candidates or whomever, it doesn't mean that they should scramble to rectify the situation now. They should have known full well the ramifications of what had been decided and we all should live with the reactions of the voters and damage to the party and the electoral process until the next opportunity to schedule primaries in those states and change rules after the current game has been played out.

[Suprshrink]

Do you really not understand how important Michigan and Florida are in November? These are swing states. These are states that can go either way. If democrats want to win in November, don't you think they ought to look like they care about these voters? Obama wants to follow the rules because leaving out MI and FL favors him. How many of the voters in MI and FL will remember this in the Fall? If I were a disenfranchised voter from either of these states, I would vote for anyone but Obama because he did not fight for my rights as a citizen.

Even in baseball, the home plate umpire can reverse a bad call on the field. In tennis, a referee can overturn a line judge. In football, the referees discuss important and potentially controversial calls. Do voters not deserve at least that much consideration?

[Dalpine]

The Clinton campaign is trying to create outrage which should further fracture the Democratic party and buy the Republicans even more time. The rules were set and accepted by all. Now Clinton wants to break the rules to favor herself! She is no better than Bush.

[jwsub28]

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, period! Where was all the outrage before your primaries, you knew the deal and yet you went through with it. We teach our children there are consequences for their actions, it is no different here. You broke the rules, now you have to live with it. Stop whinning and accept it. You should have been complaining before, you had time to protest.
The only reason Clinton is pushing it so hard is because she wants to win this election, no matter what the cost. She even said in a speech earlier that the votes would not count , now she is trying to manipulate the system. Big surprise.
Florida Voters that responded that the state will go red, why should you do the right thing? Last election you gave us Bush. You just might get your wish, McCain or Clinton, wow what a change for our country. Can't wait!!

[joandarc]

Why don't we just stop all this rationalization and nonsense. If you are for Obama, you will find all the highest moral reasons to be against a re-vote and if you are for Hillary, you have all the ammunition to argue for the re-vote. It's partisan and there is no right solution, there are only talking points and politcal points of view. We have to do what is best for the party, and if we are depending on Howard Dean to do that, well, that just scares me. He created this mess, and he incompetent.

[Larry of Corrales]

I was initially for Edwards, and when he left I leaned a little to Obama but thought Hillary would do just fine. Since then I have seen what she really is and Samantha Powers was right on target when she said she was a monster. Maybe a monster is what we need in the White House and if she wins the nomination fairly I might vote for her. Or not! Hillary is probably better than McCain but not by much. I can tell you this, if Hillary wins by crooked and improper means she won't get my vote.

[bobbybee]

Actually, as Senator Clinton agreed at the outset that the Michigan and Florida delegates would not be seated, it is rather hard to see that she has any moral standing to now argue on their behalf. Pretty simple, really.

[killmenow]

Totally agree.

[US55588144]

If you fail to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates chosen by the January elections or a full and complete revote, the two states will be found in the Republican column in the General election results! You can take that to the bank, but not Bear Stearns.

[snt]

What nonsense, disenfrachise the people of two major states because it suits one candidate? We have a democracy my friend, all votes should be counted so the results reflect the will of the people.

Remember 2000, when the supreme court disenfrachised the people of an entire state, do we want a repeat of that?

[mjc]

Think Mark Myers is absolutely right. Maybe if that was facing the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan they would get off their b...sides and get the delegates in that state seated, either the way it was voted, especially in the case of Florida, or through a do-over that doesn't give Obama any extra advantage.

[barefootboy]

I have read all these comments about Florida. I live in Florida. The election date was made by a republican controlled congress. I have voted democrat every year since 1952 except one time that I voted for Reagan. If Florida delegates are not seated, this state will go Republican. It is about 50/50 now with registered voters and I guarantee you that most democrats will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Kick us around all you want, but don't expect our vote come November. No president has won the election for president in 40 years that didn't carry Florida. I feel Michigan voters feel much the same way.

[Obama08Supporter]

Speak for yourself. I am also a Floridian and regardless of the Republicans part in this situation (scapegoat), our Democratic leaders are at fault. We always try to put things on other people that simply do not belong to them. We had a choice from the beginning (our leaders) to fight this, especially knowing the results of allowing it to happen, but they did nothing more than agree. I have never heard anything about a complaint against it until Hillary Clinton began to lose this contest, I never saw any public protest about it, until HIllary Clinton (florida's girl) began to lose the race, and I bet you anything, you voted for Hillary Clinton. This is why it matters to you right now. I have never seen you in the streets of Florida protesting this issue before.

It is so evident why this is an issue at all. After 2004 elections, I am sure Florida had plenty time to revamp this voting system, it never happened.

So if your party is responsible for this mess, that doesn't matter to you at all, uh? You will run out and bite your tongue to spite your nose and vote for McCain, go rigth ahead and continue the Bush admiistration it is your choice. As for me, I will be voting for the democratic nominee who ever it is, it is far better than having another republican leader that demonstrated yesterday that he is on the brink of alheiemers disease or dementia while visit over seas.

You my dear or no better than those that help Bush win because of their anger and look what we have had for the past seven years. So if you can't look past your my way or no way, go ahead and make your own day! I am sure you will live to reget it.

[Jandie]

Excellent!! - Could not have expressed it better myself - Agree with you 100%, as I am also a Floridian.

Most of my friends understood that it would not count and therefore not voted. Don't understand why some people did and now have the nerve to complain about it.

I would of understood the outrage when the rules were set, but not 8 months later and not from the candidate that is way behind and in desperate need of those votes. Hillary didn't seem to care about the disenfranchise voters when "ALL" agreed to follow the rules.

A country so desperate for "CHANGE" yet will most likely end up electing the "status Quo."

[shelleybear]

I'm a Michigan voter, and I think you're wrong.
First of all, I resent Clinton and her hit beast Harold Ickles even suggesting that the Michigan primary was a level playing field (with many candidates left off the ballot).
Second of all, they are now trying to say that someone who voted Republican SHOULD NOT be allowed to revote (I strategically voted for Willard Romney to keep him in the race, as I COULD NOT vote for Richardson).
I think the D.N.C. should take it's lumps and NOT do something like this again.
And as far as Hillary whining about winning those states?
Would she hae done the same, if, in a fair primary Obama had won?

[Suprshrink]

Well, if you were going to vote for Richardson anyway, nothing is changed. You didn't vote for Clinton or obama. Nothing has changed.

[Nofoolhere]

One can argue that the best reason for not seating the Florida-Michigan delegates is because they represent the hard core of orthodox establishment views. These are the views that the 2006 election was supposed to empower them to transcend. But they did not repudiate their establishment views, and created the do-nothing Congress that is still in place today. The reason they are given their status of Superdelegate by the DNC is that they can be counted on TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE ESTABLISHMENT STATUS QUO. That is NOT what the progressive-populist voters who won the election in 2006 want to achieve. They want their removal.

Therefore, unless these delegates are empowered by an electoral victory in a valid primary for their cause–then NO, NO, NO!! they ought NOT be seated. I suspect that this whole mess may be an elaborate corporatist strategy to shoehorn their corporatist champion Hillary Clinton into office. Think about it.