Primary Concern: Florida and Michigan

At her campaign celebration last night in Ohio, Hillary Clinton raised the specter of a nasty, divisive fight at the Democratic National Convention, claiming that she should be the party's nominee based on her big state victories, rather than on the pledged-delegate count. It was a slick and sophisticated attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game and declare herself the winner.

She said, "You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio. And that is what we've done." Then, she listed the states she "won," boldly including Florida and Michigan in the litany.

Weeks before her boast, Julian Bond, the Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and one of my heroes, penned a letter to DNC Chair Howard Dean noting that he is "deeply concerned" about the "will and intent of the Florida and Michigan voters."

But, both Clinton and Bond leave several important facts off the table.

First, the rules. They were known and agreed to by everyone involved, well before the first votes were cast in Iowa. All the campaigns, including the Clinton campaign, pledged to honor the "early window" that included only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Enforcement of the primary timing rule against Florida and Michigan was necessary to prevent the 2008 nominating calendar from falling into chaos. Moreover, a decision to overturn this action by the DNC could destroy our nominating process for 2012 and future years, as states realize that there will be no penalty for violating the primary timing rule.

Second, the DNC's Rules Bylaws Committee gave both Florida and Michigan a full and fair hearing, plus an open and transparent vote, and their efforts to "jump to the head of the line" were soundly defeated. No other state party organization or Rules Committee members supported them. None of the campaigns--including the Clinton campaign, which is very well represented on the Rules Committee--spoke up for the principle of allowing Florida and Michigan to go ahead of the other states.

Third, the new 2008 primary calendar was painstakingly worked out for the very purpose of increasing early voting diversity. Along with Iowa and New Hampshire, most Democrats agreed that both Latinos and African Americans should be added to the early voting equation. Adding Nevada and South Carolina to the early calendar increased regional and racial diversity while protecting the grassroots, small state nature of the early primary process. The DNC was right to protect these two states from encroachment in the calendar by Florida and Michigan.

Fourth, since there was no campaigning in either Florida or Michigan, and neither the names of Obama nor Edwards even appeared on the Michigan ballot, the idea that the votes cast there represent "the will and intent" of the people is nonsense. We must not allow the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan to "nullify" the will of the large mass of voters in all of the hotly-contested primaries and caucuses around the country where the candidates did campaign and the voters had the chance to meet the candidates, ask questions, hear their message and make an informed decision on who would be the best nominee for the Democratic Party.

Finally, I want to be clear that this is a disagreement between the DNC and the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties. This is not--and should not become--an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan. Senator Obama will reach out to the voters in Florida and Michigan as the presidential nominee of our Party, and will work hard to carry these two important states for Democrats in the November election.

Congressman Jackson is serving his seventh term in the US House and is a National Co-Chairman of the Obama for President Campaign.

Comments

[Ivotedemocrat]

Excuse me, Mr. Jackson, but your arguments are a bit disingenuous.

1) So everyone agreed to the rules? I guess that Michigan and Florida obviously did not agree to these rules, otherwise they would not have had their primaries when they did.

2) Just because a hearing was held does not mean it was "fair". The word fair is subjective. For years now, there has been discontent with the Democratic party's primary/caucus calendar. This election cycle, the discontent percolated to the surface with a rush of states moving up their primaries. What is evident is that what is considered fair in this scenario to one is not fair to another.

3) Who were the "most Democrats" who agreed with your assertion that the states of Nevada and South Carolina should have their contests moved forward to support the idea that Hispanics and Blacks would have a larger say in the earlier contests? What is this nonsense of protecting the grassroots, small state nature of the early primary process? I guess the other states do not have grassroots organizing, nor do they have any diversity in their populations. Florida is the perfect state with a big mix of black, hispanic, and white populations that mirror the American population by racial percentage. Yet, South Carolina, which has such a large percentage of black Democrat participation in its primaries is considered representative of the country as a whole.

4) What is nonsense is your argument about Michigan and Florida's votes not being representative of voter intent. Florida voters voted in record numbers in the primary, even as the state was threatened with not having Floridian's votes counted. It is not as if you need a candidate to appear in your state to know what your favored candidate is all about. There is access to so much information on the interenet, on television, and on the radio. Most people do not attend political events anyway, and that doesn't make them any less likely to understand how their favored candidate stands on the issues that are important to each individual voter. In Florida, all the candidates had their names on the ballot. No candidate campaigned here. That doesn't mean that the Floridian voters could not make a choice from the information they had garnered from the campaign proccess up to the date of the vote. In Michigan primary, voter participation was the third highest ever. Although not every candidate was on the ballot, those who wanted to vote for a candidate who did not appear on the ballot were told to vote uncommitted. Hillary Clinton was chosen, even though several candidates total votes were combined in the uncommitted vote total, including Barack Obama. In each state today, polls indicate that even with a new vote, Hillary Clinton would win each primary. This is the real reason why Obama supporters do not want another vote in either state. They are Pro-Hillary in their vote. If the voter's preference was for Obama, I bet my bottom dollar that your editiroial would be crying about how Obama's voters have been disenfrachised, and then you probably would throw in some comment about racism being the reason for it. The fact is that the voters in both states are being disenfrachised. Voter disenfrachisement was the catch phrase for the last presidential election. The Democrats went to court over it. I find it ironic, and reprehensible that Democrats like you, would at this time be willing to do the same thing to fellow Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan that Democrats decried back in 2004.

Your final paragraph is highly insulting to the intelligence of the voters in Florida and Michigan. This IS and argument between the majority of the voters in Florida and Michigan with the Obama campaign. What makes you think that the Democratic voters in these two states are going to vote for a candidate (Obama) who has denied the democratic process to millions of voters from both states? I will not vote for a candidate who worked to quash my primary vote... period. If this happens, Obama deserves to lose Florida and Michigan in the coming presidential election. I would not want a president who tramples on my democratic rights.

[desertmouse]

We must let HRC hijack the election. She plans to seat these delegates illegally. They broke the rules and should not be seated. It will cause riots I fear.

[jdkjdk]

HELLO. "that is off the record"

What the heck is happening with the press!

[danceswithyids]

I really can't understand what you are trying to say. If you are implying something about the interview in which the Obama staffer called Clinton a monster, but said it was off the record, but was reported anyway. And I am guessing you have a problem with that. The facts are the following, this interview was set up ahead of time and from the start it was known it was on the record. There is no calling time out mid-interview to spew something that either campaign wouldn't appreciate their candidate being called. Once the interview is "on the record" that is exactly what it is.

[NickAdams1917]

Michigan is a harder case and I honestly don't know how I come down on that one. But Florida? In Florida this situation was set up by the Florida Republicans. The Florida Democratic Party had 0, none, zip, zilch not at all, control over the date. The Florida Republicans totally set the Democrats up and the Democratic Party walked right into this. So the DNC is de facto enforcing the rules of the Florida Republican Party. The irony. The Republicans have already done what they set out to do. They created rift in the Democratic party. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (w/ leather flight jacket and all).

Why is the Democratic Party so determined to lose every Presidential election. Why is that we are allergic to victory? Do I have to renounce my citizenship and repatriate to live in a country that is not a Theocracy (again, the irony considering our position in Iraq). Respectfully.

[Suprshrink]

I am exceedingly troubled that JJ Jr. made such a specious argument against allowing voters in two states to count. Never would I have expected this from a man whose own father championed voters' rights. But I can see that there is a purpose for this article and that is to sway the vote to favor Obama no matter who is left out. I am certain that had Obama received the larger share of the votes in these states he would be making the opposite argument. But the irrevocable fact is these states voted and the votes should count. Do-overs are neither necessary of affordable. The voters spoke decisively. If their voices are silenced, Democrats will likely lose these states and many other Democrats who are offended by this process.

Before the voting even began in this primary, I was opposed to excluding any voters from any state. Worse yet to leave out two such important states seemed like insanity. What was the DNC thinking when they made such an arbitrary decision? If the votes from these two states are not accepted and delegates are not seated from Michigan and Florida, the DNC will have delegitimized this primary and believe me no one will be happy. If Obama gets the nomination without these two states' votes counting, he will be no more MY president than George W. Bush was.

[BardEric]

A big , fat "DITTO!!!" to that last point!!

[7NoTrumpXX]

I'll start with a copy of a letter I mailed to Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee on March 3, 2008.

Concerning the Delegates in Florida and Michigan:

What do you think Obama supporters would be saying IF Obama won Florida and Michigan? Of course, they would be saying they deserved the votes....and they would...if Obama had won them.

I'm a diehard Democrat, and have voted in every Presidential election since 1960. However, IF you don't let the Florida and Michigan delegates COUNT for Hillary Clinton as the voters voted, I'll either sit out the election or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

I feel that strongly about it.

If the Florida votes are counted and Obama wins fair-and-square and gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.

Most of the media has speculated that if Obama is not the nominee, it will split the party.

I know that if Hillary Clinton is denied the votes in Florida and Michigan, and Obama gets the nomination, that will split the party!!! At least for me.

It is a matter of principal, and it is a crying shame that the Super Delegates that are switching their allegiance are not switching on principal. They are switching to save their own skins. Any many are getting threats.

Senator Obama ran ADS in Florida. Senator Clinton did not. Senator Clinton should get the delegates she earned and Senator Obama should get the delegates he earned.

COUNT THE DELEGATES (AND SUPER DELEGATES) AND LET THE VOTES DECIDE THE NOMINEE. AFTER ALL THERE IS A WAY TO GET A NOMINEE. The first person who gets 2025 votes is the nominee!!

It TURNS ME OFF that some Democratic Leaders (Pelosi et al) are saying the Super Delegates should vote like their "constitutents." That's BULL

That is NOT the reason Super Delegates are there. Super delegates are there as a safety. Things can happen between NOW and the CONVENTION that could change a person's mind about who to vote for. Also, many times the voters are incorrect. (Just look at the last two elections!!!)

As far as winning against the Republicans, Hillary Clinton has the best chance of winning. She has had 5 BILLION dollars worth of Negative ADVERTISING already and she is still in the race. Senator Obama has had a free ride so far. Just wait until the Republican attack machine gets through with him. They are drooling.

AS FAR AS GETTING A NOMINEE QUICKER TO HELP DEFEAT McCain, THAT'S A BUNCH OF BULL. For one thing, McCain won’t know who to attack if the Democratic race remained undecided until the Convention.

KEEP THE RACE GOING if that is the way it is. Isn't that the reason we have Conventions?

If it goes to the Convention, it will be the most exciting convention in 50 years.

That will give the Democrats MUCH more free coverage.

The ONLY way the Democratic Party can be unified is for a Clinton/Obama Ticket. I’d support that.

I would be hard pressed to support an Obama/Clinton Ticket , and I don’t think Clinton would accept the Vice Presidency. Obama would accept the Vice Presidency in a heartbeat. He could then get the necessary experience to run for President in 8 years. Eight years as Vice-President and 8 years as President wouldn’t be bad and 16 years of Democratic presidents would be wonderful.

THIS ALONE IS SOMETHING THE SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD CONSIDER VERY CAREFULLY!!!

End of my letter

Florida has a closed primary election. That means only Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary and only Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary, AS IT SHOULD BE.

In the Florida 2004 Presidential Democratic Primary, 753,762 Democratic voters participated.
In the Florida 2008 Presidential Democratic Primary, 1,749,920 Democratic voters participated.
ALMOST A MILLION MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IN 2008 THAN IN 2004.

Hillary Clinton won 870,986 votes. Barack Obama won 576,214 votes.

It would be a total waste of money for a revote in Florida. The voters have already spoken and in record numbers. Just let the votes count.

I could see a revote in Michigan because Obama removed his name from the ballot. Or, let the UNDECLARED votes go to Obama and the Clinton votes go to her.

The Democratic National Committee needs to DRASTICALLY change the rules next time. Caucuses should be banned. They don't work. They do not represent the people. They are unconstitutional....it is not a secret vote. Voters should be allowed to vote in secret. Delegates should be proportional to the votes.

The Super Delegates should not be pressured to vote for one candidate over another. They should be encouraged to vote for the candidate they think can WIN. IF they vote for the way their constitutents vote, they can stay home. They aren't needed.

I have a solution. Bring Senator Clinton and Senator Obama together and see if they will agree to the votes in Florida and Michigan as they now stand. If they both agree, that solves the problem. If they can't agree, then a revote will have to be done.

[BardEric]

I agree with most of what you said, except for one point... Why should Barack even be entitled to the delegates from a state (MI) in which he voluntarily took his name out of the running?

[TommyMcCarthy]

It's not that he's entitled to them...............there was no pressure from any quarter for Obama or any one else to remove thier names from the ballot when that idiot Dean and his brain-dead committee announced that Mich. and Fla. were just not going to exist for purposes of this election cycle, ..........Any fool with a brain in is head should have known THAT would never stand.................Obama, however saw that a SOLID Clinton state had been taken off the table, at least temporarily.............and now,..... here we are.

Obama (and others) removed thier names from the Mich. in anticipation of the very situation we find ourselves in right now,..........because they knew they could never LEGITIMATELY compete w/ Clinton there.

Indeed, Obama (and Edwards) were both quite open in urging thier supporters in Mich. to vote "uncommitted" both to deny votes to Clinton, and to preserve the option of reaping those votes for themselves when the inevitable reconsideration of Dean's folly came...which is happening right now.

A similar logic drove the decision to remain on the ballot in Florida, because Obama believed he had a better shot there against Clinton (which he did) , AND because there were more overall delegates available there even if he did not win outright. Again, any fool but Dean could see that pretending Fla. didn't exist would never fly.
Florida!....of all places! Remember 2000?..... Hanging chads?......Katherine Harris? .......Al Gore?........ Any bells ringing for 'ya here Howard??

Giving Obama the "uncommitted" delegates is a sraight ahead oh......shall we say......... "inducement" ....to get the Obama camp to allow Fla. and Mich. to be seated, since everyone except Howard Dean knows the Dems. cannot expect to win the Presidency no matter WHO the nominee is with these two major states surrendered to the Republicans from the outset.

Did you know that certain credit cards will now allow you to charge what is known as a "facilitating payment" when doing business overseas? In my neighborhood this is still known as a BRIBE.

Sen. Obama is merely playing hardball politics very skillfully,...at the very highest level....which I don't begrudge him one bit...... It's only the hypocrisy of claiming that his is a new, more pure, above-all-that campaign which rankles a bit .......but it wouldn't keep me from voting for him at all.

I never did believe the saintly, non-politician, movement leader business in the first place. For me If we're going to entrust the Presidency to ANY politician..........it should not be a drawback that they are at least very GOOD at it. Regards.................................................tm

[Shenygirl1]

I agree with Cacki, at least Hillary had the balls to keep her name on the ballot in MI along with
Kuchinch and Dodd. What was Obama afraid of when he removed his name from the ballot?
He's not presidential material, just another empty suit with good oratory skills. We in Michigan
do not deserve to have our votes disenfranchised. All those Obama supporters who are so
concerned about rules being broken should take another look at those rigged caucuses
the Obama supporters have been holding with out-of-state voters. Hillary won in Michigan
and if there is a do-over, she will win again.

Shenygirl1

[Janskats]

Mmmm...ex-Michigander here..where were you when the state party insisted on moving the primary so far up? Did you complain to them..tell them they were going to screw you over if the insisted on this tack? Did ya tell them that you were worried about being disenfranchised then..huh, didja? You are acting like a bunch of teenagers who stayed out past curfew, and got caught and grounded..and now you're crying about how you can't go on a date this Friday nite..Gawd. So, grow up, cough up for another primary..even a cheapie vote by phone deal or something..and get over it! You were warned ahead of time about what would happen!

[BardEric]

Many of us DID complain because we had already heard rumors of the consequences of our state parties decision to move the primary..Our concerns fell on deaf ears..Should we all then bear the brunt of a punishment that should have been directed at our state party bigwigs, rather than the common voter.?.(you know; the same people the National Party wants to turn out and vote Dem in Nov?) You would feel much differently if you still lived in the state, I assure you.

[SCMagnolia]

Because the contents of this September '07 article is buried way in the back of the comments here, I thought it important to share the link again:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

"Change You Can Believe In" = "Politics as Usual"

[SCMagnolia]

Let me just apologize now for the length of this comment as there are a few points made by Rev. Jackson, Jr. that I’d like to address beginning with:
“Hillary Clinton raised the specter of a nasty, divisive fight...claiming that she should be the party's nominee based on her big state victories, rather than on the pledged-delegate count." It seems Rev. Jackson, Jr. that it is you who’s raising the “specter of a nasty divisive fight.” The fact is, she HAS won the big states - through primaries where “everyone” has the opportunity to vote, not caucuses which are hardly representative of “all” the people. As for your veiled and insulting, “It was a slick and sophisticated attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game...” I think the “slick” adjective should be assigned to Sen. Obama and his supporters since they are attempting exactly the same thing of which you accuse Sen Clinton – changing the rules in the middle of the game. Here’s the body of a mass-emailed letter from ColorOfChange.org I received last month regarding the superdelegate situation for example:

Dear Congressional Black Caucus Member,
Over the last several weeks, voters in CBC districts have spoken with clarity about their choice for President they overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. But the clear mandate they've laid down is threatened by those in your ranks who as superdelegates may break away from their constituents to vote for Hillary Clinton. The Congressional Black Caucus has worked hard to protect the political voice of Black Americans. You took the lead in 2000 and 2004, insisting that all votes be counted and that they count. Using your status as a superdelegate in 2008 to undermine the people's will would be a tragic reversal. I'm writing to ask that you use your power as a superdelegate to amplify the voice of the informed, engaged, and diverse electorate in your district and across Black America, not silence it. I urge you to make it clear that as a superdelegate, you will support the voters' will. We deserve elections determined by the electorate, not by insiders. And we need you to stand with us, as we speak in a strong voice about who we wish to see as the Democratic nominee. Voters should decide elections--not politicians."

Apparently, because I’m Black and have supported them in other issues in which I believed they were right (Katrina, Jena, Genarlow Wilson, etc.), I was to sign it and send it on to the Congressional Black Caucus. I did not. Because you see, Rev. Jackson, Jr., we really are not a monolith and what’s good for the goose IS good for the gander. See my letter to the CBC here: http://lets-be-clear.blogspot.com/2008/02/florida-and-michigan-disenfranchisement.html. And oh, she doesn’t get to declare herself the nominee, it is the people (at least it’s supposed to be) who do the declaring.

"You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio. And that is what we've done." Then, she listed the states she "won," boldly including Florida and Michigan in the litany.” Again, nothing she said is in error. Which is, in my humble opinion, the purpose for your post.

Given your lineage and the history of our people in this country, I am disappointed that you did not stand with Julian Bond in being “deeply concerned" about the "will and intent of the Florida and Michigan voters." MLK, Julian Bond, your father and countless others marched, were jailed and yes, many died for our right to VOTE for whomever we pleased. Particularly disturbing to me was Rev. Sharpton’s statement at the now, much-maligned State of the Black Union in which he said, “Now that we’re winning, you want FL and MI votes to count. That ain’t gon’ happen.” What kind of civil rights is that???

Regarding the rules. She’s not to my knowledge, broken her agreement. Seems she is only giving voice to the “will and intent of the FL and MI voters,” a voice you and most of Sen. Obama’s supporters want to silence to make “history.” Well that “history” will be forever tainted and branded “revisionist” because not ALL the people had a say. As a Black woman, I’ve had enough of tainted and revisionist history. I would think you woud have as well.

“Enforcement of the primary timing rule against Florida and Michigan was necessary to prevent the 2008 nominating calendar from falling into chaos. Moreover, a decision to overturn this action by the DNC could destroy our nominating process for 2012 and future years, as states realize that there will be no penalty for violating the primary timing rule.” Could this statement be any more paternalistic??!! I think you, the DNC and other elected officials really have it twisted – you are public servants not public parents! It is the will of the PEOPLE that seats or unseats you.

“None of the campaigns--including the Clinton campaign, which is very well represented on the Rules Committee--spoke up for the principle of allowing Florida and Michigan to go ahead of the other states” I wonder why? Given the tenor of the campaigns, I can only guess.

“Third, the new 2008 primary calendar was painstakingly worked out for the very purpose of increasing early voting diversity.” Please. Florida and Michigan combined would have represented a more diverse addition to that “early voting equation.” But the strategy (and that IS ultimately what this is all about isn't it?) really seemed to have more to do with, “Adding Nevada and South Carolina to the early calendar increased regional and racial diversity while protecting the grassroots, small state nature of the early primary process.” I’m not even going to go there.

“Fourth, since there was no campaigning in either Florida or Michigan, and neither the names of Obama nor Edwards even appeared on the Michigan ballot, the idea that the votes cast there represent "the will and intent" of the people is nonsense.” While I agree, because not all of the candidates were on the MI ballot, "the will and intent" of ALL those voters were not represented (by the way, how many votes DID Sen Obama get in MI?). But I live in FL - no nonsense here. I voted for John Edwards in the closed FL primary and none of us had a problem expressing our “will and intent.” A do-over here, at our state's expense, should not even be considered. Let the vote stand.

“We must not allow the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan to "nullify" the will of the large mass of voters in all of the hotly-contested primaries and caucuses around the country...” – really. Please reread my “Given your lineage..” paragraph. And by the way, we’re pretty swift here in FL as I am sure the voters in MI are. So please, do not imply we were unable to make an informed decision on the best nominee because the candidates did not campaign here. We are not cut-off from mainstream society. We do have television, newspapers, the internet with access to the Congressional Record, etc. Is it because back then, Sen. Obama was not ready on day one with a message - other than “Change” - that you want FL votes not to count?

No matter the parties you FEEL are a part of this disagreement, this IS between Sen. Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan as long as he fights to disenfranchise millions of people solely in the name of winning.

[TommyMcCarthy]

No apology necessary for the length of your well-reasoned and closely argued comment.

It's the principle of "one-man(woman)-one-vote" which is at stake here.......which transcends any one election,....the tally for any given candidate....and MOST EMPHATICLLY the soverign mandate of the "DNC Rules-Bylaws Committee" for God's sake!

I feel a little sorry for J. Jackson Jr. for being in the unenviable position of having to argue FOR the disenfranchisment of the voters of Michigan and, particularly, Florida (AGAIN.....by DEMOCRATS, no less!!)

Well said.................................................................................................................................tm

[SCMagnolia]

Thanks tm...I agree that it is both the principle and the rightness of the thing, particularly in FL given the games the Republicans played here that put Shrub in office. I never, in my wildest dreams, would have expected this from my party, seeking my support in November.

Having been a voting Democrat for more than 20 years, I'm not so naive as to think the will of the entire electorate actually counts for much in the big picture of strategies, manipulations and machinations that has become our democracy (as in earmarks which tend to appeal to a politician's particular base on a small scale and more often than not, fail to address more important needs in a community). That being said however, I believe choosing who to seat or unseat locally and/or nationally is the closest we come in actually having our say and political games aside, I believe we all should. Once they get in, it is our responsibility to hold their feet to the fire.

Winning for the sole purpose of winning has never been important to me (I know, not too fashionable stance in our win-at-all-cost society). It is, rather, how you win that garners my respect and loyal support. I don't feel sorry for Rev. Jackson, Jr., it is a position which brings with it power (actual or perceived), enormous privilege (for a Black man in America to be sitting at the right hand of the possible throne that is the presidency is no doubt intoxicating) and great responsibility. By advising Sen. Obama with this kind of rhetoric, the reverend just shows me on which side of the winning he really sits.

[moevaughn]

Wow! This is such excellent work. thank you so much. I've been following this post since it came out, and yours is the best response of all those I have read. I can only hope Rep. Jackson reads your comment. He himself either blatently left out or does not know all the critical facts.

I live in NH, but my mom, a life long Democrat, lives in Florida, so the disenfranchisement of her vote is very upsetting to me.

I also think Howard Dean should resign. Anyone with any intelligence at all would have known that the states of Florida and Michigan are critical to any presidential election. This should have been worked ou before the primaries even started. Now the Party is in horrible disarray, which could have been completely avoided if we had competent leadership at the DNC.

[SCMagnolia]

moevaughn, thank you for your kind words. No real work involved here, I just said the things I really feel. I hope he reads the comment as well, though I doubt he will. It is enough to have been able to say it, have real people read and think about it, then give feedback on its merits or shortfalls. As I'm no spring chicken, I have certain fundamental beliefs acquired over time from which I seriously doubt I will stray. But, as long as I'm breathing, I continue to learn and being open to discussion has been the best way for me to hear and be heard.

Howard Dean and the FL Democratic Party both bear responsibility for this lack of foresight in my opinion, and they should hear from all of us not only about this situation, but about how best to avoid this in the future. Every state should be important, but I agree the importance of these two states should have been taken into account as a part of their "strategy" and the matter settled way before now. It seems the "powers that be" have very short memories as it relates to the debacle in FL that led to Shrub's waltz to the White House. I hope the Democrats don't make a similar mistake.

[BardEric]

Thank you for your eloquent post!!!!!

[SCMagnolia]

Thanks for taking the time to read it BardEric - I tend to get a little wordy when I want to express myself, but I really felt a response was necessary.

[littLdy2]

Bravo!! What an excellent reply to Congressman Jackson Jr.s extremely biased post. His words do more harm and create more divisiveness when he should be more thoughtful and insightful as you are. But, of course, we must not forget he IS the National Co-Chairman of the Obama for President Campaign and as such he must think he knows more than the rest of us. I don't have a horse in this race but I don't like articles such as his that leave out facts that don't favor HIS choice. Perhaps he has been a Congressman too long and voters should think about that in November.

[SCMagnolia]

Thank you littLdy2 and maggieb. I just wrote what I felt. I don't know if the reverend thinks he knows more than the rest of us, but it does seem that people in positions of power tend to sometimes have problems with doing what is fair and right, especially when they've reached that realm in which they see power used and abused on a regular basis.

His thoughts appear to be focused on winning at any cost and I think I even understand why - that big, pink elephant in the corner that no one seriously wants to address informs the way ALL Americans have lived in this country if we are honest. That said, it cannot be the only reason we vote for, elect or otherwise support a candidate for anything, particularly president of the United States.

I've heard people say, "They're only doing what's been done by others for years." My response to that is always, "Probably so, but that doesn't make it right." And, as it relates to their campaign, this reasoning is certainly counter to the tenets Sen. Obama has continuously put forth. But I'll bet you a nickel (sorry, I'm not in that 1% of Americans who are wealthy) many of the senator's supporters will not see or admit the dichotomy which is unfortunate - not only for the Obama campaign, but the people represented by Rev. Jackson, Jr. and even the nation as a whole.

[maggieb]

Great response, I can go to sleep tonight knowing that someone has eloquently rebutted JJJr nonsensical and self-serving article. Thank you SCMagnolia.

[gloryoski]

This seems as good a place as any to cut and paste an email I sent to the campaign a short time ago.
Maybe it will actually get seen by someone. Most on-topic is point number 3. Here it is:

I would like to give this campaign more money that I don't have on top of the money that I don't have that I gave less than 48 hrs ago. This is what I would need to be convinced to be that dumb, however.

1) John Hodgman (you know, the PC) says on his blog that
"I will wait to give again until I see evidence of a clear, powerful Pennsylvania strategy."
Yeah, that sounds good.

2) Specifically, I hope everyone on the campaign has learned what I thought you already knew much better than I did. Never, never, NEVER blow stuff off and stay way too quiet about it like you did with the NAFTA/Canada thing. ALWAYS be transparent AND repetitious. You left it to bloggers and the liberal Canadian media to defend you against this obvious set up and 36 hrs. was not enough for that to work. Do NOT do things like putting up that questions to the Canadian PM thing on YouTube and then disable comments. That was boneheaded.

3) It's hard to keep track of where Hillary is on Michigan and Florida and it seems as if she's backtracked on this, but the other night Terry McAuliffe was calling for revotes. Especially if they do that again, but even if not, since it is the right thing to do, you should also be saying the IDEAL would be a revote. Then, if we don't achieve that, you can say the delegates don't get seated, because that is the most unfair outcome for the country as a whole. I know the campaign is probably afraid of Michigan because of what happened in Ohio. (So they should be aggressive about the memo and defend the anti-protectionist parts of their position if they can.) I know they are probably afraid about Florida because Barack already said he would talk to Raul. Well, still, just do the right thing and people like me will phonebank our asses off for you down there. Some of us speak pretty decent Spanish.

[batguano]

It's pretty simple "Bust the deal and face the wheel". Both Fla and Mi chose to flout the rules set down prior to any vote........they wanted to violate the rules and now must face the consequences. Can it be "made fair"?......was one candidate advantaged over another?.....can it be "fixed after the fact"....will one have an advantage in a re-vote?.........I don't know. I don't like people being disenfranchised but there have to be rules and consequences when they are ignored, right? Now that there is a great fight for delegates can a "do-over" be fair?....maybe, maybe not. In the case of Fla. it is claimed that the REPUBLICAN legislature did the deed on the timing of the DEM. primary! Just how does that shite work out!

I want to re-post the words of pfm1483

"This is not the answer. The delegates are not to be seated. ...AT ALL! If they have a beef, take it up with the ELECTED OFFICIALS who broke the rules. This was the rule, agreed upon and voted on. Do you get a do over if you get caught driving drunk? No, you broke the rules and you get punished. Next time you learn that breaking the rules has consequences".

And the words of madfloridian;

"Do you even know the history of what happened? What state party heads do you think were involved? The Democrats in Florida made NO SUCH CHOICE. The DNC is holding democrats hostage because of the Republican Florida Legislature set the election dates and did so in a manner that broke a Democratic party rule".

[Serfie]

Jesse Jackson Sr. spent a lifetime registering people to vote and getting people involved in politics.

Jesse Jackson Jr. wants to disenfranchise votes in two of the biggest states in the union, including Florida, where Black folks were systematically discriminated against in the last two presidential elections.

You'd think Junior would be for the franchise and democracy and inclusiveness.

Instead, he has chosen political expediency. He should be ashamed.

Florida and Michigan need new primaries.

Wonder why the Obama Thugocrats hate democracy and elections.

[wolfgirl]

how can you say that florida and michigan should get special treatment?they knew the rules they broke the rules and now it is time for them to play by the rules! jj jr. is absolutely right! do you think hillary would be fighting so hard for florida to count if obama had won??i don't think so! play fair or get out of the sandbox! why would you ''change the rules''? maybe we should never have another caucus as they are not to the hill's liking.

[danceswithyids]

The funny thing is it is you who should be fighting for Michigan and Florida to have revotes. What happens when it is your states head on the block? I'd be fighting for your rights.
The issue with a caucus is that it is undemocratic at its very essence. Discussion should occur always, but then every person should have the right to cast their vote privately. Why? Because people act differently when someone is looking over their shoulder. Or don't feel comfortable taking a stand in front of strangers.
One person one vote that is the essence of democracy.

[Hueyetta]

I don't think it is just that the Caucus situation is not to HRC's liking... it's that the caucuses are not a fair way to vote. Are they private and individual? No. Does everyone have the ability to participate? No, just as we saw in Nevada... the nurses were an example.

Obama is the one who wants to change the game, not Senator Clinton. Last thing I recall was that Obama called for the Citizens of Michigan to vote uncommitted. Why would he do that? Because he knew Senator Clinton was going to win that primary. Now he wants to disenfranchise the voters of two states because he did not win them?

[jujubeenthere]

Exactly!! Everyone knew the rules- and has known them since the beginning. And Mrs. Clinton certainly wasn't complaining about the causus system when her husband was winning them in 1992! If everyone living in states that have use the causus system hate them so badly, then they should take it to their legislators and have it changed. Instead, even now we have crossover votes from republicans that each Senator will be arguing over for the next few months.

[Rule Of Law]

Yes, wolfgirl, the Rules! And let's not forget them! Everything else, especially SCmagnolia's Phd thesis, is just more words to hide that one fact. Doesn't take that much talk to get to the truth...

[Nofuzzydreams]

Jesse - The rule also states you have to win 50% of the delegates not most pledged delegates. The rule does not say superdelegates have to follow the pledged delegates. You have conveniently ignored thess rules it seems.

[Hueyetta]

This is also true... yet Obama says the election 'will be stolen from him' if the Super Delegates vote the way they see fit? It is my opinion that he is and has been playing the race card from the beginning. What a shame. I would have thought about voting for him, if he hadn't done that...

[UnknownSoldier]

there is something wrong with letting a special group of voters vote twice. MI and Florida should be allowed to have there delegates seated in accordance with the rules set by the entire Party (all 50 states) and not by a few rebels. All those Democrats who did not vote in the Rebel Election should be allowed to vote in some form even if its by mail. 1 Person, 1 Vote plain and simple.

[7NoTrumpXX]

What about Texas? People could, and many did, vote twice! Once in the primary and once in the "caucus" which occurred immediately after the polls closed. There were over 8000 caucuses in Texas. So many people showed up, many people couldn't even get in to caucus. Some people were relegated to parking lots!!!

2/3 of the delegates were decided by the primary vote, and 1/3 the delegates will be decided whenever the caucus votes are mailed to the Secretary of State of Texas. As of last night, Thursday, March 6, only about 40% of the results had been mailed in. All the results have to be phoned in or mailed in. What about a chain of custody? Can we trust these votes?

Many people had to wait until midnight to vote because lines were so long, primary voting continued until then. Then, the people had to "caucus." This is truly the most UNdemocratic thing I've heard about during this election.

The second most UNdemocratic thing about Texas is the delegates were not awarded proportionally to the vote. Some areas, like Houston and Austin, where Obama got most of the votes, received disproportionally MORE delegates. The Hispanic voters in south Texas were awarded disporportionally LESS delegates (based upon number of primary votes) than the voters in Houston and Austin.

Caucuses bring out a very small amount of people who speak for everyone! That is not a democracy. A mail end ballot is NOT the answer. There would be too much room for fraud.

Caucuses are the worst way to nominate a presidential candidate.

Howard Dean should RESIGN. He is an idiot. The RULES are crazy and need to be totally revised. They don't make any sense.. Some states, like Texas, allow Republicans and Iindepents vote in the Democratic primary. Florida is a closed primary which allows only REGISTERED democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary and only REGISTERED republicans to vote in the Republican Primary---as it SHOULD BE.

Some state use caucuses and some primary voting. It is not a fair way to nominate a Presidential candidate.

[Nivramel]

Jr. needs to remember the "Wink and Nod"rule he is supposed to be quiet until after Obama is elected .Didn't he see a cartoon about his dad and Al Sharpton ?