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.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One Obama supporter noted that an urgent tax referendum brought 1.7 million people to the polls in Florida. So the voters decided, through their elected representatives, when to hold their elections based on local conditions and issues . Refresh my memory again why the will of the DNC to stage the timing of elections is more important than the will of 1.7 million Florida voters of all stripes to hold their elections when they themselves decide? "Oh, the poor dears of Florida, they'll never know which way to vote unless we put a proper spin on Iowa first"
Like it or not the DNC makes the decisions regarding the Democratic primaries. The candidates were aware of the sanctions, their campaigns voted to approve the sanctions. What about the people who stayed home because they believed their vote wouldn't count? How can it be fair to them to be told their vote wouldn't count and then say oh we decided it would. None of the arguments have any logic. It is an unfortunate situation that can't be resolved in a way that is fair to anyone.
IF you look at FL primary results, it is rather hard to buy your argument that people stayed home..Repe
Food for Thought
On this Florida / Michigan issue everybody is asking if a revote is fair to Clinton or Obama. What we forgot is all the other candidates who abided by the rules and did not participate and they are no longer on the stage. Is it fair to those candidates who followed the rules and hence missed a shot at getting some delegate count or momentum out of those races? Could Edwards have had a chance with the strong presence of Union households in Michigan? Could Richardson have some support from the Hispanic community in Florida? And if (a big if) they had won those states what would the after effect have been for them and for their opponents? We don't know.
That is why changing an already agreed rule in the middle of the game is an inherently flawed and unfair practice.
It was their choice to drop out, so "what if" doesn't work for them.
yes, their choice to follow the rules and not play Rovain politics by figuring out a way to run without running and then try to change the rules later.
The heads of the Michigan state Democratic party and Florida state Democratic party should all resign. They in their arrogance caused this mess and hurt the national party in a huge way.
Arguing that Florida and Michigan primaries should be counted now is absurd. They knew the rules, all the candidates knew the rules, you can't just change things at the last minute because it makes things more convenient for you. The DNC and RNC are individual organizations that decide how they want to elect their nominee in their own way, that way is clearly spelled out. Hillary thought she had this nomination in the bag and now that she realizes she has virtually no chance to win is trying to change the rules after the game has begun. Weak.
This is all BS. Michigan and Florida voters deserve to vote as much as any other state. As far as I am concerned, they did and Hillary won. I don't know how her name ended up on the Michigan ballot and his didn't, nor do I care. Her name was there and his wasn't. I felt like Edwards and Obama were snubbing Michigan at the time. If they were so concerned, which they were not, it could have been changed at the time at the party level. You snooze, you lose. Gov Granholm was right when she said we can have a primary whenever we want. While I like Howard Dean, this is his fault and forget the DNC with their rules. We voted, now Michigan goes to Hillary Clinton.
I suppose you thought those elections in Iraq where only Saddam Hussein was on the ballot were fair too?
You wrote "you snooze, you lose"-- they didn't snooze. They followed the party rules that were agreed to by ALL the candidates, including Hillary. She broke the rules by staying on the ballot in Michigan. And then threw herself a huge victory party when she "won."
She also agreed that the votes in Florida wouldn't count. But that was back before she knew the race would be close. But now she says the delegates from Florida must be seated and she opposes any plan for them not to be seated. So just like the war in Iraq she supported one point of view, until it was politically more useful to oppose it.
The only fair thing is to do a re-vote in both Florida and Michigan. Don't do a caucus, like Obama wants, since Florida and Michigan have always been states that do primaries and not a caucus. But do have another primary. A fair one.
She didn't break the rules. Obama removed his name to ingratiate himself with Dean and other authoritarian DNC officials.
GeorgeGlass,
I do agree with you, but I am not sure a re-vote is as easy as it sounds. A primary costs millions of dollars (I think I hear ten million) and takes some time to put together. Who pays for it? I read a comment from a Floridian who was outraged that the taxpayers would have to foot the bill of the primary. Take that times two. You might argue that the DNC and the state parties pay for it, but the parties need the money to fight McCain and to help get Dems elected. That leaves the candidates, and I haven't heard either Obama or Hillary volunteering for that. A caucus would still cost several million, but is a cheaper option than a primary.
The math for Hillary has gotten really difficult. Check out: http://www
The other candidates removed their names from the ballot and Hillary didn't despite agreeing that the delegates wouldn't be seated. When asked in October why she didn't remove her name, she said that it didn't matter since clearly the delegates wouldn't be seated. She has only started talking about this since it has become apparent that she is in desperate need of some delegates. Before that she was with the DNC. I am sorry that your state party decided to do this to it's voters. If your govenor did in fact say that Michigan could have its primary whenever they wanted, she was arrogant and dead wrong. The DNC controls the primary not the individual states.
That bullshit. I'm sure there was other crap on the ballot that brought folks out. The fact that they were stripped of delegates was in the papers, on the news for weeks if not months. Michigan and Florida so knew the rules and the voters were very informed. Since that's the case it makes them arrogant to think they can change the rules or stupid to think you wouldn't have a fight trying to do so. In which case thank goodness their votes don't count and shouldn't. They elected those dumb politicans
Given that delegates are awarded proportionately anyway, why not just split them proportionate to the % of delegates each candidates has after Pa, or the % of national votes? It will esentially get to the same point as a primary would anyway, we won't set the precident of allowing states to flaunt the party rules, it gets delegates to the Convention, doesn't disadvantage any candidate who followed the rules and will save milions of dollars. When a Republican Gov volunteers to spend millions of dollars of Republican Forida's tax dollars to help the Demos select a candidate, only a fool (or a blatant egotist) would go along with it.
Assigning them in proportion to each candidate in accordance with their percent of popular votes or delegates just perpetuates the status quo, since they would end up with the same proportion as when they started.
Exactly.
You can't base it on the popular vote. WA, IA, and some other states still haven't released popular vote totals!
The voters of Florida dis-enfranchised themselves, in effect tearing up their voter registration cards in the community in which they want to vote. The same with the voters in Michigan. If they want to have their votes counted in the Democratic Party, they should register in the Democratic Party under its rules.
In the same way I cannot go and register in another state if I am already registered in one state those are the rules of the national elections. Florida and Michigan chose to hold some sort of competition in their own separate reality not in the Democratic Party. Both states have not in any way lost their rights under the voting laws of the USA. Where is the dis-enfran
I can'' believe that there are Americans who actually WANT other Americans to be disenfranchised. It's more astonishing that this bullshit is coming from Jesse Jackson, Jr. whose father fought voter disenfranchisment his ENTIRE LIFE. This is sickening. We are supposed to be the example of Democracy around the world, yet this is what we are showing them--that the selfish desire to win is more important than people. Progressives should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Why in the HELL should the voters of other states have more rights than the voters of Florida and Michigan..
A re-do yes. Seating delegates from the non-election-NO! Seating delegates based on what took place in MI and FL would amount to circumventing the rules, punishing those that abided by the rules and would result in an exodux of voters from the DEM Party who would view this as the corrupt "fix" that it would be. Shame on the Clinton Campaign for even entertaining the idea. It speaks volumes about what they would do to prevail and what kind of corruption we would be subjected to in another Clinton Administration. I voted for Bill twice, but this campaign is getting more disgusting by the day.
No, shame on those who want to disenfranchise the Florida and Michigan voters due to something beyond the control of the VOTERS. As for Hillary's support of seating those delegates or having a new primary, all I can say is thankfully someone seems to care about the VOTERS of Florida and Michigan. How DARE Obama or his supporters not support those voters. How DARE they call themselves progressives. Digusting. Absolutely disgusting. I've been predicting for several weeks now that if the DNC chose to do something to remedy this siutation that Obama and his supporters would show their TRUE COLORS. I turned out to spot on. I KNEW they would put their selfish desire to win over the voters. They say he and his supporters are "different" and are people of "character". Right...My freakin' ass they are. The true colors are shining right through. Absolutely predictabl
OH GOOD! I thought you were going to say Hillary Clinton should have cried over Katrina, or rant about uncle Tom superdelegates. You managed to stay half classy, amazing!
Hillary is totally right! You do need to win the big states in order to win in the general election. She's stating a fact! You are all just upset because because the messiah stumbled. Funny, how she is willing to consider him as a VP, but he is not so open-minded. As a Democrat, I hope we have learned a lesson from this nomination process. Trash the current nominating process! It's unfair to voters. One person, one vote!
Obama didn't stumble. He lost by between four to eight delegates after being behind in double digits in the polls just weeks back. That's nada in the big picture.
And Hillary is wrong in saying he needs to win the big states. Democrats in New York and California are still going to vote for him if he's the nominee. What she is right about is he needs to win the SWING states in the general election. And that's where her beating him in Ohio and (if there's a re-vote) Florida, could hurt him when she argues her case to the super-delegates.
But if it comes down to her having to convince the super delegates to go against the will of the primary voters and put her in place, I think we're all in trouble.
THE SUPER DELEGATES WILL NOT GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE POPULAR VOTES.
who to say that when obama wins the nomination that he want win the big states, you act as if hillary won by a large margin in these big states. please.
The Democrats nomination process is absolutely ridiculas. We look like a bunch of idiots. The super delegates is another harebrained idea. If the Florida delegates are not seated or given the change to vote again, as a Floridian I know I will sit this one out or vote for McCain..
Mr. Jackson, as a a Florida resident I resent you insuating that my vote in the Florida primary should not be counted. I am a US Citizen and my vote should NOT be disenfranchised! Do not insulte the intelligence of Florida voters....
Florida voters should sign some kind of petition and send it to the DNC regarding their votes not being counted. The republicans moved the primary date ahead and they get punished. The DNC should re-consider or be punished itself.
I know of three petitions, and have signed them all. Here they are:
Petition # 1: read and sign petition on website: http://flo
Petition #2: sign here: http://www
Petition #3: sign petition to get Florida votes to count: http://www
..........
B.O. didn't put his name on the ballot in Michigan, because he didn't want to alienate the Iowa people. So he won Iowa, and lost Michigan, so stop whining. You weren't on the ballot, and you told the people to vote other, of which they did, and you still lost, so suck it up. Hillary was smart enough to put her name on the ballot, and she won. As for Florida, why aren't any one talking about the fact that Obama, had a campaign ad running in Florida, during the Jan primary, so to say he didn't campaign there is mute, he did and he lost. So! Suck it up, and give Hillary her vote's.
Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan because he followed the rules set out by the National Dems. My choice was Obama, but my Governor thought otherwise.
Why not a re-vote in both states? A primary. Not a caucus like Obama is asking for, as it favors him but is not the system Michigan or Florida have ever used before. Do a new primary. My guess is Hillary takes Florida and Obama takes Michigan. But neither by an amount that changes the fact that Obama will have more delegates at the end of the day.
But certainly Michigan and Florida should have the chance to have their voices heard. At the end of the primary season, rather than cutting to the front like their horrible leadership tried to do.
because the people of florida & michigan will have to pay another 18 million dollar to hold a primary. but if florida & michigan hold a caucus the state will pay for it.
Rev. Jackson Jr. ..Isn't it convenient that you want the rules strictly adhered to since H.R.C. won both Florida and Michigan. I wonder if you would be so insistant if B.O. had won those States instead.
Fact: The voters of those States are being dis-enfranchised because of these stupid rules. THAT'S what is unfair! No voter should be dis-enfrancised for any reason. All of the candidates could have let their names stay on the ballot. They chose not to. Hillary chose to. The delegates need to be seated and counted so that the VOTERS choices, which they made in good faith, are upheld.
Good points, all. However, Michigan and Florida are very different.
In Florida, the early election was forced on them by the Republican legislature. Michigan was the fault of party leaders.
Either way, of course, VOTERS should not be penalized. Not only because these are two important states, but because of the principle involved. It really WOULD be good to know, especially at this stage of the game, who these voters would choose, if allowed to experience campaigns in their states.
Clinton wants the currrent ones seated by Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot (in respect for the rules), so...that would be unfair. I don't know about the `1.7 million who voted in Florida---surely many stayed home, knowing "it won't count".
Clinton of course, hates caucuses, but redoing primaries is prohibitively expensive for the DNC to pay (I don't think Crist can get Florida tax payers to foot the bill now when the legislature wouldn't do it before).
Still, campaigns + caucuses in both states seems the fairest--and least expensive-
Since Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan, that state is, unfortunately, out in the cold. However, both Hillary and Barack were on the ballot in Florida. Those delegates should be seated in accordance with the election results. Period.
Those in Florida with a bit of intelligence didn't go to vote because we were all told it wasn't going to count. So don't now pretend a fair election was held.
So why was there a record turnout?
Loading comments…
Posted March 5, 2008 | 04:57 PM (EST)