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
Does anybody think it's fair to count an election where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot??? Hillary should run in Russia where their political rules play into the kind of elections she wants to have.
Obama decided to take his name of the Ballot. He could have left his name on just like Clinton and Rep. K.
Representative Jackson, I am wearing my fingers out addressing the value of the big state strategy in the primaries, but I think it is a specious argument so I will try to be short and sweet here. There is no guarantee that a big "red" state will go to Clinton in the general election on the basis that she beat Obama there by 10 points. Some say that "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation", but if you look at its recent election history, it has gone Republican. It is better to say that since McCain won in Ohio yesterday, the odds are that Ohio will go for McCain in November. You can apply this to Florida also and to smaller "red" states like Nebraska. I doubt if it will go for Obama in November.
Conversely, it is highly unlikely that traditionally big "blue" states like California or New York are going to switch to the Republican McCain in November in a fit of pique because Obama became the nominee rather than Clinton.
A comment on your main theme: if there is a revote in Florida and Michigan (and I can see them being angry at the Democrats if they are not seated at the convention), let it take place at the end when the remaining 12 contests have been decided. I have read that Clinton would push to have them on the same day as Pennsylvania.
So who knows how many votes Hillary and Obama would get if we did include the current results out of Florida? Michigan is a wash since Obama was not on the ballot.
If Obama name was not on the ballot, it means he did not run in Michigan.
If you do not run, you get no delegate.
It sounds very simple to me.
If there is primary in Florida any day or night, result will look more like California or New York for democrats only.
The Democratic candidates pledged to pull their names off of the ballot in Michigan. The only one whom did not honor his/her pledge was Hillary.
It shouldn't be a question of what's fair to Obama or the DNC but what is fair to the voters of Florida & Michigan, and the voters everywhere who are burdened with undemocratic ideas like superdelegates. The worst part of JJJ's article is that his father started this whole non-democratic backslide mess when, so he could have the power of a few delegates at the convention, he designed this whole delegates-
Amen! I have relatives in both states and they are furious. They had nothing to do with with the DNC's ridiculous dealings. Why should they be shut out from voting? It so unfair...s
The only fair thing to do is to have an open primary in June for Michigan and Florida. Let them both vote all over again and this time count the votes and seat the delegates. The people of Florida and Michigan deserve the right to participate in the Democratic process.
Well said, and I agree.
Caucus in Michigan
Primary in Florida
Primaries in both. Are Obama supporters afraid of fair and evenly advantaged primaries?
Michigan is a Primary state. Why on earth would you change the rules there - except to give Obama a chance, that is?
No. The only fair thing to do is have a closed primary, as both FL and MI are closed primary states. If everyone is all fired up about letting the 2 states have a "re-do", as it were, they need to be done the way the states Democratic leadership designed their primaries to be. Period.
Obama and his minions are terrified of Florida and Michigan counting because they are not likely to gain from those states. So they have to find a way to argue for the disenfranchisement of voters in those two large states. It's wrong, and doubly so because the nomination battle is so close. The voters had nothing to do with the "rules" and the only candidate to have skirted those rules was Obama when he advertised in Florida. No solution is adequate that doesn't include the will of Democrats in those two states, whatever that will is.
Actually the likely scenario would be a win for Obama in a Michigan caucus and a narrow win for Clinton in Florida should these 2 states be re-contested. It is the Clinton campaign that fears the new format. There likely would be no net gain for her in delegates.
I agree with your prognostications. Obama would definitely win Michigan, and I read somewhere that Clinton really wants the Michigan delegation seated as is without a revote because she knows she would lose.
I agree that the caucus format is not a Clinton friend. So, why not another primary? At least let us have a secret ballot. I can't believe anyone would argue that an open, public vote is fair or what the founders had in mind. I think Hillary wins easily in a closed primary. Where there is no chance for Obama to 'mesmerize' the electorate, Hillary wins easily on points.
Florida needs another vote. Many people stayed home realizing that the Florida vote would not be taken into account in the final tally. Best thing to do is have another election.
I am for Obama, I am not a minion, and I welcome a new, fair and properly contested primary in both states.
Can we be a little more civil to each other?? There is no reason to call other voters names because you disagree with them.
Then if the Ice Queen gets a rerun in MI and FL she´s gonna look like the big hero to the voters of both those states. Hilldopes, it´s called cheating. I hope you´ve taught your children as much.
Leave the name calling to the Clinton supporters, when you have a superior candidate there is no need to stoop so low.
I find this laughable. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the most vitriolic behavior comes from Obama supporters. My friend is the biggest Obama supporter and she acknowledges that what she reads is often decidedly more juvenile from the Obama supporters.
As to Florida and Michigan, I have been a believer since BEFORE the elections even occurred in those states, that the delegates would have to be seated. I don't understand why Democrats are DESPERATELY TRYING to lose the election in November. If Howard Dean were half the chair he is supposed to be, a deal would have been made long ago. You would think after the election of 2000, we'd understand how IMPORTANT Florida is to a win for our party. To disenfranchise the voters of especially Florida is political suicide for the party. Florida is a swing state and this election is too important.
Despite the rules set out by the national party, clearly Obama thought Florida at least was important enough to have his name on the ballot and to have television ads throughout the state before the election. Had he won Florida, I don't think he'd be saying right now that Florida doesn't matter. Pissing off Floridians won't help his cause in a general election. If anything, they should just redo the primaries in both states.
Rev with all respect, I have seen a lot more name calling coming from Obama supporters. The words used to describe Senator Clinton would embarass Senator Obama. Bottom line we are in America and sexism seems to be quite acceptable, even on a site run by a woman.
Sept. 30, 2007 Sen. Barack Obama says he'll seat Florida delegates at the Democratic Convention
"Obama Vows To "Do What's Right"
By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 30, 2007
TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.
But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.
The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conference
Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."
Frank Sanchez, a Tampa Obama supporter who helped organize the fundraiser, said the encounter illustrates the awkward situation the candidates have been put in by the controversy over the state's Jan. 29 presidential primary.
That date - earlier than allowed by rules of both major political parties - has led to a threat of sanctions against both Florida Republicans and Democrats, and to the Democrats' boycott pledge.
"This wasn't planned," Sanchez said of the brief press availability. "He was going to the car, and he just went across the street for a moment."
According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."
The DNC has threatened to refuse to seat a Florida convention delegation because of the too-early primary, which the Florida Legislature decided on last spring. But if a candidate amasses enough delegates before the primary to ensure the nomination, that candidate would take control of the convention, including the power to seat a delegation.
State Democrats are considering asking all candidates to pledge they would seat the state's delegation.
The boycott pledge was demanded by the four states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - which are allowed to hold primaries before Feb. 5."
sounds similar to his NAFTA antics
As a Clinton supporter this sure seems like a swell idea. As an Obama supporter I say sure why not?
I don't think Hillary is going to get the 80% she'll need to make up the difference. Or did they move Miami and Detroit while I wasn't looking?
This is an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida. We have voted in Florida. We know: who won and lost. Your candidate lost. If our votes does not count and Senator Obama is the nominee of the democratic party, he has no right to be in presidential ballot in Florida. We will fight for "OPEN RIGHT IN" ballot in Florida.
Well said. Michigan and Florida should not be included.
Sure,,I guess we can decide to disenfranchise millions of voters on a whim in this country...
How could it possibly be considered fair to count the votes in states where there was no campaigning allowed and where in one of these states, only one candidate's name was even on the ballot? I can't believe this is even being discussed.
It's being discussed because anything goes in Hillary's world. She is an utterly dishonest and unethical person. She knows perfectly well that nobody had campaigned in those states.
However, Obama did campaign in Florida (Edwards and Clinton did not)
when Michigan voted, those of us in Michigan KNEW that a vote for Hillary Clinton was a vote for Hillary Clinton and a vote for UNCOMMITTED was a vote for anyone else. Hillary did NOT campaign, but there were ads urging us to vote UNCOMMITTED. Are you saying that Obama supporters are so dumb that they did not know that if they didn’t want Hillary they should NOT vote for her. HIllary got more votes in Michigan than Uncommitted and Dennis K and others who were on the ballot. There is no reason to waste money reholding elections. That is OUR time and MONEY–GAS and time off work!!! Let Hillary have the votes she EARNED in Michigan. GIVE Obama all the other votes if his supporters are going to whine. GIVE the money saved to the poor people who are on the verge of losing their homes.
People don't go stream to the polls to vote for "uncommitted" and many who did vote uncommitted were voting for candidates other than Obama. How would it possibly be fair to try to figure out who got what? You're talking about guessing and I don't see how that could be any more fair than excluding all of the votes. A revote is the only way to make it fair. Think about it. Yes, it stinks but it is the way it went down.
Sorry Sport.
But there is no doubt that many Obama supporters didn't show up because their candidate's name wasn't on the ballot.
These people did not have a chance to express their will. Rules are rules. There are all kinds of rules that don't support our individual desires. But we have to abide by them.
Too bad about the wasted gas, there's a shortage you know. I hope you enjoyed the time off work.
Tsunami I'm all those things, I'm from Michigan, I lost my job three years ago, I'm dying from the cost of gas and my mortgage and I can't sell my house and move.
But I'll tell you what, they need to have a redo or not count the states. The majority of people simply don't follow politics closely enough to know that writing in the candidates name was not allowed. Lots of folks didn't vote at all because it was stated that the primary didn't count. And then I know personally two folks that voted for Kucinach only because he was the only other real name on the ballot. Not only that, but how many folks really knew who Obama was, what he stood for or whether they liked him or not in January without them campaigning in the state?
To save money I'm fine with a caucus or a mail in vote. But you can't count just the votes you like.
As a general principle, voters in a particular state should be equally as important and count the same as in any other, including Michigan, but this really is more an issue of fairness and process. For example, what about the very real possibility that because Obama did not appear on the ballot, a number of voters who would otherwise have voted for him did not go to the polls (same could be said for Edwards, Biden, etc.)? And what about the fact that, if it had been known in advance that Michigan's delegates would be seated, the candidates would have campaigned there actively, which almost certainly would have produced a different outcome than the one that did occur? Short of a full re-vote with adequate time for the remaining candidates to campaign, it seems tenuous at best to say the earlier results, which all candidates agreed would not count, should now count. And even a full re-vote is arguably unfair to the candidates who were in the race at the time but are no longer.
Rep Jackson , I have heard you several times on conservative Chicago talk radio (yet to hear Barack on any at all) First , you would be a better candidate than either Barack or Hillary.Se
After the fight over delegates from Fl & Mi is over & the convention in Denver selects Sen Clinton or Sen Obama to top the ticket-I hope that you, Rep Jackson, are among those calling for unity among Democrats to prevent Sen McCain from moving into the White House. Since the always unsavory Pres Geo W Bush endoresed Sen McCain today, 3/5/08 & Sen McCain gleaffully accepted & thanked W for endorsing him-we must see Sen McCain as a radid reactionary who's unfit to become POTUS.
Thank you Mr. Jackson. Now we are finally able to see how, for the longest of time, the Clintons were able to con this country and get away with it. Rules have never applied to them, including deals agreed up upon, signed and sealed. They are always pushing the boundary, 'depending on what the definition of is, is, or the vast Right Wing conspiracy made Billon get a BJ from Lewinsky, not his lust and Hillary's sexual failings..
Loading comments…
Posted March 5, 2008 | 04:57 PM (EST)