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

[LyricalLexicon]

As a Florida voter it pisses me off that we have been stripped of our constitutional right to have our voices count. The people of Florida weren't asked if we wanted a moved up primary. The Democratic primary was moved up by a REPUBLICAN governor and a REPUBLICAN state congress yet me and other Florida voters are being penalized for something we had no control over. If Florida is ignored in the primary there may be hell to pay come November for Obama. How could he honestly come here this fall asking for votes in the general after not asking for our votes to count in the primary knowing this crap wasn't the voters fault?

[mijumom]

We all want your voted to count! Yes it stinks that it went down the way it did. How about a revote?

This is not the voters' fault or Obama's. The DNC has to figure it out.

[kat7]

I agree! We will fight for "OPEN RIGHT IN" ballot in Florida if our votes are ignored.

Do you think Mr. Jackson will say the same thing if South Carolina or Georgia involved here?

They know they have ZERO chance of winning either Florida or Michigan. We know what happened to Obama in Ohio. Michigan is very much similar to Ohio. If Obama can not win California or Texas, he has no prayer to win in Florida even if campaigns for the whole year.

[parose10]

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with how the Democratic party chooses to select their candidate. The constitutional right that does apply is your right to start your own party.

[bjorn]

Why shouldn't there be a revote? It sounds like you want to disenfranchise FL and MI voters. BTW what is so democratic about caucuses? You are against superdelegates but for the well educated,elite voters who dominate caucus states?? Makes no sense.

[Countess]

This is completely unfair to Hillary. She has every right to change any rule she doesn't agree with. Remember she is a fighter and okay she's more like Mike Tyson than Ali but so what. She runs the party even before she has been crowned and I hope when she is crowned she gets a decent question about world affairs that she has already memorized and not a question that will tax her brain.

[Northernmom]

Neither Michigan voters or Florida voters were given the choice of date to vote. The State Legislatures each established the primary dates. In Florida all candidates were on the ballot. Lucky Floridians weren't bombarded with ads for candidates, they just voted. Clinton won handily. In Michigan, party officials asked all candidates to remain on the ballot. Clinton said she planned to be President of all 50 states and would not remove her name from any ballot. Edwards could probably have done well in Michigan had he kept his name on the ballot. That may have changed the outlook of the race.

The voters rights are the most important. The only disenfranchised voters will be those whose votes are determined not to count, based on some ridiculous arcane party rule. Just because a candidate wasn't on a ballot, doesn't mean the election isn't legitimate. Obama and Edwards took their names off Michigan's ballot for political reasons, especially not to hurt their chances in Iowa and New Hampshire. Kucinich and Clinton stayed on Michigan's ballot. Obama and Edwards supporters were encouraged to vote for "Uncommitted". Clinton still won 55% of the vote.

Michigan is a state with big economic problems. Our legislators moved the primary date to make our situation more relevant to all the candidates. To say that the almost 600,000 votes that were cast in the primary don't count is against the American principles we stand for. A do-over election is not only costly for a state that can ill-afford it, it borders on un-American. Let's get this party unified and spend Democratic party money where it should be spent - defeating Republicans.

[RedBirdy]

Awww, one person using there name to get ahead tearing down and ripping apart another that is accused of using name recognition. Right or wrong, If the shoe were on the other foot Rep. you Obamaniacs would be doing what Hillary Clinton is doing. And if memory serves me correctly, in MI, if you didn't want to vote for Clinton you voted uncommitted. I believe that was 44 percent, so those people clearly didn't just vote for her just because her name was on the ballot.

[YellerDawg]

Congressman Jackson wouldn't have been elected if his name were John Smith, Jr., either. Why doesn't the congressman want to respect the will of the people of Florida and Michigan? Obama's argument sounds more like Republican strategy than Democratic strategy. Maybe that"s why he wants Rethuglicans on his cabinet.

[gmc940]

The Michigan and Florida primaries do not count. That is how the rules were laid down, and the Congressman does a good job of clearly and concisely laying out the timetable of what happened.

It is dishonest and disingenuous for Senator Clinton to repeatedly say that she won Michigan when her opponents were not even on the ballot. Let's remember that her campaign thought caucusing in Casinos was unfair (even though she later benefited from it), that Caucuses in general are unfair (this is a new one, have never heard this complaint before), and that anytime something doesn't favor her campaign, it is unfair and undemocratic. And yet, we should believe that she would consider it fair if she lost a disqualified primary where her name was not on the ballot?

Let's be honest, play by the rules, refrain from the name calling and negative tactics and just see who the people pick, and then support that candidate. This year should be a watershed election, and either candidate will likely rout Senator McCain (a remarkably weak candidate) and start to reverse the damage of seven years of incompetence, malfeasance and corruption. The only way the Democrats lose is if this process is perverted and a large portion of the electorate is turned off.

[Michiganian]

Clinton was against the January Michigan and Florida primaries before she was for them.

Here’s the statement from Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager (From NY Times Sept 1, 2007): "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

[GLaB]

The pledge was to not campaign there - which she didn't.

[nancy50]

But Obama ran ads in Florida.

[Dem02020]

We have to pull out all the stops, and do whatever is necessary, to prevent the People (Democrats) of Florida and Michigan from being represented at the Democratic Convention in Denver this August.

We have to make whatever argument we can make, to keep those delegates representing those more than two million Democrats who voted in Florida's and Michigan's Democratic Primaries, to keep them from attending the Convention, and from participating in the nomination process.

But we have to be careful, and not appear to be making an argument that disenfranchises voters, and prohibits People from participation in the Democratic process, and from being heard and being represented, in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

We have to be careful not to appear undemocratic, because it might seem to oppose the very name of the Party (Democratic), and to oppose the very principle of a Democracy: that the People participate, without exclusion bias discrimination or disenfranchisement, in the election of their Government.


We have to make this argument, and keep Florida and Michigan out of the nomination process, but we have to be careful how we do it, and how it makes us appear.

[RedBirdy]

Disenfranchising FL is not a smart idea... that seems like the wrong state to fuck with. Besides, those voters should be able to have their voices heard. If we want it more fair, let's have a do over.

[YellerDawg]

You are absolutely correct. We wouldn't want Democracy sneaking into the Democratic Party.

[Ratel]

why keep them out? its not the voters fault? The tone you are setting is the wrong one.
You should be open to them voting again and making themselves heard. Of course the vote as it stands now is unacceptable. I'm not even clear Hillary is asking for that . If she is, then she's not as smart as we thought she was because just counting those votes as if there was a campaign is completely unacceptable. They could however, revote. Maybe on the same day as Pennsylvania.

And if the shoe was on the other foot, as someone said, I don't think Obama would be making the same reckless statements. He wouldn't want to burn the bridge of the democratic party just to get himself across the river.

[Rule Of Law]

Jesse, as I have speculated since the MI and FL deal went down--this is nothing more than an undisguised power grab on the part of Hillary and her rovian handlers! And as it has been noted on the blogs today, her "victory" in two of the most electorally scandal ridden states in the Union is merely the first in three moves that she must make in order to be the candidate come Fall. The other two are the Super Delegates, who traditionally have gone to party machine pros with all the inside connections, and your issue, the FL and MI question.

Based on her history and party connections, I fully expect that Hillary will, by virtue of the gift of Florida and Michigan by party officials, and the then, sudden swing of the super delegates to her cause (after much behind closed doors infighting) to be nominated; despite Obama's popular winning vote totals. This will play in the press as the second coming of Hillary, the miracle that will propel her into the White House, and the MSM is working feverishly to make that a reality!

So, Jesse, good luck keeping it real, because 8 more years of Hillary's neo-dem agenda will throw earth over the body of the Nation that George Bush has managed to crush.

[Jazz42]

I agree with you on all points.
It's not going to work. There is a group being formed called Americans for Democracy Blackout. We will be watching how the nomination is going. If Senator Obama meet all the critera to become the nominee in November.
And the nomination is taken away from him. We are going to boycott the Democratic voting process. We will vote for the gree party candidate.
(Rule Of Law)

[Rule Of Law]

Been hearing of rumors re a gathering of concerned, unaligned, citizens in Denver for the Convention. Many folks, apparently, very upset that the media has controlled the meme and marginalized so many excellent candidates, while narrowing the focus of the debates to topics they want us to hear. So, again apparently, voices will be raised in Denver on behalf of the People. Hope to hear more about this as we move forward.

That said, and there being really no difference in practice between Dems and Repubs--look at what we've gotten out of the Dems since we took over in 06, Nothing!--if Hillary were somehow elected, my best case scenario would be her immediate impeachment for any variety of things, and the ascendancy of a Chris Dodd or John Edwards to the throne! Terrible, I know, but the Green Party needs--pun intended--more grass roots support in local politics before it can be a true national force, and I just feel that a Dem will be a little more manageable than a Repub. Locally I continue to work for the green cause and encourage everyone nationally to do so!