Obama Should Think Big -- and Seat Michigan and Florida
Barack Obama should call for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated at the convention -- not as a concession to the Clinton camp or because of pressure but as an outside-the-box show of strength.
The Illinois senator has several things going for him right now: He has what everyone agrees is an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates; he has an imposing lead in total popular vote; and those facts give him this trump: superdelegates -- elected officials and party operators -- are not going coronate Mrs. Clinton in the face of all those advantages without a wildly compelling reason.
Put it another way: The superdelegates won't risk crippling the Democratic party by driving black voters out of it short of a colossal Obama collapse -- like wearing an al Qaeda flag pin while holding rallies with Jeremiah Wright. The Clinton camp has trotted out various arguments -- some quite silly -- for why the superdelegates should nominate her, but the nomination is his to lose.
But there's one argument that needs be addressed: Democrats don't want to go into the fall risking offending voters in a state they need for victory (Michigan) and one they desperately want (Florida).
So here's what Obama should do: Get bigger than the problem. Say that while the arguments against seating the delegations are all valid and helpful to him, as presumptive head of the party he needs to think of its best interests. And right now the Democrats' best interests lie in a united front in the fall. So he'll support the two states' delegations being seated.
Properly presented -- and if Barack Obama is good at anything, it's proper presentation -- it would demonstrate a position of strength.
Here's what would happen:
- The press and bloviators would go wild, entering new paroxysms of ecstasy over his ability to transcend old politics.
- The Clinton camp would be confused -- who knows, maybe they would even oppose seating the delegations out of sheer reactive instinct.
- The numbers would not change dramatically -- Obama would still have an insurmountable delegate lead and a formidable popular vote lead.
- The superdelegates, faced with more Obamamania, would have less room or reason to dislodge Obama.
Crazy? Probably. But it's time for a power play.
Loading comments…
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
Regards to Flordia and Michigan..
It's Obama's problem because, as the presumptive Democratic party nominee, he'll be the one that MI and FL voters punish at the polls for this slight.
Once Again Kicked Off my 'connection' By Charter Michigan - I've got High Speed Cable , NOT Dial Up . have my phone & TV also on Cable (no interruptions on those)
Michigan was Rigged begininng to end by the red & Blue Corporationist of this state - the same Assholes who've been Screwing US for Decades.
Media advertised the Dem Primary as "clinton the Only Dem on theBallot' Often failing to asy 'leading' (so guess Who All did not bother to Vote). the Dem Ballots werre Scrambled & fed into Pre Programmed Scam Trons.
Demographics, unions and the Nasty Effect for NAFTA alone should Prove Hillary DID NOT WIN THIS STATE IT WAS HANDED TO HER! That claim of 55% is BS!
You can't accept the MI results because not only Obama wasn't on the ballot, but a lot of dems voted in the GOP primary because they were told the dem primary wouldn't count.
As for FL I think Obama needs make the case loudly that if he and hill were to switch places, she would fight like hector to NOT seat them. Which is perfectly certain.
Bottom line, everyone agreed to the rules. How can you change the rules in mid-game?
Are you kidding? Obama give away Florida and Michigan? He has absolutly no incentive to do so, with Clinton on the ropes.
"The superdelegates won't risk crippling the Democratic party by driving black voters out of it short of a colossal Obama collapse..
No truer words have ever been spoken, er, written! The Democrats would rather disenfranchize Florida and Michigan than risk a riot at the Denver convention by black voters.
Don't you get it; Hillary doesn't care about the Black vote. She and a number of her staff believe that they can eventually replace the Black vote with the Hispanic vote. They see it as where are they going to go, the Republican Party?
That's exactly where the Hispanic vote will go - the Republican Party. Hispanics don't have any strong loyalty to the Democratic party, as we have seen in the past two presidential elections. Many Hispanics voted for President Bush. Since delegates are awarded based on how the vote went in previous elections, getting 100,000 Hispanic votes in Texas only yielded about 2 delegates for Hillary vs. 100,000 African-American votes yielding 9+ delegates for Obama. A-A's are traditionally more loyal to the Dem party and just won't vote if they don't like a candidate. *They do not vote Republican* Meanwhile, Hispanics vote for the candidate, not the party. Plus, more Hispanics tend to vote according to their traditional, Catholic values than A-A's vote according to their traditional, Baptist values. The only time religious views entered the voting booth for A-A's was in 2004 when Bush made a big stink about gay marriage (which many A-A's, especially in the south, are against), so they voted for him BECAUSE OF THAT ONE ISSUE. But usually that doesn't happen, so there are more AA democrats than there are Hispanic democrats.
Bottom line: The black vote is "worth" more to the Dems than the Hispanic vote, at least in the next two elections.
It's not that hillary thinks she can replace the black vote with the hispanics.
Hillary is sure that if she steals the nomination, the blacks will follow along in November.
After all, where else are they going to go?
Such is the way the blacks are taken advantage of these days.
I tend to agree. It looks as if the Clintons have decided that their most loyal voters are expendable. It remains to be seen whether or not the DNC agrees with this strategy.
There is one very easy way to have Florida and Michigan seated. If Hillary were to drop out of the race, is there any doubt that the DNC and Obama would act magnanimously and seat the delegations? They don't get excluded, but they don't get to decide the thing which is their punnishment.
But we all know that's not going to happen, so how about this...
Seat the delegates as elected, but don't seat the superdelegates. The voters didn't fail here, their leaders did. So punish the leaders. Exclude the superdelegates. If a democratic congressman from Florida wants to be a delegate, let him run for the privalege like every other citizen.
Hillary gets her Florida and Michigan majorities, a concession to her, Obama gets all the Michigan uncommitteds and a wash on the Superdelegates, a concession to him.
And we move on.
Now you're talking, lets move this along to those that matter and get back to the issues, the election and take the White House no matter who the nominee is.
There is no way Senator Obama wants to be fair...he does not believe in allowing people to vote and have that vote counted. Some leader!!! Sounds like George Bush.
Don't give me that 'rules are rules' nonsense. There are no rules in the Democratic Party. States are allowed to hold all combinations of Primary elections. It's like a patchwork quilt. There can be Primaries, Caucuses, combo Primary/Caucuses, two step elections, three step elections, Super Delegates and who knows what else. No wonder voters were confused when they went to cast their votes. Florida and Michigan had every right to schedule their vote on whatever date they preferred. Who is the DNC to tell States they don't have rights? Is the Democratic Party trying to redefine 'freedom' and 'democracy'?
There is no doubt that if Florida and Michigan are not seated and their votes are not counted, Senator McCain will enjoy dancing at his inaugural ball. I am sure somehow Senator Obama will find a way to blame this on Senator Clinton. After all, isn't he the Teflon man?
What’s your plan? I hear you blaming Sen. Obama for something that he didn't cause. OK then, he set the rules, and then broke them, so it’s his fault. Give me a solution. Since rules don't matter, let’s just end it now and appoint Obama as the nominee. Sen. Obama has more popular votes, more states won, and more delegates or should we follow the rules and let the rest of the states vote. Just because Sen. Obama is using the rules to his advantage when it comes to Florida and Michigan don’t blame him for using a tactical advantage. Isn’t Hillary doing the same by staying in the race?
Obama did NOT cause the tactical advantage that went his way. HRC did. HRC should have kept her name off the MI ballot, just like Obama. She also should have stayed out of the Florida fiasco. If both happened, then the onus of responsibility would have stayed clearly where it belongs: at the feet of each state's Democratic Party leaders, who dared to challenge the DNC. It's the state party leaders who gambled with their citizens' votes, and it's the state party leaders who should incur the wrath of their constituents. Instead, HRC butts into where it's none of her business, then tries to bully her way into a rules change. It's HRC who looks like the tyrant who tried to overrule everyone, so she scores big negatives for despotic behavior. Obama just sits back and watches HRC's gyrations, knowing that he doesn't have to do anything, with no real need to rescue HRC from her frenzied nonsense.
yOU SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T FOLLOW THE RULES ANYWAY.
ALWAYS,ABOUT YOU,YOU,YOU,AND THAT IS WHY THE ELECTION IS IN THE FRENZY-
THERE ARE TO MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES.
WE LIVE BY LAWS AND RULES IF YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU DON'T LIKE IT
MOVE TO CUBA AND CALL ME ON YOUR C-PHONE,
OOPS!THERE ARE RULES.
"There are no rules in the Democratic Party"
What? You need a refresher course on American politics.
Why let the genie out of the bottle? FL and MI are out of the game through no fault of Obama's he has always said he would follow the will of the DNC.
As for FL and MI not being in play come the fall even the weakest of democratic candidates should beat McCain/Bush without turning a hair.
Sen. Obama needs to show real leadership by making a public statement on a solution and not leave it up to the DNC. He has to step up and show leadership if he truly is presidential material. I personally believe he could let the vote stand in both Michigan and Florida and still beat Clinton. My problem is the message we send by changing the rules in the middle of the game. My solution is to split the Michigan vote between them and let the Florida vote stand as is, but more importantly don’t allow the Florida and Michigan Super Delegates to have a vote. This would punish the states for moving up their primaries and allow the peoples vote count and no one gets a clear advantage. Or let the vote in both states votes count, but no super delegates. If Clinton and Obama are really concerned about the peoples vote then this solution should work.
Good points. Remember, Hillary went back on her word supporting New Hampshire and Iowa -- and they're not going to forget the insult. (This was typical Clintonian maneuvering: do whatever it takes to win and worry about the mess you make another day.)
Schlesigner's idea is provocative, and Obama might want to consider a variation of it, but it's a gamble on various levels. Part of Barack's success has been a smart, conservative nomination strategy that values each and every delegate win -- as well as respects the rules.
Also, remember human nature. Have you ever watched "Big Brother"? Almost every time that someone allows themselves to go up on the block as a pawn -- thinking they have enough support to safely stay in the game -- they wind up getting their ass kicked and evicted.
The problem with this is that it will be rewarding bad behavior. If the Democrats cave and seat these delegations, even though they were warned ahead of time, there will be nothing to stop states from following suit in the next primary. Pretty soon we will be holding primaries in October or November of the year before the election. What is it that people don't get about playing by the rules?
They get it. They just don't like it because they are losing by playing by the rules. So they want to change the rules to give themselves an advantage. It's called "cheating". This whole situation illustrates Hillary's horrible character, and the win-at-all-costs and the-ends-j
A real sign of strength would be if the Democratic Party could show discipline in following its rules much like the Republicans show discipline in their party affairs. Democrats often seem to be incapable of following their rules or holding the line when the going gets tough. The meta message that the Democrats keep sending to voters is that given enough pressure the party will fold and quickly abandon its principles. This is a message of weakness not strength.
Let's have our party shows some backbone for once and follow the rules it set down. If the Democratic Party wants to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, split the vote so that the delegates can participate in the convention, formation of the platform and other party affairs while not having any ultimate power in determining the outcome of the primary election. Then we'll show the American people that we are a political party capable of taking a stand and sticking with it. In short, we'll show strength.
I completely agree with you! I have been a Democrat ever since my first voter registration card. But this is my last straw. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Dem party leaders have shown they don't know what the hell they're doing. If they turn this 2008 election into a fiasco, the DNC will never get a dime from me and I'm walking over to the Independent side.
I think that might be the best solution, as the Michigan legislature has already decided against the time and EXPENSE of hodling a do-over (not to mention the possibiltiy of the illegality of privately funding one. By splitting the delegates in half, the delegations get to participate, not influence, the people have at least some voice in the process, and HRC gets a little bounce but not her way. The real culprit in all of this is not BHO but howard Dean and the rest of the DNC for not having the spine to prevent the state legislatures in the these two states form moving the dates ahead of their stated rules,
A Simple Solution!
Apolgies if others have proposed this.
Seat the delgations as elected, but with the understanding that the delegates are not bound to vote as per the electoral results. Tabla Rasa. The candidates, get to appear before the delegations to make their case. Some surrogates - especially people 'local' to the various polities in question, should get to appear as well. Then the Florida and Michegan delegations vote, and those votes are recognized as valid by the convention.
This will still likely benefit Hillary.
The popular vote totals should not be entered into any count recognized by the party. Athough 'unofficial' they ARE playing into the debate, and their exclusion will benefit Obama.
OBAMA follow the rules Hillary did not follow the rules ! Michegan, Florida had more than six months to change their position and move date back. they thought they were going to choose the next president the courts said according to the rules
the delegates can not be counted ! Obama has the popular vote he won the most states
Hillary does not have the popular vote ! maybe your talking about the few states she has won that is not the popular vote ! ( GET OVER IT ! )
m
I didn't realize that Obama has the power to have the FL and MI votes seated - I thought that the Democratic Party controlled that... At the end of the day - the voters of FL and MI have to go back to their state governments and demand to know why their state's elected representatives passed a change to the primary voting date that would invalidate their votes and demand answers.
IT WAS A REPULICAN STRATEGY AND IT WORKED,AND NOW THE DEMOCRATES ARE
LOOKING STUPID AND WANT TO BLAME THE LEADING CANDIDATE,"OBAMA" SOUNDS
LIKE THE SAME O SAME O TO ME. CLINTONIAN AT WORK AGAIN.
REMEMBER,RON BROWN,VINCE FOSTER AND OTHERS-OH! YEA,MONICA you know who.
Obama does not have the power to seat these delegates.
That's just more of hillary's negative propaganda!!
Obama does NOT have the power to seat these delegates.
That's just hillary's latest spin!
Obama does his best to keep these states from being counted. He will NEVER agree to their seating unless he gets half the delegates. This is the 'NEW' politics he is promising all along. People from Chicago might recognize that type of politics..
Hillary won the two states before and she will again. Obama calling the states and their votes "irrelevant beauty contests" and trying to secretly kill the attempts at revotes will not endear him to voters, not now or in November.
If Obama should be the Democratic candidate, Michigan and Florida are already in McCain's column. That 's more than 45 votes in the Electoral College. If Obama wins the nomination, he will lose the election. So, Democrats have to make up their minds: do they want to have a shiny dreamer that loses the election or do they want to have a less shiny fighter who will win.
How many times to we have to listen to the same argument?
As if the original primaries were normal and reflect anything?
As if the proposed re-votes did not disenfranchise voters?
As if HRC is a lock to win FL and OH in a general election?
As if HRC is a lock to win the general election after the endless re-play of the 90s, the pardons, her lies during this campaign, etc.?
As if Obama has no way of overcoming McCain?
HRC is only a fighter during elections. And then what's the point. If she were a true progressive fighter, she would have fought the Iraq War, in spite of the risk to her political future.
Yes, yes and YES! Not only is she NOT a fighter, she is nothing near being the leader we need now! The longer this campaign goes on, the easier it is to see her weaknesses.
Sorry, but what you are saying is a huge lie. Obama has consistently said that he will support any solution to the problem the Democratic party comes up with. You see, Obama plays by the rules. He doesn't try to change the rules when they don't favor him. He recognizes that this is a Democratic party issue, not a candidate issue.
How do you propose, Bish66, that the Democratic party control its nomination process in the future if states learn they can violate party rules with no consequences?
After agreeing to abide by the rules and basing his candidacy on the fact that the elections wouldn't count and not campaining in the these two states, Obama would be a fool to agree to counting them now. Quit making the problem Obama's when Clinton agreed to the same rules.
WAAAAAAAA!!!!Obama got more votes than me! WAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to do it over! WAAAAAA!!!!!!
Another ridiculous article. You think that they are not being seated is because of OBAMA? You are twisting the facts and extending a LIE. You remind me a bit of Hillary. Why can't you simply call it what it is? It is because of Florida and Michigan. Hillary and Obama, although they cab talk about it, have NOTHING to do with it. Why keep pretending they do? That seems like a thing that LIAR Hillary would do. I've had enough of manipulation of the truth. Why not tell it like it is?
One point everyone ignores: if the delegates ARE seated, how are the rule, penalty and pledge established up front upheld? What will this tell other states to do with the primary schedule in 2012?
In order to avoid inviting chaos in 2012, some strong penalty must, in fact, be administered in order to seat the delegates of the states who broke the rules and the candidates who ignored their pledges not to "campaign or participate" in those states' primaries/caucuses.
the real solution to avoid this in 2012 is to FIX the system in the first place. There is no reason for Iowa and New Hampshire to ALWAYS go first.
There is a method to the madness of IA, NH, NV, and SC going first. It gives a good swath of the nation's different regions without being unfairly influenced by large states with large delegations. Imagine if Texas or New York went first and someone got a blowout lead there - like Hillary could have because of her name recognition, as is what happened in Florida. It would discourage participation in later states because of perceived "momentum.
There is wisdom in those four states going first. If you want to mix it up with other similarly small but representative states, sure, but keep the big boys out.
Right. But ironically enough, as party leader (the last Dem pres. administration), Hillary and Bill are the ones who came up with the primary schedule. She obviously front-loaded the primaries with states she thought she could win easily, and knock out her opponents easily. She didn't expect Obama to do so well in Iowa and on Super Tuesday. That's why we're having this problem. MI and FL defied party rules and moved their primary dates up, probably to help Hillary (the establishment candidate) - the candidate with the most name recognition in Jan/early Feb. SHAME ON YOU, MI and FL Dem leaders. You're the ones disenfranchising your voters. Isn't FL tired of being involved in some presidential election drama???????
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
