Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan
Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean came out of hiding last week to announce that there is no reason to rush to resolve the fate of Florida and Michigan. He said he was confident that these delegations, disqualified in 2007 by Dean's own Rules Committee, would be seated at the August convention -- but, apparently, only after a nominee is chosen, which he predicted would occur by July 1. This modern-day Metternich, whose two-fisted handling of this two-state controversy has already had more impact on the 2008 race than his candidacy did on the race in 2004, is promising to mediate the dispute once it's already settled.
The Dean plan is that these two swing states -- big enough to decide the nomination or general election -- will eventually be granted "virtual" seats at the convention because, as Dean imaginatively put it in an AP interview, "the campaigns believe that kind of deal is premature right now." Since one campaign (Hillary Clinton's) was amenable to redoes, even financing Michigan's, and the other campaign (Barack Obama's) opposed every feasible proposition, it is, in a strange way, true that the two sides weren't collectively ready for a deal.
In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.
Of course, the column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished adds up to less than the attention devoted to, say, the Wyoming caucus, where a 2,066-vote Obama margin gave him a big enough delegate boost to virtually cancel out Hillary Clinton's 329,000-vote margin in the five March races.
The body count that the mainstream media has regurgitated out of Florida and Michigan is that 2.3 million Democrats voted in primaries that broke the rules, leaving the DNC with no choice but to level both villages, even if the collateral damage might include the party's prospects of carrying those disenfranchised states in November. The DNC and the MSM appear to have simultaneously concluded that even Clinton's 300,000-vote win in Florida, where both candidates competed on a level playing field, shouldn't be counted in the popular vote tally, a calculation that appears nowhere in DNC rules and turns 1.7 million Democratic voters into ghosts.
The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.
If that sounds like a curious way to end a nominating contest that 30 million to 33 million voters will participate in before it's done, even stranger is that the DNC is following only some of its rules -- and that the real culprits who caused this debacle are Republicans, who are now relishing the catfight they provoked.
Dems Take the Hit for the GOP
The Republican role is not some irrelevant anecdote. The DNC is charged, under its rules, to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a "good faith" effort to abide by the party's electoral calendar, and to impose the full weight of its available penalties, namely a 100 percent takedown of a state's delegation, only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved. So the fact that it was Republicans who fomented the move-up of primaries in both these states to dates out-of-line with the DNC calendar is at the heart of the matter.
The rules also demand that the DNC's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct "an investigation, including hearings if necessary" into these matters. The purpose of such a probe is to figure out if Democratic leaders in a state that did move up "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith" to either "achieve legislative changes" to bring a state into compliance or to "prevent legislative changes" that took a state out of compliance. A DNC spokesman could not point to any real "investigation" the party conducted of the actions of "relevant Democratic party leaders or elected officials," as the rules put it. All that happened with Florida, for example, was that two representatives of the state party made a pitch for leniency immediately before the Rules Committee voted for sanctions.
What a probe might have discovered was a rationale for doing, at worst, what the RNC did to its own overeager primary schedulers in the same two states -- cutting the delegations by half. That's precisely the penalty specified in DNC rules, but the committee, exercising powers it certainly had the legal discretion to exercise, upped the ante as far as it could. In a bizarre reversal of public policy, the RNC, surely aware that the principal miscreants in both states were Republicans, applied a sane yet severe sanction. The Democrats opted for decapitation.
The presumption of much of the national coverage about Michigan, to start with, has been that the Dems did this one to themselves -- a presumption based, in large part, on Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's endorsement of a January 15 vote, a date far ahead of the anticipated February 9 primary. All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill. The bill originated in a Republican-controlled Senate and passed by a 21-to-17 straight party-line vote -- with every Democrat casting a no vote.
Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is, like Granholm, seen as a prime player behind the state's acceleration of the primary calendar. But Crist isn't half the Florida story; Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush protégé who runs the nearly 2-to-1 Republican Florida House, drove that bill through the legislature like it was a tax cut limited by law to top GOP donors.
Indeed, the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no- man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats.
Michigan: Republicans on the Bench and in the Statehouse
Let's start with Michigan, whose Democratic chair Mark Brewer is a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the national party and in that capacity voted to sanction Florida -- a pretty good indication that he wasn't a great champion of challenging the DNC calendar in his own state. Brewer in fact declared the Republican-sponsored move-up bill unacceptable from the start.
When it weaved its way through the divided Michigan legislature last August, only 29 of the state's 75 Democratic legislators (in the House and Senate) supported it. A week after the bill cleared the Senate over unified Democratic objections, these 29 Democrats in the House voted for it, precisely the same number that voted against it or abstained (22 and seven). It was 38 Republican yes votes in the House that made it law. While Democrats like the governor, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell favored moving the primary date up, it was a Republican state senator, Cameron Brown, who proposed the January 15 date. Levin and Dingell only supported that date when they concluded that the DNC was allowing other states, like New Hampshire, to defy the party's prescribed schedule while threatening Michigan with sanctions if it shifted its date.
And Levin and Dingell certainly weren't calling the shots for the Democrats in the legislature. Andy Dillon, the Democratic House speaker who'd voted for the move-up initially, walked away from the early primary in November, almost a month before the DNC voted to strip the state of its delegation. When two court rulings found the move-up bill unconstitutional for technical reasons, giving Democratic state legislators who initially voted for it a chance to reconsider, they took it. Dillon and his House Democrats refused to support a bill that would've protected the January 15 date from threatened judicial cancellation by correcting the technical deficiency. The Senate, again voting along party lines, quickly adjusted the bill to the court decisions, but Dillon refused to allow a vote in the House. All of this suggests a "good faith" effort to block an early primary -- as required by DNC rules.
Had not the state's highest court overturned the earlier decisions by a 4-to-3 vote just days before absentee ballots had to be mailed out, the early primary would not have been held. Significantly, all four of the judges who voted to allow the election were Republicans, and two of the judges who voted against it were Democrats.
In fact, it was a Democratic political consultant who brought the lawsuit that almost killed the primary. While the Republican state party filed an amicus brief in support of the bill, the Democrats took a barrage of editorial potshots in the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Flint Journal, and other papers for refusing to stand up for the state's interest. Salivating over all the attention and revenue that would come with an early primary, the papers accused Democrats of "withering," "carrying water for presidential candidates," and "blocking a bill to rescue the election." State GOP chair Saul Anuzis declared: "The Michigan Democrats and the House Democrats in particular appear willing to blow up the primary for petty, political, selfish, self-preservationist motives, to protect their hides."
Even before the court rulings, 19 Democrats in the House co-sponsored an October bill to repeal the one that authorized the election, including eight members who'd initially voted for the January 15 date. That bill was doomed from the outset since the Senate would never agree, but it was a measure of how fiercely Democrats had come to oppose the early primary. The ultimate result in Michigan, with a triumphant Clinton the only major candidate on the ballot, is, without a doubt, a Republican result.
In Florida, Crushed by a Republican Supermajority
The Republicans don't just control both houses of the Florida legislature. Their combined 103-to-57 majority allowed them to dictate the terms of the bill that moved the primary to January 29. It is true that all but one of the state's Democratic legislators supported the bill. But a closer look reveals that vote to be more an indication of a realistic and productive compromise with the ruling Republicans than any intent to breach Democratic rules.
Florida's leading news outlets, just like Michigan's, converted an early primary into a matter of state patriotism, and that point of view, coupled with the mathematical inability to even slow the Republican push, forced Democrats to roll over.
Another factor attracting Democratic votes in the legislature for the bill was one the DNC should certainly appreciate. Governor Crist threw a reform long sought by Florida Democrats into the bill: a mandatory paper trail for all votes cast in future elections. "The Democrats have been fighting for a paper trail bill since 2000," said State Senator Nan Rich, "and Governor Bush never would support it. So finally we got a governor who was willing to support it and it ended up connected to the early primary bill. That was unfortunate. If the paper trail hadn't been there, I believe we Democrats would've all voted no. Still, if all the Republicans had voted one way and all the Democrats had voted another way, the bill would've passed." (This Christmas tree bill -- whose title alone was 154 lines long -- had something special for everyone. It would even enable Crist to run as John McCain's vice presidential candidate, revoking a ban against state officials running for federal office.)
But "the driving force behind the move," as the Tampa Tribune put it, was 36-year-old House speaker Marco Rubio, who announced that pushing the primary up was a top goal before he took over the House at the start of 2006. Branded a "Jeb acolyte" by the Florida press, Rubio, a Cuban from West Miami married to a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was given a gold samurai sword by Bush in a passing-of-the-conservative-mantle gesture in 2005. Rubio is a member of a wired Florida law firm whose chairman is so close to Bush that he rushed down to the county jail when the governor's daughter Noelle was arrested on a drug-related charge. When Rubio's term as speaker ends later this year, he is slated to go to work for a think tank headed by a Jeb Bush business associate. The primary bill originated with Rubio and ultimately passed the House unanimously -- but only after Democrats made what they knew would be a losing effort to alter it.
Martin Kiar and Mary Brandenburg, House Democrats who were cosponsors of the bill, tried to amend it. "We offered an amendment on the floor shifting the date to one within the Democratic party rules," said Brandenburg. "The Democrats all voted for it, and Republicans all voted against it." Actually, the Kiar/Brandenburg proposal did not completely comply with DNC directives, but it was a signal of the concerns Florida Dems had about the move-up legislation. Said Kiar: "No matter what, whether we supported it or cosponsored it, the Republican majority was going to push it through."
When the DNC sanctioned Florida, it critiqued the efforts of the Democratic leaders in both houses, suggesting that they'd merely gone through the motions of feigned opposition. But the House cosponsor of the bill, David Rivera, literally laughed on the floor at the Democratic amendment, according to the House Democrats. Going through the motions was all the outgunned Democrats could do. A DNC critic of Florida Democrats was reduced in a recent New York Times op-ed to citing remarks supporting the early primary made by state leaders after it was a fait accompli, likely because she couldn't make a case about their conduct before the Republican legislature set the date.
Some Democrats Are More Equal Than Others
The Democratic national committeeman who introduced the motion on the party's Rules Committee to deprive Florida of all its delegates -- a precursor to the Michigan decision a few months later -- was Ralph Dawson, a New York lawyer who was Howard Dean's Yale roommate and an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign. Dawson's role was seen as a signal of Dean's appetite for a kick-ass rebuke.
As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.
The national party had tried -- before New Hampshire's case wound up on its docket -- to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.
Though Dawson and others on Rules now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that's not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day "prior to or after the dates" spelled out by the DNC.
That's why Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would "grudgingly support the waiver," warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that "the days of 'privilege' may end soon."
Not only did "first-primary-or-die" New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire's. But New Hampshire's Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19. That unilateral decision -- which the Carolina Democrats declined to join in -- forced New Hampshire's hand. The waiver was, in other words, a reasonable response to a Republican provocation. What's unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another. (Once New Hampshire moved, Iowa had to adjust as well. South Carolina Democrats ultimately made a minor switch for other reasons.)
While the DNC implicitly challenged the "good faith" of the Democratic opposition to the Republican moves in Florida and Michigan, it seemed far less interested in gauging what New Hampshire Democrats were doing. The head of the South Carolina GOP actually traveled to Concord, New Hampshire, to announce the decision to move his state's primary up. He stood in the Executive Council chambers of the statehouse with Secretary of State William Gardner and Representative James Splaine, a Democrat who led the legislative efforts to protect the state's first-primary tradition.
Democratic governor John Lynch was at a funeral when the press conference occurred, but his spokesman said Lynch "has faith in Bill Gardner" and "supports whatever Bill decides." And Lynch, who had already derided the DNC decision to put Nevada ahead of New Hampshire, was clearly pleased that the acceleration of the South Carolina Republican primary date was giving Gardner all the justification he needed to squeeze back ahead of Nevada. New Hampshire officials even called the maneuver an "alliance" with South Carolina Republicans. Gardner promptly chose a new date 11 days before Nevada, defying the schedule that the DNC had issued.
The RNC, a veritable model of consistency in these matters, stripped New Hampshire of half its delegates over the date change, even though it was unmistakably prompted by the Republican maneuver in South Carolina. But Howard Dean and company held their fire this time, examining extenuating circumstances with an understanding they refused to extend to Michigan and Florida. In the end, they changed the rules in the middle of the game, throwing the book at some states and discarding it altogether for others.
The inconsistency on New Hampshire aside, DNC officials have come up with one other argument for why they were so tough on Michigan and Florida. Dean's spokesman Damien LaVera said in an email to Huffington Post that, despite the unmistakable references in the rules to testing the "good faith" of a state's "elected officials" and examining a state's "legislative" efforts, the DNC's rules "apply to a state party plan, not state legislatures or elected officials." LaVera insisted that the only standard their Rules Committee judges compliance by is what state parties do, and that the parties in Michigan and Florida had options other than the state-designated primaries. A DNC official claimed that the Michigan party had sponsored so-called "firehouse caucuses" in the past and could have set their own date and done them again, ignoring the state-run January 15 primary. The Florida party, the DNC source added, was "offered $880,000" by the DNC to host their own caucus on a date in compliance with the DNC schedule and chose to participate, instead, in the state-financed primary, a "bad faith" decision.
But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.
Obama's Backers--and the Road to the Nomination
The DNC critique of Florida's noncompliance included a reference to the fact that a Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. Obama even named Ring's 2006 campaign manager to run his statewide Florida effort. Ring was such a champion of the early primary that when Obama, like all the other candidates, supported the sanctions and agreed not to campaign in the state, Ring withdrew his endorsement.
When Governor Crist signed the bill at a ceremony in West Palm Beach, the man at his side was Bob Wexler, the chair of Obama's Florida campaign. Wexler wasn't there because he wanted to defy Howard Dean. He was there for the same reason that almost all the Democrats in the legislature voted for the bill. He is the state's leading foe of paperless voting systems and filed two suits against them. He saw the bill as the governor's fulfillment of a campaign pledge "to make Florida a model state for the nation in terms of our election system."
Similarly, all three of the House Democrats who endorsed Obama -- Coleman Young II, Bert Johnson, and Aldo Vagnozzi -- voted in favor of the bill to push the Michigan date forward. When Obama later took his name off the Michigan ballot, Young and Johnson became sponsors of the bill to cancel the election they had just voted to authorize.
The support of Obama's principal backers in both states for the move-up bills was hardly consequential, but it does raise questions about his current opposition to any counting or recounting of these states. If bad faith is the DNC's standard, Obama doesn't have to look too far to find alleged examples of it, and to recognize that the national party might be unfairly characterizing what the leaders in these states did.
Imagining a convention without delegations from these large and politically volatile states has become the nightmare of every thinking Democrat. Polls indicate that a nominee who refuses to count the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in a level-playing field primary, or to find a way for them to vote again, will wind up wasting whatever time and money he or she spends there in the general election campaign. As close as the general election vote in Michigan has been in recent years, even a small margin of voters disgruntled by the state's Democratic lockout could push it into the GOP column. Obama's stonewalling about both states may offer short-term advantages, but two delegations denied seating because of his maneuvers may well be seen as contrary to his populist rationale now -- and crippling to his candidacy in November.
Ed Pozzuoli, the Republican chair of Broward County, recalls the Florida showdown of 2000, when he says Democrats taunted Republicans, insisting that they should "let every vote count." He gloats now: "I guess that's changed in eight years." He's hardly the only one chortling over the likely consequence of what he calls the "draconian" Democratic spiking of his state's delegation.
What started out years ago as Howard Dean's 50-state organizing strategy for the national party now looks like a 48-state electoral one. Michigan and Florida could become the Ralph Nader of 2000, the great regret that delivers the country once again to four years of darkness.
Research assistance by: Kimberly Chin, Shaunna Murphy, Shea O'Rourke, Marguerite A. Suozzi, Adam Weinstein and John Wilwol.
Research support for this article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund.
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
For me, this is a non-starter. To think that the DNC envisions that it is anything but painful to not allow primaries in any state is ludicrous. To have taken this action in Michigan and Florida may indeed have some deeper meaning relative to the Republicans than the article indicates. If you have full State Congresses voting to move primaries for BOTH or either partie's primaries then that is a problem to begin with. Since both Michigan and Florida were controlled by Republicans, perhaps the DNC is sending a message that no matter how painful, their attempted manipulation of Democratic Party primary rules will not be tolerated. In a general election Florida is a red state anyway, and Michigan probably so. This was most obviously taken into account by the DNC in their decision NOT to count those states. Since they are "all or none" in a general election, the Democratic vote there will most likely not count anyway, baring some really strange happenings which could overcome the Republican candidate's chances in those states in the fall. Still, both Democratic candidates knew well in advance those States would not be counted, and to insist otherwise now is wrong and you all know it. Many people stayed home because of it. There is no provision in either State Constitution to allow a re-vote, and so they just have to eat this one. Life will go on, the birds will chirp and the flowers bloom.
"All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill."
Isn't that what Governors do?
You lost me after that.
Hey, finally some press on how it all happened.
Why has all this been kept such a secret?
I live in Florida and I haven't been informed of all this maneuvering.
You know in our town a front page story is the Gators win or the Gators lose.
But I know the newspaper that give you the best Gator coverage supported
Obama in January and so I've canceled it this March.
It is glaring the lack of information on this, is it not?
It makes you question these leaders who are leading us to the New Dawn.
How about a Bush-like Crist-Obama ticket-- since neither of them wants the Dem vote in Florida counted. I am sure Al Gore would agree, as usual, for a price.
Why don't you stick to your republican boards instead of posting your hate toward all the democrats one or two at a time. Why not talk of the lies, ties to telecom bed fellows , ties to war contractors , ties to Britain which he helps send our jobs to McCain you republican candidate.
Republicans have no candidate worst a s... so they go on the democratic web sites knocking every democrats they can.
Shame you (republicans) have the news media so d... bias in their reporting , they refuse to publish the corruption of the repblicans and make up half a... BS about the democrats because there is nothing good to say about their republican candidate.
I see you have the same opinion as the author. After reading that entire tome, there was no new or relevant information except for the usual "blah, blah, blah, the republicans. blah, blah, blah, the right. blah, blah, blah, bushs fault."
I have a really simple thought for you. Howard Dean F'ed up and now you're whining. It was the DNC that created this entire problem. When it was decided to move MI and FL dates, the RNC said you get half your delegates and the Republicans arent having whining matches. DNC wanted to try and play hardball and you see the results.
Your OWN people created this quagmire. All the DNC candidates played by the rules except Hillary and now she wants the rules changed. Sorry Hillary, the rules arent going to change until "WE are the President" again. With a very short stretch of the imagination, the author wants to tell us that the right is trying to pick the DNC candidate though Hillary is still expecting her coronation. There was only one candidate that the left and MSM played up for the republicans. They were under an assumption that McCain would be the most easily defeatable. Unfortunately, Howard Dean has created mutually assured destruction of BOTH democrat candidates (with a little push from Limbaugh).
All I can say is "Would you like some cheese with that whine?"
This article lacks an important point. Didn't Clinton AND Obama agree the votes wouldn't count? This article fails to mention that fact. Hillary knew ahead of time the vote wouldn't count. I wasn't aware of some of the statements made in this article, but it doesn't change my mind. It seems to me as if this wouldn't be an issue if the tables were turned.
I posted a set of questions before but I have a few more. If it were Obama that was behind in the pledged delegates, popular vote, contests won and the amount of "super delegates"gained, would you be calling for him to drop out? Would the media take him seriously? How many so-called "super delegates" has she gained? I try to be fair but you Hillary supporters are perfect for her campaign. You want to bend and twist the rules to suit your purpose. This is what the Clintons have been known for. Hillary has issued her first signing statements!
Why is there an hint that Barack Obama had anything to do with the "Rules" set by the DNC.
At the time the Democratic contenders agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.
Let's call a spade a spade-- Dean of the DNC screwed up. Hillary should go after him not Barack now that she wants to change her mind on the issue.
The GOP will help to determine the Democratic nominee -- but only if the Dems allow it.
www.vernas
That is clearly the point. Present a lot of words to try to make your point. Some people think if a person writes a lot of words, they must know what they are talking about. Why would someone go through so much trouble to write so many words if it weren't true? How many people do you think buy educational books that are thick? They often feel there is more content contained within. The author of this article has played on this assumption. He wrote a whole-lot-
Now I have to ask, if the Hillary supporters want to follow the rules, do they want the NH votes to cut in half? That will hurt her in the long run. The rules can bite you in the ass sometimes. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!
Pro-Clinton much?
Sheesh. Some of you act like Obama planned this all along. You want to blame someone, blame Dean for his ham-fisted approach to the whole problem. And to Clinton for a) staying on the ballot in Michigan to hedge her bets, and b) for flying down to Florida for "just a little fund-raising" and - oh - a not-so-subdued celebration after she "won" the state.
And yeah, blame Obama for not pushing harder for a revote. Then again, why should he have? It was a party screwup, let the party fix it. Yeah, the party that, behind closed doors, is still highly pro-Clinton. Hell, you can't even go to Democrats.
I think a lot of venting is occurring here. Stick to the facts and leave your highly opinionated chips right on your shoulders.
I'm not sure you read my post. I'm not pro-Clinton at all. I simply asked a few questions to Clinton backers if they would feel the same way if it were Obama trying to count votes he knew ahead of time wouldn't count. Please re-read.
Ok, since none of you can come up with a viable solution, consider this one. How about both MI and FL set a date to hold primaries or caucuses, give both candidates time to campaign in each state, and then hold the primary or caucus.
How can the Hillary supporters claim victory when there was no contest? How can Obama supporters not want there to be a re-vote? If this scenario takes place, things won't change very much, but at least it will show some sort of fairness. It is hard for me to understand how this article leaves out the fact that both Hillary and Obama BOTH realized the votes wouldn't count. Therefore, neither campaigned in these two states.
This question I asked in another post on this site, if Hillary was ahead and Barack won FL and MI but the votes didn't count, would any of you Hillary supporters whine the same way? And, using the same scenario, wouldn't you Obama supporters be upset that the votes you won, in a state you agreed wouldn't count, didn't count? No one has answered those questions for me. I've stated before I'm an Obama supporter but I try, even if I don't succeed, to see both sides. I'm really not asking these questions to those of you who have already decided you will vote for McCain if your candidate doesn't win. You aren't good for the party because you are like little brats that don't get their way.
Just as I thought. Does anyone really want to solve this issue? I'm starting to wonder if both sides would just say their side is right without coming up with a solution that is fair. Both sides want it to go their way. Unbelievable!! Do any of you ever wonder why we always lose?
How is a revote not a viable option? The only possible rationale to object that you're convinced Obama would lose. In which case, the original results may as well stand.
"...Clinto
**** Not true.
Hillary skirted (apparently legally) her agreement with the DNC by attending 3 rallies in Florida disguised as "fund raisers" the weekend before the vote.
"...the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal
**** Again, not true.
The calls for Hillary's withdrawal are rooted in two factors:
1.) Barring a stunning revelation pertaining to Obama's character (which will never happen), there is virtually NO chance that she can win.
2.) Her "kitchen sink" approach of 100% negative campaigning is tearing the Democratic Party apart, and people are reacting accordingly.
Every single day, the op-eds and posts by people are building to a majority demand for Hillary to pack it in.
The sooner, the better.
You guys must be Obama supporters? For your information Howard Dean is at the root of the problem. He allows New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina to move up their dates, but punishes Michigan and Florida for the very same transguration, because he wants Obama to win. Hope the rest of the states dump Obama, his only change is no change, he lifts ideas from every where and tries to pass them as his own. To me he acts to much like George Bush with no clue. So far no mention of the changes that he is talking about.
Uh, Michigan and Florida were "punished" way back in Fall 2007. You know, back when Hillary was supposed to be a shoe-in for the nomination. So the fact that Florida and Michigan chose to make their votes irrelevant by capriciously flouting the rules has nothing to do with Dean wanting or not wanting Obama to win. By the way, your hero Hillary enthusiastically signed off on the punishment back in 2007.
I would suggest that you cool the drumbeat, unless you want to insure a November loss! Let's not forget that some of Clinton's main supporters come from what has always been the core of the Democratic party. Do you really want to alienate 50% of traditional Democratic voters? Doesn't it seem silly to get Senator Obama the nomination, only to lose the general election in November?
Only if you want McCain
How in the world did this article get past the HuffPo Orthodox Police?! It actually names Obama and his supporters as contributors to the demise of Democratic prospects in the General Election. I'm stunned ... and a bit relieved. Maybe, just maybe, Huffington Post hasn't gone off the deep end. And perhaps the adulation is finally coming to an end.
No fear didimus, they won't come to the realization until after they have secured him the nomination. Then you will watch the press turn on a dime! By that point, the Dems will be screwed.
yes, then the media will have to decide who they have a bigger man crush on.
But unfortunately Hillary Hate will be around all the time. If Obama wins the nomination there will be much gloating along with the hate... haters do not win gracefully. If Hillary wins... well, the neo-con based lies and attacks will be running rampant, even more than now. If McCain wins the GE it will be Hillary's fault (because she voted to give the idiot king his opening for his excuse for war) If Obama wins the GE it will be Hillarys fault that it wasn't by a bigger margin, or lost this state or that... along with more gloating and hate. If Hillary runs the left will again lean on neo-con attacks and lies to ensure the division keeps going on and of course they will keep hating.
It is what they do.
Wayne Barrett is a personal hero of mine, probably the best investigative journalist in America, but this piece is riddled with bad journalism, transparent bias, and willful distortion of the facts. Please don't lower yourself to Sen. Clinton's level, Mr. Barrett. You're far better than that.
Many folks see the hand writing on the wall. It is time to be serious about this election. Hil is gambling on magic or a miracle to win this election at anyone's expense. It is time that we stop falling into her lap for trickery. Hil wants to be the judge and the jury. Why not stop this drama? We need a leader with some adult power to stand up and set up the Rules and Guidelines for the Denver Convention? We need to Seat these 2 states, but only if they follow these rules. !. In both States, Divide the Delegates evenly,between Obama and Hillary. Any odds in Fla, give to Hil. Any odds in Mi give to Obama.. 2. Send out the notices that the states will be seated PROVIDING each state follows the rules. This notice should include the EXPECTED procedure at the convention. Dont be afraid of placing HEAVY penalties on the folks who have problems with the rules. No one should be interfering with this election process and interferences should not be tolerated. Seat these delegates and stop blaming these candidates for this screwup.
Whose idea was to advance the primaries? After Democrats came with this great idea, the Republicans saw an oppening, and the Dems, as always, took the bait. Hillary and all the candidates agree those states would not count. It is in writing with everybody's signature. And where were all the Democrats in those states when all this was happening? Were they protesting on the streets, were they writing and calling their legislators? Hillary though she would have the nomination in her pocket, so she didn't care about the mess. Now she says Dems will be "disenfranchised" if the votes are not counted. Funny how she wants to disenfranchised the whole country, by using the argument of superdelegates not following the will of the people.
No wonder Republicans always manage to "win" elections. Dems, on the other hand, are experts on loosing a sure thing.
I am an Obama supporter and I really appreciate the facts presented in this post, even though at times I can sense a bias. I can see now that there were errors made by many people and organizations, that it was not just a matter of "following the rules" for MI and FL, where exceptions were made for others.
I want most of all for the Democratic Party to unite and bring the opposing factions together. I want us all to come to a good conclusion of this matter, and for the next election that the rules are clearer. Also, having the legislatures set the primary dates is a preposterous system - we can see from this how politics of one party can railroad the other into a bad decision. Primaries should be run by and paid for by the local party organizations with help from the national.
Oh woe unto the poor victims of predetermined powerplays. Democracy is such a useful tool for the ruling classes to hide behind in their own selfish sense of entitlement for control of other people's lives. Choice according to some is a wonderful gift with a Greek pedigree, that is, until the 'people' make the wrong choices.
To follow the logic of this and other democratic talkingheads, what happened in Michigan and in Florida is as terrible as what happened recently to Musharraf in Pakistan.
Thank F'ing God for the break down. Now maybe all the twittering knuckleheads stuttering over "Bu-bu-but
Dean hosed it on this one, big time. "We're gonna go to Michigan and kill their votes! And then we go on to Florida and kill theirs too! Yeaaaaaaaa
Lets get real about Michigan and Florida!! Obama didn't make the rules, he just followed them. Do you think for one minute the Clinton Campaign would be moaning about these two states if they were ahead in the delegate count. Who is to say if he campaigned in the states that he wouldn't have one at least one of them and that the vote would have been close in Florida. You do not change the rules after the game has started. Hilary signed off on these in 2007 so lets forget about these two states for now and go on with the other primary's. The delegations can still be seated but should have no say in the outcome of the race.
Florida and Michigan are the one of 4 states where the turnout for GOP was greater than the turnout for democrats. The other two were Utah where Romney religious background is strong and Arizona the state where McCain represent.
In all other states Democratic turnout was highter Gee I wonder why it was lower in MI and Florida could it be because Obama didint campaign could it be because people thought their votes wouldnt count and didnt show up to vote, I'd bet the farm that was why. Some voters who thought the democratic primary was basically a popularity contest voted in the republican primary some whom are republicans and indepdents who probably would have likely voted for Obama had they known that down the line Senator Clinton would be fighting to have them included.
For the record in Michigan that Clinto won in the general election Obama is doing better against McCain so. So it is possible in a revote of Michigan Clinton would lose.
Clinton couldnt care less about the people of Michigan and Florida having their votes counted the only reason she cares is because she wants to use them to narrow the gap. If she had made a fuss from teh get go and refused to sign I would have said you know what she always objected to this as it is I find what she is doing TOTALLY illegitimate and her claims about votes counting is FAKE.
Carol
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
