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.

Comments

[Suprshrink]

This article was extremely informative and well written. It explains the problem with disenfrachisement of any state for any reason at any time. However, when I read the responses to the article, it is clear that the Obama supporters are so blinded by their love of Obama or hatred for Clinton that they cannot see how this precedent is destructive to the democratic party and all voters. It is a sample of what is yet to happen to any one of us if we should want to express our views that differ from our opponents. It is also a sample of what is yet to happen in November. Voters in MI and FL would likely not vote or vote for McCain in retaliation. The party will be irreparably divided. And the republicans will be laughing all the way to their voting booths.

[Melissa]

I agree with you completely. I love the Dems on TV claiming that the party will come together for November and all of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama. Come to Florida and see how many dems agree with them.

[Amminadab]

I get the sense that most of the Obama supporters who post here don't really care much about the Democratic Party.....­. it is just a useful vehicle to carry their movement further, for the moment.

They have no respect for Democratic leaders who worked hard to build the party before today, and they will quickly leave the party if their golden boy is not the nominee.

[Vinkaye]

I totally agree Amminadab. It may be the problem with building your Independent, new voter, and GOP crossover base within the Democratic party primary. That is a great strategy for the general election, but within a party's primary, Senator Obama's strategy has only served to alienate long time Democratic voters. Plus, there is no guarantee that these crossovers will stay with him in the general election. Someone needs to figure out how to reach out to the heart of this party and fast, or they can start planning for McCain's inauguration.

[tpagy]

As Floridian and Democrat I would vote for Senator Clinton but no way in Hell will I vote for that Pompus ass Obama He"s not my choice for Beauty Queen nor is his Wife and as someone who voted for Edwards on the 29th no why he has'nt Endorsed Obama All one has to do is look at his Homophobe Preacher sorry if it bothers some to vote on one issue but try being a Gay person that has to watch the Democratic Party Embrace Homophobic Black Churches to win elections.

[Penetang]

Huh? Homophobic? Are you mixing up your preachers?

"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader
whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for
decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream."

Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillarys-minister-supports-rev.php

[MKWrites2]

I am so with you on this, tpagy! I actually voted for Obama in Florida, but there is no way I would vote for him again. Here is part of my letter to Senator Leahy:

**********­**********­*****

Truthfully, sir, I no longer support Senator Obama. Why? Simple. Civil rights candidates don't disenfranchise voters to win elections. He gamed the DNC sanctions and took his name off the ballot in Michigan so those votes could never be counted if needed in a close race. As Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say, "How convenient!" I have it on good authority from a Florida party member that he wanted to do the same down here but Karen Thurman wouldn't let him. So someone at the DNC "gave him permission" to run ads in spite of the "no campaigning" rule, causing Senator Clinton's campaign to respond by claiming victory in January in Florida. Now the senator and his attorneys don't want to allow re-votes? Since when does the Democratic party stand for disenfranchising voters, sir? If Senator Obama is so sure he has the support of the party, why not let these primaries run their course? He has ample resources.

Sir, if we allow Senator Obama to win the nomination this way, the Republicans can fix every election from now to Kingdom come and we will lose all credibility to stop anyone from doing it. In spite of a caveat in the DNC rules allowing us to do so, democrats don't disenfranchise voters. Period!

[JohnTalbutt]

" took his name off the ballot in Michigan so those votes could never be counted '

This is a distortion, probably unintentional, but in keeping with the bias of Barrett's remarks. The facts are that all the candidates but Hillary took their names off. When Hillary was asked why she had left hers on, she replied that it didn't matter because it was clear "the votes won't count". This was in October 2007. At the time Bill Richardson who, of course, had removed his name, was mildly critical saying ,"she is not the nominee yet, she can't have it both ways". This is worth noting as it indicated that Richardson was beginning to be disenchanted with Hillary.

[JohnTalbutt]

Lot's of hate here, buddy.

[Darnamell]

Lots of hate and lots of misinformation too. For all the things Jeremiah Wright is or isn't, being a homophobe isn't one of them.

That said, tpagy just seems to be looking for a reason to HATE Obama and well, let's not let facts get in the way of that.

That said, you are fine in being against a candidate because of one specific issue. I do not vote GOP at all primarily because they make common cause with racists. Hillary Clinton in the past few months has a very, very long list of racists and race-baiters in her company, not the least of which is her husband.

So, I'll excuse your reason, incorrect as it is, if you will excuse mine.

[Knowsbetter]

It seems to me that most of these comments are just Republican attack lines, I guess if you believe what Republicans say, they do always tell the truth, then you will believe that they want to run against Hillary. mmmmmm, children and newbies don't have the memories of 1992-2007, the Republicans say they want Hillary, oh really? They have never beaten them, they don't want Hillary, they want the most liberal, inexperienced and racialy polarizing canidate, Barack Huessein Obama! Keep fooling yourselves and keep believing in Rhetoric and higher than thou speeches and we will surely see alot of Dems voting for a centrist like McCain.
Why is it that Mich and FLA had voters come out and yet they are not gong to be heard? Why are we at a stalemate in those states? One answer: Screamin Dean of the DNC is an Obama cultist who knows that Hillary would beat him by a wider margin, therefore no deals with Mich, Fla, and another lost election by the Democrats.
When it comes to the race issue again thank Screamin Dean, Why was South Carolinas Primary moved up? one answer: Screamin Dean wanted to see what the black vote would do, mmmmm the black vote, nothing racial there.

Hillary 08

[rudyinbama]

Wayne Barrett has been a great investigative journalist for over thirty years.
I am so sick of infantile Obama supporters who trash everyone who doesn't swallow every bit garbage churned out by David Axelrod and Jessie Jackson, Jr.
The Obamabrats, their Limbaugh-style posts, and their endless demonizing of the Clintons have succeeded in tearing this party apart.
It's not that a third of Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama because they hate him - they hate YOU!
Well, let's hope the sane Democrats can still get their act together to make sure McCain faces an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and senate.

[chimpevil]

So 1/3 of Hillary's supporters would risk a McCain presidency and all the attendant gloom and doom that it would bring just because they hate Obama supporters? And who's infantile, dude?

[Knowsbetter]

Unlike Obama cultist, most Americans look for a leader with experience, and care for their country more than their party or having the first black prez. General election voters are so different from primary voters, we go with real proven leaders such as Clinton and McCain! Obama is not proven anything! Hillary or McCain 08

[ForwardtoYesterday]

Please, please, please, if you're going to complain about folks "who trash everyone..­..", it might put you in a better rhetorical position to not then turn around and label people "Obamabrats" who write "Limbaugh style posts" without at least being able to point to a particular.

I am sick to death of this tactic. If you're going to support Hillary, that's fine and I hope you agree that it's fine if I support Obama and that may lead us to have a very different intepretation of the facts a lot of the time. But this constant, endless, neverending victimization meme, which paints nearly all Obama supporters as vicious slanderers, while Hillary supporters are only trying to be heard and understood, while also being egregiously untrue also doesn't get us anywhere, and it needs to stop if there's ever going to be an end to this.

[Darnamell]

While I agree with everything you have said thus far, I find it highly unlikely that we'll be seeing any change in this.

Why do I believe this? Sign up for the Obama campaign forums and you will find nearly everyone decrying and trying to stop those Obama supporters who are rude, vulgar, and talk trash. It is unseemly and should stop.

Go over to the Hillary Clinton campaign forums and you will find the complete opposite. Sure, there are some voices asking for respect and moderation, but far more who wish to "gang up" on "Obama-brats" or whatever their name is for us this week. People openly strategize on how to attack, and spread racist BS as far as the eye can read. It is sick really, and while I would love to see both factions step back and compose themselves, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[STORMATSEA]

The Obama supporters have been playing attack politics from day one read any post my dear.
And yes the press has given him and his a pass on everything.
Once the run for President really begins, the repubs will swift boat him into the ground.
The Obama folks will scream race at every critisisim, or slander and every red neck in America will vote for McCain because of it.
I was talking to a group of just such folks last week, (I work at a very blue collar job in MIchigan) and explained to them that what we are really voting for in the next several Supreme court nominees. I tried to explain that you can get rid of a President in four years...
(In a fair election), but, the "Supreme court stays a lifetime. Thus a vote for MCCain is a vote for
anti labor, anti-freedom, anti enviroment, pro corporation court appointees, to which these working class heros said they didn't care. They would rather vote against thier own interests than vote for someone who yells race at any turn.

[Daniel8168]

I just woke up, and couldn't sit through this whole blog. Perhaps it could be edited a bit to include the finer points?

Whether the Republican party was to blame for the primaries moving up and being disqualified, doesn't matter much. We can assume they were hoping the delegates would be disqualified, or we can look at it from another angle. Perhaps they knew that early in the season Hillary would do well in those two states, and they wanted her to be so far ahead that everyone dropped out early.

It's swell that Hillary's camp was willing to pay for a re-vote. Perhaps they could have just went ahead and marked everyone's ballots for them too. As for Obama's refusal, it wouldn't matter much since the DNC and the two states said it wasn't gonna happen.

Obama's been gaining ground on Clinton in almost every contest in this primary season. Had the two primaries been held on schedule, other candidates might have stayed in longer. More importantly, had they been held when they were supposed to, there would have been time for candidates to campaign effectively, and Obama would likely have closed the gap on Clinton making her seemingly huge wins nearly evaporate.

While we're concerning ourselves with whether Republicans are picking our nominee, consider their efforts in Texas and Ohio. Personally, I think they hoped Hillary would get the nod in Florida and Michigan and all other candidates would drop out - whether the delegates counted or not.

[lelaji]

I agree with you Daniel- Neither of these delegations should be seated as is - Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and in Florida even though neither candidate campaigned there -(although there some talk that Cinton was in Florida the day before the primary vote drumming up support) Clinton's name recognition was so much stronger that it made the contest unfair unless you give Obama time to campaign and let the people get to know him because as Daniel rightfully points out when obama does campaign and people get to know him -he closes the gap every time and more and more people vote for him. Initially I was hoping they would find a way to have a re-do (re-vote) but time and money and state politics -(not the Obama Campaign) made that unfeasible so now there is a real dilemma and it does appear that the best (fair to all concerned) way would be to split the delegates evenly and seat the delegates at the convention.

[mutatio]

Much of that would be true if Obama hadn't already cleaned house in 2 states as compared to Clinton's moderate wins in NH and NV. Obama's clout as a candidate was well established by the time FL voted. Look at the SC returns if you need any reminders.

[mamamay]

This sounds like a lot of drama to me. How can Hil pay for the revote, when she has claims against her to pay her outstanding campaign bills for months? If you cant run a Campaign, how can you run our government. It is so easy to point to the condition of our Country, under Bush. But compared to what Hil, your Campaign management? People we need to turn our friends a loose when they show inability to hold on to the threads of fiber for survival, and expect you to lose your survival skills too.

[michaelriggins]

I believe that the election in Florida was not on a fair playing field. Obama was not well known in Florida at the time, early in the contest. It is Obama's campaigns that got him wins or at least close enough to split delegates and keep popular vote close. If Obama and Hillary never had campaign to this date, she would have won all the contest. Another thing I will mention is Hillary is always pumping up the importants a win is in primary that she knows she is going to win, to give the impression that she is the come back kid, like Texas and Ohio. She made everybody forget that he was only hoping to stay close. It is the same way with Pennsylvania we know she is going to win but she will boast another come back victory. Also if he don't live up to the polls in that state, it is believed that he lost ground.

[KELLI2L]

Do you live in Florida? Take my word for it Florida was well aware of Obama. There was a lot of information of all kinds out there regarding Obama and don't forget all the Debates on TV. He LOST because he is not the person most Floridians want for President, they wanted and voted for Hillary. Give it up. And by the way, she actually got 60% which is a factoid the news media chose not to ever talk about.

[snickers77]

NO, but I live in Michigan. Our primary was January 15th. No one knew Obama. No one cared to find out because we were told our vote didn't matter. When you tell people who work everyday, have kids, can hardly pay their bills in our state's horrible economy, that their vote doesn't count, they tend not to pay such close attention to debates and things like that. I assume that things were similar in Florida. Just because you and your immediate circle paid attention to what was going on, doesn't mean that everyone else did. Also it is a fact that in almost every state Barack Obama started off in the polls losing to Hillary Clinton, when he started campaigning he closed the gap. That is what campaigns are for. He didn't have the Benefit of brand name recognition.

[michaelriggins]

knowing and campaigning is two different thing

[treadway123]

KellI2L you don't live in Florida, and you don't know what your talking about! There was no fair vote, because a lot just stayed home sense our vote didn't count! So your lieing when you say you know how Florida voted. Were not stupid enough to believe any fair vote took place in Florida. She couldn't get 60% of the votes when 30% or more just stayed home! They Both signed a contract to disenfranchise the votes of two states, because that was the DNC told them they had to do. It wasn't Obama or Hillarys fault, and it isn't fair for Hillary to try to blame Obama for this mess, nor for the vote mess. He will agree to anything that is legal, lawfull and above board in fairness to seats all states, an all votes. Hillary is broke and in debt, so offering to finance a revote, is wrong and a tactic to try to blame and trap Obama. She has a lot to ans. for in her on going lie's and dirty tactics folks.

[todayslies]

"Take my word for it Florida was well aware of Obama".

Unfortuanately, it's the Internet, so I can't take your word for anything. Nothing personal, just reality. You could live in Singapore, for all we know.

[IAM4CLINTON]

So, Obama will only contest in a state when he is ready ? That is pre-posterous that FL voters did not know him when there were almost weekly debates on national television running up to the FL elections.
Florida does not need a re-do. All it needs is that the votes need to be counted and the results factored into the process of choosing the nominee, as this brilliant article points out.
I am almost in that 28% of Hillary voters (which equals about 3 Million ) that may consider McCain if Obama is the nominee. The more dirty tricks that the Obama campaign does to prevent FL votes from being counted or in bullying Hllary through surrogates to quit the race now- will simply push me over the top to cross over and vote Republican for the 1st time in my life.Shame on Obama and his dirty tricks

[treadway123]

Man it's like this. The time for Fl an Ml to complain was when this began. This had nothing to do with Obama. Believe Hillary lie's if you wish, thats your bussiness. but I hate it when people lie to themself and others. Obama said he'd go along with what the DNC says, as long as it was legal and above board. both Hillary and Obama signed a contract to dienfranchise these states of thier votes if they went against the DNC rules. It's as simple as that! It;s a awful lie for Hillary to know try to say it's Obama that is to blame that thier votes don't count. I think the people there are smart enough to see what Hillary is trying to pull. She can't win, so pull out Fl an MI and use them the way she's used other people, and then throw them away. I am a republican, who didn't want Mccain and if your stupid enough to want a 100 year war IAm4Clinton go ahead and vote Mccain. But you get what you deserve. Don't cry to us!

[lelaji]

Well we certainly experience reality differently. it's quite hard for me to see how you can possibly say "Obama's and his dirty tricks". I will still vote for her if she gets the nomination because we will not have a world left if McCain gets the presidency. With his desire to start a pre-emptive War on Iran - I believe he will take us beyond the pale and start a Nuclear War. Obama has been nothing but Gracious to Hillary even as she put him down, mockingly, sarcastically, attacking him personally (which by the way I never have heard him do) -he attacks her policies or on the issues -I have never heard him attack her personally- He many times even compliments her - calling her a strong and formidable candidate. The way her campaign has been run is terrible and if that is a spotlight into how and who she would put in charge if she were president -then it looks like Bush and his incompetents all over again! Hillary has gotten more desperate and as she does she isacting from her lowest consciousness and has lost her integrity. This is not a person I want answering the phone at 3 in the morning. Shame on Hillary and Shame on you for being such a Sore Loser that you would vote for McCain and do not see the damage that will do to our country. We cannot survive 4 more years of Bush's policies and neither can the world.

[jeffepops]

"All Clinton-backer Granholm did was sign a bill." That's like trying to exonerate a murderer from guilt by saying all she did was pull the trigger. Either Granholm is incompetent, or she knew the consequences of her actions. The bill would not have stood up to her veto.

The important facts of the matter that this tortuously written essay avoids noting are that:

1. The consequences of both Michigan's and Florida's choices were well known to both states from the beginning;
2. Both Clinton and Obama agreed to abide by the sanctions of the national Democratic Party.
3. At the time of both the original legislation and the imposition of sanctions, neither Republican nor Democratic parties had any idea that the nomination would come down to such a close race between Obama and Clinton.

Currently, right wing Republicans pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Tony Blankley want Hillary to continue her campaign. Many knowledgeable politicos believe that the Republicans would relish the opportunity to face off against Clinton in the general election,as Hillary has the most strong "unfavorable" rating amongst all of the candidates, including McCain.

[lelaji]

Yeah! Thanks for writing such a clear and accurate version. the Democratic Governor Granholm certainly could and should have vetoed the bill.

[pilotinfla]

Of course, the Republicans are doing everything they can to have Hillary as the Democratic nominee as that will do more than anything else to energize their base. In fact, Florida's Republican governor Charlie Crist even attempted to insert himself into Democratic party politics in order to get an advantage for Hillary.

[Amminadab]

The Republicans have NEVER beaten the Clintons.

Not once.

What makes you think they want to face them again?

[jeffepops]

Are "the Clintons" running for the nomination? I thought there was only one -- Hillary -- on the ballot.

Is there something you wish to share with us?

[Ironfox]

Mr Barrett, the horse is dead, put the whip away.

[cmfrey]

Ignorance is bliss?

[myownwings]

So let's see. The debacle in these two states was a Republican effort to undermine the Dems in this election. And let's see, everyone agreed to the price to be paid - at least those who had any say in this within the Democratic Party. And then we see that it's the fault of Obama? Huh? And Hill who can't pay her bills is going to sacrifice to buy a rerun? (Wonder why.)

Whatever you are smoking should be illegal

[ruscle]

The problem with a "revote" in both states. (assuming you had the money, time and expertise) is that the voters were previously asked to make a choice. They've already had an election. Hillary won, mostly on name recognition. (Which has been in her favor this entire campaign.) So even if there was time to do campaigning in these two states many voters will not pay attention and simply remark their ballots as they did earlier. It is only a fair election if both candidates have the option to have their names on the ballots and a chance to campaign in the state and introduce themselves to the voters.

The problem with a fair, well campaigned election in both states is that Hillary doesn't have the money. And nobody has the time.

As for the Republican's picking the candidate. They are trying. They are trying their darnedest and on many different levels. But the time for the candidates to have spoken up about wanting Florida and MI to count was BEFORE the votes were cast. Not after. If Hillary had made a big stink about this... instead of signing onto it... then this would be a legit claim. But to do so after everyone has agreed to the rules... and then you see the rules don't work in your favor. That just smacks of poor planning, bad strategy and rule-changing Republicanism.

[IAM4CLINTON]

Floria and Michigan voters knew Barack Obama very well- to simply dismiss Hillary decisive victories as name recognition is disingenous. In fact, I would conclude that knew Barack Obama too well and therefore smartly did not vote for him !

[factcheck2]

To fully understand the manipulation at work here to deprive Hillary Clinton of the nomination, you have to go back to 2004. That's when the Illinois G.O.P. positioned Obama for his presidential run by forcing his challenger Jack Ryan to drop out of the U.S. senate race. In this regard, the bad deeds of the Dem. Party's old-boy network and Speaker "impeachme­nt-is-off-­the-table" Pelosi are far exceeded by those of Karl Rove. His crossover Republican voter campaign, You-Tube merchandising of Obama, and what appears to be a "weapons of mass destruction"-like propaganda campaign against Clinton in the mainstream media has been wildly successful. Yet she battles on. I've posted an article about all this at thecityedition.com. Here's a direct. http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

[Insightful]

Sad to say, it is a set up election. Obama will not be a good president. How can we afford another dark 4 years? What will it take to stop this takeover by this totally unqualified man.

[lelaji]

You are crazy. Obama has more experience then Abraham Lincoln when he ran for President. Obama is immensely qualified and will make a wonderful president -if the Country is ready to elect someone of his stature. Unfortunately, Racism is still alive and well in the Country but we shall see.

[MsLiz]

Dark 4 years? How did you get your nickname, Insightful?

[chimpevil]

Oh my this is a lovely conspiracy theory (and I'm a 9/11 "truther" so I don't use that term lightly!) Yeah OK the Illini GOP may have helped Ryan decide to drop out but geez it might have been because he was embroiled in a sex scandal and was behind Obama by 25 points in some polls, don't ya think? Well, I guess ya don't cause you seem to be suggesting that the Ill goopers were diabolically knocking off Ryan to set up Obama for a run at the presidency­--prescien­t bunch those goopers--all at the behest of demon Rove, who then started rigging Dem primaries to further assist brother Barack, even though to all appearances repubs were crossing over to vote for Hillary because she's the one they say they want as an opponent--boy is Rove good!--and of course the MSM's touting Hilary early on as the "inevitable candidate" was a ruse cause they secretly wanted to destroy her and they only played inflammatory 10-second clips of Obama's pastor's 30+ years of sermons on a continuous loop for a week just to throw everybody off. Right. And people think that alternate theories about the collapse of the towers are wacky!

[zippywpinhead]

Lol, the party that had to scramble to pick THEIR OWN candidate in 2007 nonetheless was all over rigging the opposition's primary 4 years ago? Everyone buy stock in ALCOA,there's a run on tinfoil amongst the Hillary supporters­...

[factcheck2]

The Illinois G.O.P. replaced Ryan with a non-resident of the state, Alan Keyes, who received 27 percent of the vote to Obama's 70 percent. Re: crossover voting, Rush Limbagh's call to vote for Hillary was a cover - he has hated both Clintons for years, and all his listeners know that. Time magazine reported last fall on the campaign for Republicans to crossover and vote for Obama. This is how he won Iowa and all the red state caucuses.(­The article that's linked in the comment above has a link to the Time piece.) As for the MSM, a study cited on CNN today shows that the big networks have provided lobsidedly favorable coverage for Obama. For more on Rove's strategy, check out the article.

[ForwardtoYesterday]

Actually, I do think 9/11 "truth" theories are wacky, but you're right, this one really takes the cake. I suppose old Karl wrote Obama's book for him, and gave him speech lessons besides getting him to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, too.

[rebeccaj]

Hillary's supporters have gotten so pathetic that I am really about to scream. Jack Ryan was a wealthy, handsome young man who had quit his finance job to become a teacher in the Inner City. After he was forced to unseal his divorce records from the beautiful and voluptuous TV actress, Jeri Ryan, it was discovered that Jack Ryan had taken her to sex clubs and tried to get her to have public and group sex with him.

This forced him to drop out.

And you think this was done to "position" Obama to beat Hillary and have him be the Democratic candidate that would be easy to beat in 2008?

Are you aware that Obama's primary election and Senate election happened in 2003 and 2004?

Are you guys out of your ever living paranoid minds?

WTF?

And is Jennifer Granholm a GOP "mole" because she signed the the primary date change?

You guys need some help!!!

Obama is NOT the enemy. John McCain is the enemy.

You guys are efffing freaks!!!!!!

[Amminadab]

Ummmmm....­. Hillary is not the enemy, either.

[eagleye]

The Florida/Michigan snafu is a bummer all around, and everyone wishes it hadn't happened. But I gag every time I hear Hillary Clinton and her surrogates try to make the case that delegates ought to be seated on the basis of the bogus primaries held in those states. First, the candidates and the voters in those states were told beforehand that the results of those elections would not count. What kind of half-arsed banana republic would then turn around and say, "Whoops, we're going to count those elections after all?" That solution would not survive a court challenge, and it would not be fair to the voters who did not vote on that day because they took the DNC ruling seriously and knew that their votes would not be accepted as legitimate.

Hillary has been righteously claiming that she is deeply concerned about the disencfranchisement of the voters in FL and MI, and her solution is to just go ahead and seat them. OK, let's ask ourselves this-- If Obama had come out ahead in those two states, does anyone believe that Hillary would be raising the issue and campaigning for the inclusion of FL and MI in the delegate count>

I don't think so, either....

[lelaji]

Amen!

[Neaguy]

Barrett, your first sentence is an insult to a great man, Ralph Nader and repeats an urban legend that Nader cost Gore the election.
Why do intelligent people such as yourself continue to mimic the lie about Ralph?

Definitely a political bias in your reporting.

[TheRagingModerate]

Mr. Barrett,
You lost me at "...Clinto­n's 300,000 vote win in Florida, where both candidates competed on a lavel playing field." Your next 10,000 words may have some significance and perhaps even a hint of truth rolled into them, but the length of your article combined with your obvious bias made my decision to give up reading an easy one.

How can you and the rest of the Clinton backers say with a straight face that the Florida primary was "a level playing field"? THIS kind of disingenuousness is EXACTLY the kind of " 'conventional politics,' as Obama would put it" that has to stop. Do you genuinely believe that pitting New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton -- former First Lady and Democratic Party icon for the last 15 years -- against newcomer Barack Obama in a January primary in Florida, at the beginning of the primary season, without giving Obama the chance to campaign there and introduce himself to the people of Florida is a "level playing field"? Pleeease -- Hillary should be embarassed by the fact that she won by ONLY 300k votes!

[IAM4CLINTON]

YES, Florida primary was on a very level playing field- both Barack and Hillary were on the ballot- both did not campaign per the rules- and Hillary won by over 300,000 votes. Which part of that can you dispute.
So, Barack will choose to contest a state only after he believes he is ready for it ?

[zippywpinhead]

Obama CHOSE to follow the rules, as did almost all the other candidates at the time. Clinton CHOSE not to follow the rules. The legislatures of Mi and Fl CHOSE not to follow the rules, either. The voters of both states CHOSE poorly in selecting their representatives and hopefully will CHOOSE better by voting those arrogant fools out next election and replacing them with representatives that have their constituent's best interests in mind...

[ForwardtoYesterday]

The part where no one campaigned and everyone was told it didn't count and, in fact, that agreement was made that it would not count.

That part.

BTW, The whole idea of having campaign is so that it's not just a case of the most famous person winning.

[mmpost]

So, you are ok with your candidate winning a contest where no one competed. Hillary basically won by default. I say this because Hillary is well known throughout the nation and Obama isn't as well known. The people voting for Hillary may have only been voting for a name they recognized. Do you doubt this could've taken place? If you think name recognition plays no part in politics, you are misinformed.