Hillary Calls for Seating of Michigan and Florida Delegates

Hillary Clinton released a statement today asking her delegates to support the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates at the DNC in Denver.

She also says she will abide by the no-campaign pledge the candidates signed and expects the other candidates to do so as well.

"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention. "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

< 5 Year Old Cuffed, Taken From Kindergarten to Psych Ward | Court Disqualifies Bernie Kerik's Lawyer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Florida, I can see. . . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    but how they could possibly put Michigan in a position to decide the election when only Clinton's name was on the ballot is beyond me.

    Of course, if the nomination is decided before that then they might was well seat everyone as a symbolic gesture.

    So the 2012 primaries will start in... (none / 0) (#5)
    by sphealey on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    > Of course, if the nomination is decided
    > before that then they might was well seat
    >  everyone as a symbolic gesture.

    So the 2012 primaries will start in, what?  2010?  2009?  Maybe New Hampshire should just schedule their primary on the same day as the 2008 General...



    They Are Going to Seat Them (none / 0) (#8)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    This was never about disenfranchising voters the Democrats will need in November.  This was about punishing the state party and that will have been done - think of all the money that didn't get spent campaigning in those states.  

    They're going to be seated, it's just a matter of when the decision is made.  Clinton, obviously, is going to want to push for it earlier rather than later.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    And it probably only matters if the nomination is still up in the air at the time of the convention. If it's decided ahead of time, it won't matter.

    Obama's Choice (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    Because Obama chose to have his name taken off the ballot.  He wasn't pushed off by some shady political move.  It was his decision not to compete, why should Michigan voters be disenfrachised because of Obama's lame suck up to Iowa?

    I still say that may prove to be the dumbest political move of the campaign.


    What is the exact history of this. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    I know that most of the candidates removed their name from the ballot -- I find it hard to believe they would do that if there wasn't at least implicit pressure from the DNC to do so.  To now decide to recognize the results would be a bad move.

    If News Reports Are to Be Believed (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    and as we know they aren't always, but from what I've read the decision to remove Obama's name came from the Obama campaign.  He decided to do it and then got Edwards to go along.  Apparently, they thought they could get Clinton to do it as well.  They were wrong.

    I suspect Obama was afraid he'd lose Michigan and wanted to try to make it less relevant.


    Well, he won Iowa (none / 0) (#11)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    and if he won NH, his move would have been lauded.

    High stakes poker.


    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    My Florida democratic father is furious with the democratic party for not seating Florida's delegates.  According to him the primary wasn't moved by the Florida Democratic Party, but by the Florida legislature, which is dominated by Republicans.  

    Is this right?  Anyone here from Florida?

    Because if it is, then I think a strong case can be made to seat the Florida delegates.  Why punish Florida democrats for something Florida republicans did?

    In any event, I think the party absolutely has to take up the schedule at the convention.  They are going to have this kind of jumping forward unless they come up with a way that is more fair to all the states instead of favoring the same ones every election.  

    Remember Katherine Harris? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    Hmmm. Looks like the democrats had little power to block the measure. Some reports have argued that the Democrats were largely in favor of the early voting plan anyway. Hard to tell what kind of dirty tricks went on from a Florida the state that was charachterized as being as bad if not worse than the worst third world nations in the 2004 election by international election observers.

    Florida Democrats pleaded with the committee for "mercy," saying they were steam-rolled by a Republican majority in the Legislature that was intent on moving the presidential primary to Jan. 29 -- even if it meant trampling both party's calendars.

    "Florida Democrats did what they could, but in the end we failed," said Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman.


    Several members suggested state Democrats should have fought harder against the Republican-led charge to move up the primary date.

    Florida Democrats argued that they were outnumbered 2 to 1 in the Legislature and that Republicans made it impossible for Democrats to vote against the measure by including language requiring paper voting machine trails in the bill.



    Perfect (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:35:07 AM EST
    I wondered when Clinton would start this.  Doing so before she wins Florida is very smart.

    So now what does Obama do argue to disenfranchise Democrats in two important general election states?  He has no good choices here from what I can see.  

    embarrassing that Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    as I noted in another thread, has already been advertising in Florida thru CNN...

    non-issue (none / 0) (#60)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    As I understand it this was a national ad-buy which the Obama campaign asked unsuccessfully not to be run in FL, and the nominally offended state party in SC gave its blessing.

    Jeralyn - I confess (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    I dont know what this means.  What is she asking here?  That they be invited to take part?  Please someone explain....

    The DNC (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates for moving the primary before Feb. 5.  

    ahhh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    gotcha - thanks

    If she's campaigning to have MI & FL (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    delegates counted when those delegates favor Clinton, isn't that campaigning in MI & FL?

    okay - this answers me (none / 0) (#9)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    I get it now

    Well, MI already happened. FL yes. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    This is just so Clintonian (none / 0) (#13)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:29:23 AM EST
    If she really believed that Michigan's delegates should count then she should have fought for that BEFORE the election.

    It's a smart move politically, but not a smart move for the country (as she didn't fight when it would have mattered)...very Clintonian indeed.

    No-one forced Edwards & Obama (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    to withdraw from Michigan. If you are saying the Clintons are smarter than most, you may be very well correct- and Obama and Edwards aren't dummies by a long shot.

    Obama And Edwards Took Their (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    names off the ballot in Michigan in the hopes that it would increase their votes in Iowa. They both wanted to win the first event and hoped it would steamroll them into becoming the nominee much like what happened in 04. They were pandering to the Iowa voters. It was a political strategy. A strategy that did not work. IOW they outsmarted themselves.

    I don't think anyone, including Obama and Edwards, believed that the delegates in MI and FL would not be ultimately seated. To not seat their delegates would be a political  disaster for the Democratic party.  


    Obama would have done (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:02:19 PM EST
    the same thing, too, if he were leading.  I would be really disappointed had he not.  That's how you win in these things.  I don't think she should be faulted for it, as I would not have faulted him.  

    Speaking of faulting folks, holy smokes, am I the only one who has noticed that HuffPo has jumped off the Obama rainbow lately?


    I visited about 3 times in the past week (none / 0) (#64)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    and noticed that each time there was something positve about HRC to report that they couldnt ignore, they had something bad relating to her either beside it or on top of it.  TPM does the same thing.

    Can Someone Explain to Me Why The Left is (none / 0) (#14)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    going with Hillary?
    When Obama is as liberal as Hillary, and has basically offered up the same solutions as Hillary has.... to our country's many problems.

    Doesn't the country (and the left) want a new candidate?
    A fresh start....so to speak?

    We have seen over the last few weeks especially, how this campaign has turned into a basic mud match, and can you imagine what the country will see when GOPERs turn their hatred toward Hillary later this year (if she is nominee)?

    Why the choice for Hillary....over Barak?

    Obama Put His Liberal Creds In Doubt (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    when he made the choice to campaign to the right of Clinton.

    Obama has failed to define exactly what something new would be other than Bipartisanship Forever. Now that may make great sound bites and even appeal to some, but Obama is running in a DEMOCRATIC primary. Democratic voters have seen exactly what attempts at bipartisanship has brought  in the real world.

    Would you take a untested drug just because it is new? Same principle.

    Also, the idea that the GOP will not or can not sling mud all over Obama is not realistic IMO. Believe it or not, there are people who actually think that Obama would be a weaker GE candidate than Clinton.


    Why not Obama? Because the Supreme Court matters (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    Everyone has to parse Obama's statement to find out what he realy means re refighting the 90's battles, voting present on abortion, reaching across the aisle, blah, blah, blah.

    Abortion is still being fought and it is not a bipartisan issue. No matter why Obama voted "present", the "present" votes are not reassuring regarding abortion.

    So what will Obama do if he gets a chance to select a Supreme Court nominee?  Will he refuse to refight the abortion issue? Will he select a right leaning jurist to maintain his bipartisan image?


    obama is a very smart man. (none / 0) (#34)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    he is also very well spoken, so it should not be necessary to parse his words.

    Then maybe you can tell me (none / 0) (#36)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    which battles of the '90s Obama doesn't want to refight?

    That's code for Monica (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    Did you just make that up? (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    Pretty good. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    But what else could they be talking about?

    Did you see BTD's call out to you (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    last night to take over live-blogging of the Repub. debate?  The ultimate compliment.

    No. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    I had to take care of some client issues last night.

    I don't know if I could have stomached the GOP debate.

    However, I will look that thread when I can and see what he said.


    yes, it was a nice call out - (none / 0) (#66)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST

    darn, ding, that is the problem. (none / 0) (#73)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    from my view obama says this and then when challenged, no he says he didn't mean that at all. that is what i meant when i said we shouldn't have to debate constantly on just what he is saying(parse). if i were not clearer, then sorry about that!

    Reagan love (none / 0) (#16)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    I know it wasn't outright Reagan-love, and all that, but it really shook me at first into switching from him to Clinton.  Even still, the context was too uncritical and positive feeling about Reagan.  A liberal would say "Reagan sucked" and end it at that.

    And now with both Obama's and Clinton's FISA non-leadership, I'm leaning to sitting out the 2/5 CO caucuses rather than support either one of them, and just vote for whoever in November.


    The Only Explanation I Could Get Would Be- (none / 0) (#17)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    something like:
    I support Hilllary since she has the "machinery" to beat the gop this fall....and barak doesn't.
    But as for pure essence of a human/ leader/ politician/ candidate...Obama seems to be a much better choice.

    Really? (none / 0) (#38)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton (in Tom Brokaw's book "Boom! Voices of the Sixties"):

        When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.

    So, now who are you going to vote for?


    Probably just de mortuis nil nisi bonum (none / 0) (#62)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    Here she says he did x that was bad, then he fixed it; he did y that was bad, then he fixed it - not a terrible thing for a partisan Democrat to say in my view, esp. compared to "They had the ideas during the last D presidency and Bush II but those ideas are played out now".  As to the last sentence, what does "He played the balance and the music beautifully" mean anyway?  Anybody have a link to context?

    I Can't Speak for "the Left" (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    I can only speak for myself.  I don't see a whole lot of policy difference between Clinton and Obama.  I don't think either is demonstrably more liberal than the other, which forces me to choose on other things.

    I prefer Clinton because I believe she has a better idea of how government works and will be able to immediately manage the federal beauracracy better.  As a federal employee, this is key for me, not only because it will make my life better (heh) but because I don't think we can afford the one-two years it usually takes for a new president to learn how the executive branch runs.  Too much damage has been done.  

    I also prefer her because I prefer partisanship.  I think framing matters and I hate the way Obama tries to make it sound like the polarization is both parties' faults when it isn't.  I understand why he does that, but I believe we have a rare chance to put an end to the Republican domination of our media narrative and from what I've seen, he is the least interested in all of the candidates in doing it.  

    Finally, I think his lack of national campaign experience makes him the riskier choice to beat Republicans in the general.  Which, in all honesty, is what I care most about.  He might be a fantastic candidate, but he also might be a disaster.  Certainly the last week with his inability to play defense on some pretty basic attacks from Clinton hasn't increased my confidence in his ability to withstad what's coming his way.

    In short, I think Obama could be a fantastic candidate and president, but he could also be a complete disaster.  I think Clinton also has the ability to be a fantastic president, but I admit she's probably more likely to simply be competent.  But right now competence looks pretty damned good.  I don't think we can withstand another run of Bill Clinton's first term right now and, ironically, Obama is the candidate I think is most likely to have that kind of rocky start.


    It depends on the definition of partisanship (none / 0) (#27)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    President Clinton was very partisan in his speeches and in his own defense, but not in his legislation...Very middle of the road, at best.

    Didn't some people say that he was republican-light? Tim Robbins said he was the first republican he ever voted for...The Dole campaign in 1996 complained that he was taking their positions and modifying them to be more centrist...

    The Clintons are very good at power and politics - not legislation


    Sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    I think given his choices, Bill did as good as could be expected for the most part. Keep in mind the Blue Dogs were not helping when the Democrats controlled congress.

    This will be true in 2008 unless more and better Democrats are elected.


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    In many ways, I care more about what the 2008 congressional make up will be than who the democratic nominee is.

    The remarkable extent to which Congressional Democrats have been written out of the failures of the 1990s amazes me.  There are a lot of reasons for Bill Clinton's move to the center - some of it political reality, some of it political weakness because of the failure of his democratic allies in Congress, some of which was his natural inclination to get along.

    The last one, btw, can also be said about Obama.  So far, I have yet to figure out one thing he would truly fight for beyond his own election, which, of course, doesn't mean those things don't exist.  I believe they probably do, I just wish I had some idea of what they were.  

    But I also think it's wrong to assume Hillary Clinton is the same as her husband.  They certainly have similarities, including shared experiences, and she did contribute to his political strategy in the 1990s.  However, I think Hillary is much more partisan and much more liberal (on domestic issues) than her husband.  I tend to believe where she has trimmed herself in the Senate, it has been to appear moderate so that she would be electable as president, not necessarily how she would govern as president.  

    I also think that while Bill Clinton mostly wanted to do good things (and mostly did), his ambition was to be President.  It was a political ambition for himself.  By all accounts, Hillary Clinton has never had that kind of ambition for ambition's sake.  Her ambition has long been to fundamentally change American society, which is why prior to falling for Bill, she had planned to go to the Children's Defense Fund.  So I think she'll be more likely to try to push through truly progressive legislation like healthcare.  I'm not so sure she cares about being president so much as what presidents can do.  To the extent she wants a Clinton restoration, I think it's to finish the things started under her husband, like healthcare.  I've never bought the caricature of her being some sort of power-hungry ambitious politician.  It just doesn't fit with her history.

    I admit that this is as much an article of faith about Clinton as Obama followers have about him.  I don't blame folks for not sharing it, just as I find it difficult to share others' faith in Obama.  It's also not the only reason I support her, as you can see from my original post.  But I admit that how you see Hillary plays just as important a part in the primary season as how you see Obama.


    Well thought out (none / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:39:07 PM EST
    Yeah I am a suck up

    Obama's Position Papers Do Not Really (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    offer any bold new plans. In fact, of the three Democratic candidates, his seem the least ambitious or forward moving. IMO, if you go into negotiations with the Republicans with a modest proposal and try to reach a bipartisanship agreement, you will wind up with legislation that is so watered down that it is practically worthless. So to believe that Obama would accomplish more than Clinton, would be a complete act of faith since Obama has not shown how he would be better.

    Bottom line, we know what we will get with Clinton and really have little knowledge of what we would get with Obama.



    sorry to say there is no proof at (none / 0) (#33)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    least in my mind that obama is any better.

    Disaster? (none / 0) (#63)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    I agree with much of the above but I don't see the disaster potential for Obama.  He'll have a very competent staff and (I suspect) a longer honeymoon period which should help during the early period.

    Perhaps you're arguing that the quality of the Obama presidency is harder to predict, and we can't afford less than the known competent performance from Clinton even if the Obama ceiling - or even mean expectation - is higher.


    Republicans didn't (none / 0) (#70)
    by RalphB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    see the disaster potential of Bush either.  But we all sure got one.

    Excellent point RalphB!! N/T (none / 0) (#71)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM EST
    I am confused (none / 0) (#20)
    by Saul on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    Excuse my ignorance, but can someone please explain why the democrats did not campaign in Florida and Michigan

    DNC ruled delegates from those (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    two states would not be seated at the Democratic National Convention because those states moved up their primaries over DNC express prohibition.  

    Not Just Democrats (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida wanted to have more of an impact on the selecting the political parties' nominee for president so both states moved their primary dates up -- Michigan to Jan. 15 and Florida to Jan. 29. As a result, the Democratic National Committee punished the states by ruling that no delegates from the states would be seated at the national convention. The candidates also pledged not to campaign in either state and none have, with the exception of U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who was to formally announce today his withdrawal from the race.

    The Republican National Committee also sanctioned the states by ruling that only half the states' delegates would be seated at their convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September.

    Political activists have long said that the eventual nominee would end up seating the states' delegations, and the Republican candidates have indicated they will do that.

    None of the Democrats had made the same pledge until Friday.


    More (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    "The rules are clear," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. "Any state that holds their primary outside of the window shall be penalized delegates." States are not allowed to hold primaries before Feb. 5.


    "I am confident that all 114 delegates from Florida will be seated," said Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.


    "If we don't do something, this is going to become a national primary and there will be federal legislation that takes it away from the parties," said a top national Republican Party official who spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations on the matter were continuing.


    One possible situation could allow the states to seat a full delegation even after they are penalized. If there is a clear nominee by the time of the convention, as has been the case since 1976, the presumptive candidate could petition the national party to restore the delegates from the penalized states. Such a move, however, could anger the states that held back from bumping up their primaries, and they could challenge such a move.

    If the nomination is not settled by the time of the conventions, the issue of delegates could become crucial. If delegates are not seated, they cannot cast votes. But even if the nomination is largely settled, the battles over seating delegates and accommodating main figures from these states at the convention could hamper the party's unity going into the general election -- something national and state officials said they were hoping to avoid.

    "My expectation is that, in the end, all the delegates are going to be seated," Mr. Anuzis said, "because the party is going to want to be united going into the general election."



    More (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    Florida Republicans also potentially face punishment for violating their national party's rules. But while the Florida GOP could lose half its delegates, Republican candidates have not been barred from campaigning in the state.


    The dustup has turned Florida, the nation's fourth largest state, into a wide-open playing field for Republicans, and they have taken advantage. The state Republican Party has run an ad proclaiming that while "the (Democratic) contenders have come here to take our money, they won't stand up for our right to be heard" and imploring Floridians to "make your vote count -- vote Republican."



    Of Course she Did (none / 0) (#39)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    Unbelievable - except that it was so predictable.  
    If they want delegates to be seated at the convention the candidates should agree that if the number of delegates in Florida and MI can make the difference they should have a special primary.  That's the only way to ensure VOTERS will decide our candidate.  If Hillary really wanted to be president of "all 50 states" she would support something like this.

    Anything short would guarantee these delegates would go to the establishment candidate - ensuring two family rule of our country for over 8800 consecutive days.  

    Hopefully that's not the argument Obama uses (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    If his best argument is that I don't want them seated because Hillary won those states, then he is going to lose this fight.

    His best argument, IMO, is that the DNC has determined the rules and that those rules should continue to apply.  We shouldn't be changing rules in mid-stream.  

    I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument, especially about Michigan.  I have less sympathy about Florida because I'm not sure it was right to "punish" Florida to begin with.  If the McClatchy report is right, the Republican-dominated Florida legislature moved the Florida primaries.  By punishing Florida Democrats for this, which was out of their control, we've basically allowed the Florida Republican establishment to keep our candidates out of the state during primary season, which means they won't have had the same opportunity to build grassroots networks as the Republicans.

    The other caveat on my sympathy for this argument is that, while I'm all for setting up a rational primary schedule, the DNC created the problem by failing to deal with the Iowa and NH monopolies.  States have been complaining about this and moving their primaries for several cycles now.  But the DNC has never been able to address the fundamental unfairness of two states always getting the largest say in the nominating process.  I don't think that means states should just jump willy-nilly into the schedule, but the problem is one for the entire party.

    And I'm still not sure that it's smart to punish democratic voters because of what their party (or legislature) did.  It's great to say, Michigan and Florida will be punished by losing delegates because that sounds like a punishment meted out to the parties.  But what it actually is saying is that because of actions by the Michigan party and Florida legislature, Michigan and Florida democrats get no say in who the democratic nominee is.  I'm not sure whether that's fair or not, but I do think it's terrible politics heading into November where we're going to need every democratic vote in Florida we can get.


    Not the DNC (none / 0) (#44)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    I should've also noted that Clinton is right, ultimately it will not be the DNC who decides whether Florida and Michigan are seated.  It will be the other delegates to the convention.

    I agree (none / 0) (#45)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    with everything you said.  But IF the delegates are to be seated - Obama should say that the only way he would support this would be with Primary's conducted on April 22 along with PN so the candidates have the opportunity to campaign and make their arguments to voters.

    andreww (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    that would cost a lot of money and time, neither one of which we can afford to squander.  It might also, again, make it seem as if Florida gets to decide who we have as president.  I don't think anyone wants it boiling down to that again.

    If you want to see how it would shake out, SC is going to be a great snapshot.  I predict tomorrow will have lots of folks yelling about not being allowed to vote (especially the ones who missed the registration deadline) and lots of folks threatening to sue.  There might even be some blood shed.  I am not exaggerating here.  Things are very, very tense in SC right now and the media is doing nothing to help the matter.  The same would happen in Florida if it came down to them getting to decide.


    do the people in South Carolina (none / 0) (#52)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    realize the cut off date of 12-26 to register?? I suppose they will blame the Clintons for that as well....It never ends....

    a lot of them (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    have never voted before, which reflects well on Obama if he is the reason they are so passionate about coming out--unfortunately, the flip side to this is that they don't quite understand the rules of voting.  Rumors are running rampant that the Clintons have somehow managed to change the rules to disenfranchise voters.  And of course the press-local and otherwise-has done very little to clarify.

    I am really, really worried.  I hope I am wrong.  Many friends in SC say that this is going to be a huge problem.


    WOW (none / 0) (#55)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    The media has a responsibility to the voters to point out where those rules are coming from....But of course they would rather see bloodshed to shill for Obama....

    then the delegates (none / 0) (#54)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    shouldn't count.  But Hillary is saying she wants them to count.  I'm saying Obama should respond the only was he would back that is by having primaries that count.  In the absence of that - NO DELEGATES FOR HILLARY.

    all of the delegates... (none / 0) (#65)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    ...for the first four "official" states should reject this, and I'd assume all the Edwards and Obama delegates would as well.  


    Because all the state delegations voted on it a year ago.  The Republicans in Florida did it against the wishes of the Dem lege there, and I don't know what's up with Michigan.

    But rules are rules.  Chairman Dean should come out with a strong statement about this to smack this down.

    Has Dean (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    endorsed anyone??

    Dean is the head of the DNC... (none / 0) (#74)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    ...he should make it clear that he wants the rules that the states all agreed to enforced--it was made known that if a state "jumped in line" they'd lose their delegates.  It's not a matter of "endorsing" anyone, it's a matter of making sure no one tries to make a cute end run like this.

    why is this (none / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:45:13 AM EST
    just Hillary's fault when it was Obama that took his name off the ballot of Michigan to curry favor with Iowa....Dont they both share some blame here??

    A few comments deleted (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    they were by Andreww. He's warned. No personal attacks, insults or name-calling. And no chattering or hijacking the thread with off-topic stuff.

    cynicism (none / 0) (#72)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    If the majority of the delegates from Michigan and Florida were Obama's, then Hillary wouldn't be making any demands that they be seated.