It's Official: No New Primary for Florida

The Florida Democratic Party has rejected a plan for a new primary.

In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon, state party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said, "We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

Thurman said the decision now falls to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again next month.

Thurman says the consenus of the thousands of e-mails was that Floridians don't want to vote again.

Of course they don't. More than 1.7 million Democrats already voted and they chose Hillary. They want their vote to count. And it should. The DNC is the culprit here. They need to retract the penalty and award and seat the delegates in accordance with the January 29 vote.

Update: A must-read primer on the Florida primary battle by Mary Beth at Wampum.

Update: Comments now closed, new Florida thread here.

< The State of Blogger Discourse on Obama and Hillary | The "Bias" Of Blogs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So the Dems are prepared to hand FL to the Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:07:37 PM EST

    Camp Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    Believes they can win without Florida.

    this is terrible for hillary (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    and terrible for the party.

    As cynical as I am... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    ...I really have a hard time believing the DNC will simply leave FL hanging - one of the largest states in the US and one pivotal in the last two elections - without any voice whatsoever in the nomination.

    I can hear John McCain now... "Florida, the Republican party values your voice and you can trust me to continue to value your views and represent you in the White House"

    Disenfranchisement arguments aside, this is just terrible PR for the Dem party and a credibility blow its claim of inclusiveness.


    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    think this is absolutely it, or could FL still change their minds?

    Darn, I was looking forward to voting for Hil in FL.


    seem likely to me they may (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    be seated.

    Chuck Todd, MSNBC's (none / 0) (#203)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    political director, just told Keith Olbermann that there will likely be a compromise long before the convention, that would give Clinton more than 50% of the delegates (someone has finally woken up to the reality that the 50%-50% split idea is risible) but wouldn't "let her count the popular vote."

    The advantage to Obama would be that his delegate lead wouldn't be significantly affected, and it would be harder for Clinton to make her "popular vote" argument.  On the other hand, popular votes are generally not the basis for allocating delegates.  It's just a factor that superdelegates can consider in deciding how to vote, and I don't see why they can't consider the popular vote in FLA regardless of whether the primary was "official."

    Of course, other events may change the way superdelegates view the race in any case. Olbermann spent a lot of time on Obama's speech tomorrow on race and religion, which is now being compared to JFK's Houston speech in 1960 in importance.


    Except (1.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM EST
    that JFK wasn't trying to wash away the embarassment of a 20 years relationship with Wright.

    This speech will be worse than Romney's.


    Romney's speech was horrible for (none / 0) (#225)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:58:24 PM EST
    other reasons. Remember "faith is not possible without liberty, and liberty is not possible without faith"?  It doesn't matter what religion you believe in, as long as you believe in some religion?

    Obama's speech presents a difficult challenge, because it involves both race and religion, and must explain the nature of his relationship with Wright.  But at least I don't think Obama will be telling us that atheists and agnostics are not entitled to or able to enjoy the blessings of liberty.


    It's a very tall order (none / 0) (#231)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    Frankly, I'm about ready to give up on the WH this November. I can't fathom how Obama can recover from this.

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    Our frontrunner is about implode, and his close challenger will not be accepted as legimate by the supporters of the frontrunner.

    The next time I write a GBCW diary, it won't be a blog I'm leaving. It will be the country. McCain wins, it's time to start looking at qualifying to practice law in Toronto.


    I'm pretty much on that page too (none / 0) (#238)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    If this were just the apparent end of Hillary's campaign, I'd be a little dour, but the fact that this is shaping up to be the end of Democratic chances at taking back the WH makes me feel ill.

    Our only hope (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    That the economy and the war are both going soooo disastrously in November that even the McSame-smitten press corpse cannot keep McSame's candidacy afloat.

    Now that's a hell of a thing to hope for.


    How silly he must be. So the DNC (none / 0) (#227)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    is not going to "let" the super-delegates count the results in Florida?  Dean and Brazile are going to exercise mind control now, having screwed up the damage control from their stupid decisions?

    It is not about "letting" Clinton count or not count the popular vote.  How would she do so?  How would she be prevented from doing so?  Details, please!

    Btw, no one can prevent me from counting the votes of 1.7 million Americans, either.  I just dare Dean and Brazile telling me what I can or cannot think.  That is just . . . owwwwwww, oh my head, oh make it stop, it's the Donnamatong beaming its bad rays at my brain, owwwwwww it hurts. . . .


    Jedi mind tricks (none / 0) (#237)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:12:47 PM EST
    "These are not the popular votes you are looking for...."

    Over (none / 0) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    I think that this was absolutely it for a revote. But that's just my opinion.

    i really doubt.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:43:38 PM EST
    ...there's a reasonable chance for a revote.  Too many cooks in that kitchen to come to some kind of agreement.

    In the end, I'll blame Dean for not taking the leadership role.  The DNC playing a silly game of chicken with the legislature and who lost?  The voters.


    The RNC penalized (none / 0) (#122)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    their primary voters as well. Because the primary is decided on that side now, and the late Republican voters are already disenfranchised, it won't matter.

    Party primaries aren't fair.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    Not sure why they could not get it together.  I think the chances of Fla delegates being seated, especially if MI has a primary, are not very good (unless they don't matter, which actually is not all that unlikely).  

    I think the best thing for Obama to do is make some kind of compromise.  The best is probably to seat them as is but with the 50% penalty that should have been assessed under the party rules in the first place.

    Oh, and have I mentioned that the DNC is a bunch of idiots.


    Think this is the way to go (none / 0) (#38)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    For a variety of reasons:

    a. Suggested by the most important Florida democratic politician - Nelson
    b. Was the EXACT same penalty that the republican side imposed upon THEIR Florida delegates.
    c. Assesses something for not following the rules.
    d. Moves the process along, settling things.  


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST
    All the DNC has to do now is refuse to seat Hillary's FL delegates and there's no way she's the nominee.  Hillary, we hardly knew ye!

    You're assuming (none / 0) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    The supers won't take that into consideration - they were all on the ballot and people voted.

    V.v. - awful news for the Democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    and incidentally for HRC.

    Bad for any Dem nominee (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    as if you think this would help Obama win votes if he is the nominee in Florida, you haven't been reading the Florida press.  Clinton actually has a better chance than he does -- but neither now stands a good chance of winning as many as needed to put Florida in the Dem column in the Electoral College.

    What does the Florida press say, for those of us (none / 0) (#249)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:44:14 PM EST
    who don't live there?

    Ok, so we're looking at a floor fight (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    This is going to get very ugly.

    Hillary's strategy (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    on Florida is similar to her health care strategy:  All or nothing.....We'll see how it works out....

    But with health care, one can always take a fall-back position; not so with a re-vote in Florida because it appears time's up to plan one.


    I truly believe that the democratic party (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    has been engaged in a conspiracy against Hillary since the get go....Anything they can do to further Obama is what they will do...So sad...

    Amen. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    The really bad thing is that we all will suffer for their bewildering shenanigans.  Obama will have an almost insurmountable battle against McCain, and now, he's turned much of the Democratic constituency against him.

    We Need A Better Party!!


    So sad and I think shortsighted (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    But so be it.  We probably don't deserve to win at this point.  One of the worst primaries ever and no sign of any respite.  Insanity reigns.

    Vigkat (none / 0) (#239)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13:35 PM EST
    Are you vigilant meerkat?

    That conspiracy will justify (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    her run as an independent. What else can she do? It wasn't fair.

    That conspiracy will justify (none / 0) (#130)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM EST
    her run as an independent. What else can she do? It wasn't fair.

    They won't retract the penalty (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by debcoop on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:21:44 PM EST
    The Rules Committee, even if they decide to seat the Florida delelgates as is   can have their decision appealed and wait until the Convention.  So they can't rescind it becaus eI am sure Obama has partisans on the Rules committee....like I know Donna Brazille is on the Rules committee...and she is a covert Obama supporter.

    So the credentials committee at the convention has 25 members appointed by Howard Dean and 3 apiece from each state delelgation appointed by who won the state vote....Obama has won more states than she has...The Credentials Committee will not seat the Florida delegation if it gives Hillary the nomination.  Even so there could be a pro Hillary Minority report out of the committee to go to the floor of the Convention.  He leads in pledged delelgates there....She loses.

    I must agree with BTD the only hope she had for a win ....and a lelgitimate win was to revote in Florida.

    Michigan voting and Florida not voting means her popular vote margin from Florida could be nearly erased....There is nothing good about this at all.

    She may be right about seating them...but that doesn't matter.

    Revoting could have given her the legitimacy she needed going into the convention.  I have trouble seeing what argument she gets to make.....Big states I think is insufficient....she needed at least 2 out of the 3  leg of the stool.

    Covert? (none / 0) (#13)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    Did you say Donna Brazile is a Covert Obama supporter? LOL!

    Undeclared then! (none / 0) (#45)
    by debcoop on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    Let me further amend....If Barack Obama implodes in his polling numbers then she has an legitimate argument ....And sad to say the Revernd Jeremiah Wright may do that to Obama in the primary or maybe not...Democratic primary voters do not respond like general elelction voters....Even sadder I think the Reverend Wright may have already had an irreparable effect for November.  This may be Obama's swift boat moment.

    And he's giving a speech tomorrow so I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    if that will help/hurt his polling.  We'll just have to wait and see what he says and how the MSM reacts.  But for Hillary to drop out now would be stupid.

    Obama has to be able to win (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    With the Jan. 29 vote counted in it's entirety or Clinton supporters will not consider his victory legitimate.

    I am developing serious doubts (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    that anyone cares what clinton supporters think except other clinton supporters.

    When Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    Stay home in November it'll all be a little too late.

    my honest impression is (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    that many are prepared to lose as long as Hillary is not the nominee.
    they are celebrating this over at americblog

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    That's what I figured.

    Watching Tweety... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM EST
    ...and Andrea Mitchell - who purportedly "covers the Clinton campaign" - both mocking Bill Clinton for having the gall to claim that Clinton winning the popular vote raises some legitimate issues about the victor in the primary.

    In other Hardball propaganda, cut to Obama defending his wimpy record on Iraq by pointing to Clinton's.

    He is running the "I'm not Hillary" campaign and it's unfortunately working with the boneheads in cable news.


    My view is diametrically opposed to this (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:34:59 PM EST
    A revote was absolutely necessary for the legitimacy of our nominee.

    For Hillary, I believe this development makes her contest to be viewed as the legitimate nominee impossible. She will not be viewed as the popular vote winner now. She can not claim the will of the people.

    She can now only hope to overturn the will of the people.

    I will not sign up for that myself.

    If this is not reversed, I believe Hillary should cut a deal now, drop out and accept the VP slot, for the good of the Party.

    If it takes whupping Obama's butt in PA, then take it to PA, but beyond that, she should drop out.

    Obama won't be considered (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    Legitimate without FL seated as is.

    He can not claim the will of the people.


    Obama has already lost (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    Remember the "Wright" story. Check out Rasmussen. They did a poll on it. 2/3 of their poll respondents had heard about it. TWO-THIRDS. And they didn't like it at all. The story broke in the general media on friday, and it's monday. This is huge.  They're calling it "The Wright Effect". If Obama can pull out of this by the convention, then he might actually win the election, but it's a longer shot than ever. If Clinton loses the primary, she would be wise to sit this election out. Her presence on the ballot won't help Obama and it won't help her, either.

    If Clinton drops out FL will be seated as is (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    Saying that you won't count the results of the (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    primary unless one of two candidates drops out -- thus ending the contest -- is not exactly legitimating the primary.

    OF course he can (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:40:33 PM EST
    He leads NOW. A non-event will not take away his lead.

    Florida is lost of course so we will need to get to 270 some other way.


    No he can't (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM EST
    You can't claim the popular vote, no one can claim the popular vote, when 1.7 million votes are ignored.

    He won;t have to (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    he will claim the pledged delegate lead and Clinton will have no argument to counter that in terms of the will of the people.

    Of course that's what he'll do (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:52:38 PM EST
    The challenge is not to describe and justify this obvious course of action.

    The challenge is to get Clinton supporters to care about the GE.


    Put her on the ticket (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    I have already said that.

    That will be even more of an insult (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    The Clinton support that has been hardened by the tone of this campaign will still stay home.

    I am sure she will not want to be on (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    the losing obama ticket.

    As much as I like Obama (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    a Hillary/Obama ticket makes more sense than an Obama/Hillary ticket....

    Hillary is stymied by the process....She should have fought harder for a re-vote....especaiily since Obama is having a tough time with Wright....A Florida re-vote would have given her a plausible way to claim real victory over Obama....  


    Are you (none / 0) (#73)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:41 PM EST
    going to figure out how he can get to 270? What states will he have to take to win?

    I think SUSA already has (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    she sould not drop out (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:37:11 PM EST
    at least until the pastor and his implications are fully explored.
    they could change everything.

    If Obama doesn't address this (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    he will be blown out in November. I can barely stand to watch.

    The pastor (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    relationship is irreversible. There is nothing he can say that will change his past, his last 20 years of embracing this man.

    Absolutely not -- I am convinced now (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    that Obama cannot win the GE because of the pastor as well as other issues so badly handled by his campaign lately.

    The only reason for doing as you suggest would be so that Obama, not Hillary, would be blamed for the loss in November.  But she would be blamed, anyway.  So -- no reason now for either one to quit.  Both are invested too deeply for the sake of posterity.

    And history matters, even if the Dem Party has assured that it will not matter this fall.


    It does not matter (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
    if you and I and 12 million others might think that.

    There is now no way for Clinton to have a legitimate claim to be the choice of the people.

    There was a reason why I urged fighting for revotes. Apparently, none of you believe I meant it.

    For the good of the Party, Clinton needs to negotiate the number 2 slot and drop out.

    Let's try and win this thing without Florida in November.


    Damn, BTD, you're depressing me. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    I don't want HC as VP. If Obama loses, you know it will be blamed on her. I'd rather him pick a male from a state we will need in Nov.

    If Obama loses (none / 0) (#86)
    by stillife on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    they'll blame Hillary in any event.  She should have dropped out earlier, she ran a divisive campaign, blahblahblah.

    But I agree, I don't want her on the ticket as VP either.


    She won't be the Presidential nominee (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:58:30 PM EST
    I know. I pretty much figured that out in (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    mid-February. I got my hopes up after OH & TX so now I will have to grieve again.

    Don't Grieve. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    Fight. This looks bleak, I admit. But none of us have crystal balls. We may take educated guesses -- and they may turn out to be correct, but in the end it's all speculation.

    But while we're speculating, let me speculate in another direction; let's say that Obama's campaign implodes. Doesn't seem likely, but the odds are certainly better for that this week than they were last week. I don't think the Jeremiah Wright story is going anywhere. I think that it is going to fester and grow. I think there's a good possibility that there are even more outrageously offensive clips from sermons out there. I think that now that people are looking, there's a good chance that we're going to find proof that Obama was in church when something like this was said, and that he's going to have to apologize for more bad judgment.

    So let's say that the bad news doesn't end for Obama. Let's say that Hillary does much better in PA than expected (and that's where the fighting comes in, in the form of contributions and volunteering, phone banking, etc.). Let's just say that it begins to look more and more like McCain will absolutely cream Obama in the GE. Let's say that after PA, Hillary has the mo' and Obama's negatives are growing, and Hillary again exceeds expectations in the subsequent states.

    Let's just say.

    If conventional wisdom turns against Obama and towards Hillary, it will be he, not she who will seem increasingly illegitimate. And if that's the case, the super Ds will still be there to step in and make a decision. And if that turns out to be the case (or something close to it) I don't think the super Ds will be faulted for their choice.


    she will if the SDs have any sense (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    just wait until after PA.  She absolutely will be the nominee.  If not then the SDs have chosen to lose in November and I don't think they want to do that.

    It's impossible? Totally? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    And Obama (none / 0) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:32 PM EST
    Won't be President.

    Perfect storm for the democrats (none / 0) (#164)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM EST
    just became a pretty-good storm for the democrats.

    McCain still has to face the economy, his age, a worsening Iraq, the general Bush legacy, and a real campaign about his past.

    Obama just has to get past the Wright stuff and hold on to the media to win.


    McCain (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    will be portrayed very affectionately as a one trick pony that has become dotty.

    The economy is really, really bad.....


    If Obama was such a great organizer (none / 0) (#198)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    we could screw the media and actually organize something.

    I did (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:15 PM EST
    There was a reason why I urged fighting for revotes. Apparently, none of you believe I meant it.

    there is every way (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST
    Hillary can be the legitimate choice of the Democratic party. Seat Florida and Michigan and let the superdelegates exercise their function as intended, which doesn't mean adhering to a delegate table. They owe it to us to consider who is more electable.

    Hillary + PA + FL + MI + Superdelegates is the legitimate nominee.


    Keep talking Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    Hillary's not a quitter. So I'm not going to give up. VP under Obama would be an insult. She's in it to win it.

    Obama would be a disaster as the nominee and he cannot beat McCain.

    Surely the supers are smarter than to think he can.

    I just gave her another $100 worth of love, and I suggest anyone who wants her to stay in this thing and fight until after PA and the Wright disaster has time to percolate, you should too.

    We're going to need a viable, true Dem candidate to turn to when Obama implodes.


    I sent another $100 today, too -- (none / 0) (#228)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    as I do every time I get really, REALLY ticked about the treatment she -- and thus we -- get.  

    With such conditions, of course, my donation policy is getting costly. :-)  


    I'm going to hold onto that bare thread of hope (none / 0) (#132)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    I'm still shaking my head over all this.

    Seat Florida? (none / 0) (#155)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:16:05 PM EST
    What circumstances can you imagine leading up to that?  That the Obama side would accept without bolting?

    The democratic party has blanked the bed, it can't be unblanked.


    No Jeralyn (none / 0) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    That is how she can be the legitimate candidate in your eyes.

    The fact that you think that Michigan is a legitimate result speaks to your bias.  


    Obama will win the peldged delegate count (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    Florida makes no difference in this. It is only a 38 delegate gain for Clinton. She will NOT catch him in the pledged delegates. Hell, Obama is waiting for you - he will agree to seat them as is ands STILL win the pledged delegate count.

    Florida (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:24:50 PM EST
    will be seated when it no longer matters.....

    "Something is up with super-delegates" (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    Jeralyn, fyi.  According to Olbermann.  (No, I don't usually watch; someone else in the house has it on the tube. . . .)

    I guess they're going to do something to (none / 0) (#196)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    make her drop out before he loses PA badly.

    You know what (none / 0) (#107)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    This is not for the good of the party.  This is about votes!

    People in Florida voted on January 29th and Hillary Clinton won the Florida Primary.  It's easy for you and others to say, "take the 50%" or spend 15 million and have a revote. This state is in a budget crisis and has been hit hard by the subprime fiasco. Yeah, we'll just shell out and 10 - 15 million to make Howard Dean and Obama happy.

    In addition, Crist spoke too soon.  The Republican Legislature would never agree to have a revote; they are thrilled with how this turned out.

    The Republicans got Dean good. But he'll just blame it on the voters....as you are.

    Enough. We voted!


    Primary would have been privately financed (none / 0) (#146)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    Y'all should have voted again - it would have made the state money.  No one here's blaming the voters.  FL Dems got screwed by the Gov/leg., by Dean, by the Obama campaign, by the Democratic cong. del., and to a lesser extent by the HRC campaign's failure to fight for them.  I agree with BTD that HRC can't win under these circumstances and should withdraw - she's also gotten mugged.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves strive in vain.


    Maybe not withdraw (none / 0) (#197)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    Wind things down?  Suspend the campaign, in case the Rev. Wright thing goes singular?

    Yeah righ (none / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    This state is in a budget crisis and has been hit hard by the subprime fiasco. Yeah, we'll just shell out and 10 - 15 million to make Howard Dean and Obama happy.

    Florida's GDP is 750 Billion dollars.   It spends over a 100 million dollars on military affairs.  It spends 275 million dollars on fish and wildlife services.  


    Do some research (none / 0) (#201)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    I am not going to explain the Florida economy to you.

    Obama will not win without Florida.


    I believed you meant it, of course (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:17:56 PM EST
    and agree this is problematic -- but for both Dems.  I think you do, too, from other comments, so why the focus on Clinton here?

    Well (none / 0) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    Because I am building up to a post that none of you will like.

    That Clinton should drop out now.


    I wish you could wait on that. The people (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    in PA, NC, etc should have their chance to vote. I understand your point (I think) that if HC cannot win the nomination, stop the campaign now and let's become unified for Nov. I just don't think people are ready for that.

    You have been the one person many of us could count on to understand how we feel and I really dread seeing your post linked everywhere as evidence that HC should quit on us.


    Then why not (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    just build up a post that the Democrats should just drop out now?  Because I don't think Obama can win against Rick Santorum in November after Friday, much less John McCain.

    NoNoNo (none / 0) (#230)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    Don't do it, BTD. Hold off. Let the process happen.

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    Doesn't the logic go the other way?

    How on earth can you throw out the FL voters and consider the resulting win legitimate?

    1. Best would be a redo.

    2. Second best use the votes as is

    3. Third best 50/50

    4. Fourth best don't seat until after the nomination is decided

    5. Fifth best don't seat.

    Seems to me that the vote in the non-campaign is more legitimate than 50/50, since voters own their votes; it's not for the party to re-allocate them.

    Nice move, too, setting us up for a loss in the FL in the general.

    But what do my views matter? After all, I'm a racist.


    The pledged delegate lead (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    has been legitimized as a measure of the will of the people.

    Obama has his will of the people argument. Now Hillary has no argument.


    It is only legitimized (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    in some tautological fashion.

    It's legitimate because... it is.

    You yourself have outlined the RATIONAL reasons why it is not.


    It does NOT matter (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:57:44 PM EST
    what you or I think.

    The consensus is it IS a legitimate measure of the will of the people.

    Clinton needed to trump it with a popular vote win.

    She can not do that now.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    It matters what you or I think.

    We know Obama's rational (pledged delegates) is weak, and that will be reflected in our confidence (or lack thereof) in him throughout the GE.

    I understand what you're saying about what gets accepted, but the truth, what you know to be the truth, lingers.

    I have some faith in the truth and that what I think ultimately matters in some manner of fashion, even if it never even comes close to being anything more than subtext.

    No matter how you'll slice and dice, we'll all know underneath everthing else that we nominated someone who could not have won the popular vote without the intervention of processes and procedures that were controlled by people who do not like the Clintons.


    "The consensus"? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
    What consensus? The A-listers?

    It's the tautological argument (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    It is cause it is.  The consensus is..... the consensus.

    Even though we know .... rationally..... that it is not.


    No (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    Democrats all over the country.

    Hell, I believe there are two potential measure of the will of the people. I have argued for the popular vote measure.

    Clinton will be able to argue neither.


    no, the will of the people is the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    The consensus is it IS a legitimate measure of the will of the people.

    Consensus of Obama supporters is not a consensus of Democrats or all voters.

    Polls show that the people believe the popular vote is the measure of the will of the people.


    BTD, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:59:53 PM EST
    you are forgetting the "will" of the SD.

    They play an independent role like it or not; and their role is also legitimize by the rules.

    Besides, the popular vote in FL will be certified.
    The DNC will seat at least 1 delegate.


    They will NOT (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    overturn the "will of the people."

    Hell, I do not want them to.

    Clinton has no "will of the people" argument now.


    They will (none / 0) (#145)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    do what they (not you, me or any of us) think
    is the best for the party in November.
    Unless of course Pelosi continues to make
    public announcements changing the role of SD; they well, then this process will indeed be illegitimate

    At this point in the game, the SD exist whether anyone
    likes it or not. So until this is changed everyone  especially Pelosi, Dean and Obama should try to
    twist and redefine their role.


    Of course (none / 0) (#162)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    I meant "shouldn't" in my last line...

    "has been" legitimized? (none / 0) (#105)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:27 PM EST
    I note the passive voice.

    Legitimized by whom? Our famously free press? Why should I accept it?


    Don;t accept it (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has.

    your opinion on the will of the people is (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:15 PM EST
    just that, your opinion. It's a phrase, nothing more.

    What will be your argument? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    that NEITHER the popular vote NOR the pledged delegate count reflect the will of the people?

    How will you argue for the will of the people?

    Of course I am offering my opinion but the facts support me.

    Neither Clinton nor Clinton supporters will have a shred of evidence to offer to argue Clinton is the choice of the people.

    this is devastating for Clinton's argument for the nomination.


    But (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST
    you don't have all the facts. You assume a lot of things at this point and are making a conclusion based on your assumptions. But your assumptions though might be "probable" are not facts nor are
    a given so your conclusions are highly debatable.

    It's more of the inductive reasoning that's common (none / 0) (#229)
    by corn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:02:21 PM EST

    How do you know (none / 0) (#157)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    the Democraty Party has? The post here says the DNC will meet in April to decide FL. We won't decide.

    Nor we can talk in the name of the SD or tell them what to do, just because Pelosi went on national TV and crossed the line.  

    She should be stripped of her automatic position as chair of the convention....


    Then it is an illegitimate election (none / 0) (#115)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
    in your opinion maybe (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    the pledged delegate count is one part of the equation.

    What is the other part (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    for determining the will of the people? The popular vote. Clinton needed a legitimately accepted popular vote win in Florida. She will not get it now.

    She thus can not win the popular vote. Obama will be perceived as the choice of the people.

    The Super Delegates will NOT overturn the will of the people and even if they did, Clinton's nomination will be viewed as illegitimate.

    It would be a disastrous development for Democrats EXCEPT for the fact that Michigan is doing the right thing.


    Given the asinine actions of the DNC (none / 0) (#235)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    Obama will not get legitimacy out of this.

    Agreed. So if BTD is correct, then (none / 0) (#242)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    let me be the first to order my Clinton in 2012 bumper sticker.

    But that is predicated, of course, on BTD being correct.  As Obama says about himself, BTD is imperfect. :-)


    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    see the logic in your argument at all.
    It cuts both ways.

    I think, BTD, you are just expressing your desire for her to drop. But there is no basis for it that I can see either in your argument or out there at this point.


    It does not cut both ways (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    Obama's will of the people argument is the pledged delegate lead.

    The delegates actually do not matter AT ALL! Clinton won't win because of a 38 pledged delegate gain out of Florida. Hell, Obama should seat them.

    It is the illegitimacy of the popular vote totals that finish Clinton.


    You are making (none / 0) (#110)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:03:08 PM EST
    a rather contradictory argument... : the pleadged delegates matter or don't matter? What is it?

    You say seat them: well yes let's seat them. NThen let the primary run its course: what's this rush to
    abort it now?  MI just worked hard to get a primary on June 3rd. Don' you think we should respect that?


    They matter (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    They are a poor representation of the will of the people.

    MOST people especially the Democratic Party accept it as the representation of the will of the people. Absent a legitimately accepted counter argument, a win in the popular vote, it will be accepted that Obama is the choice of the people.


    You have to (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:24:24 PM EST
    wait to see what the DNC decides in April about FL.

    Obama will be the more illegitimate one (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    He will get a nomination he didn't earn and everyone will know he wasn't the real choice of the Democrats.

    That is just not how it will be (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:05:46 PM EST
    I know in your eyes that is how it will be but it is not how the Democratic Party will see it.

    Hillary needed a popular vote win that was perceived as legitimate.

    She will NEVER be viewed as the legitimate nominee now.

    You place too much weight on the 38 delegate margin in Florida.

    Clinton will NOT catch Obama in the pledged delegate race. Hell, Obama should agree to seat the Florida delegation.

    The big issue was the legitimacy of the popular vote. The January 29 vote is viewed as tainted. And nothing will change that.


    Obama will magnanimously agree to seat FL (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    ... as soon as he has wrapped up the nomination without them.

    It will happen.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    But that won't help him in FL in November.

    And you place too little weight (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    on unknown variables.

    You seem to be laboring under the (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    misconception that there is some magic in having a generic Democrat in the White House.  BS on that.  If that Democrat is not the best person for President, I want the Republican.  Personally, Obama has been at number 3 on my list for a long time and I don't see that changing.

    I have supported Hillary strictly because I believe she will make the best President.  No other reason, no sex, no race, just plain competence.  For that reason, I want this thing to go to the convention and be fought out there.  If necessary, let blood run in the aisles.  Let us reap what we've sewn.


    they can discount the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    but they can not ignore the popular vote it is based on.  she gets that popular vote in the eyes of the SDs who still have to chose and do the right thing for November.
    There is no reason for Clinton to drop out considering that most democrats do not want her to do so.

    I was thinking that too (none / 0) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:41:46 PM EST
    She has a better claim now.  This could always make voters in other states mad and she could win some states (or come close) she wasn't supposed to win.  the supers are going to decide either way, and without a Florida win (or recount), Obama is not legitimate either.

    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM EST
    except I don't think she should drop out now.  PA and NC should get their vote.  At that time things should be assessed and barring any real shocks, she should cut a deal.  Either get the VP slot or the Senate Majority leader slot.  I think the latter is the better choice for her but either should be suitable.

    This can't go on after that.  The party needs to come together.  November is an easy win, for either candidate, if the party doesn't shoot itself in the foot.


    Senate Majority Leader (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM EST
    could be tough - she'd have to go through Harry  Reid's cold dead hands, plus all the Senators who are ahead of her in seniority (Assuming they wouldn't want it).  I don't know the Senate rules, but I don't think there's an automatic vote for Majority Leader in January - is there?

    I believe (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    each new session brings with it a new vote for leaders.   I could be wrong.

    I have heard that Reid may bow out of the seat regardless.


    Clinton doesn't need a consolation prize (none / 0) (#119)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    The question is what can Obama do to keep her supporters engaged.  Richardson as VP could help with the latino vote.  I don't know what he can do about women and seniors, however.  He will need Clinton campaigning for him (which I am sure she will do as a loyal democrat).

    The party has already shot itself in the foot (none / 0) (#100)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    By the flawed process they have run and by the lack of even handed leadership from the DNC.  Rules reform should be a big topic at the convention.  I hope Obama supprters join in ammending them.  Closed primaries, no caucuses, fair allocations, lottery schedules should all be proposed.

    What's her leverage with Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    to get the VP slot...even assuming she wants it...or would take it if offered?

    I can't imagine Obama's sponsors letting him choose her (even if he wanted to - and it doesn't appear that he does).

    All he has to do is wait it out...unless he can't afford what the next 4-5 months might bring.


    I Personally Hope Hillary Is Not The (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:07:06 PM EST
    VP nominee. Think we would be better served with her staying in the Senate.

    I agree (none / 0) (#140)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    I can't see how Obama has a chance to win the GE anyways.  And all her VP status would do is confirm how inexperienced he is with her on the ticket.

    I think (none / 0) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    Her leverage is that all polls are indicating 25-40% of her supporters are not going to vote for him.

    Although, I think at this point, she might be more powerful in the Senate as anything he would want to get done, would have to go through her - the media will ask her opinion (if nothing else to see if they can start a fight).

    Aside- I think if he actually can pull of a win in the GE, he's a one-termer.  His inexperience will catch up with him and with all the problems we face, I don't see him being able to make good on all the "hope" and "unity" stuff.


    A win in PA (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    and the threat of a Convention fight is tons of leverage.

    She can have it if she wants it.


    Agree (none / 0) (#128)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    "where no man has gone before".

    A black man as President, white woman as Vice-President.  

    Sometimes I think, "Da*n, our party has some cajones!  We rock!"  

    Othertimes I think, "noble intentions get you a "good for you - here's a cup of coffee!".



    Yep (none / 0) (#134)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    And the one thing we know about this election so far.... Is that nobody knows anything.

    I guess I still want to retain hope that we can have a legitimately elected President once more.


    I disagree. I think that the Florida vote (none / 0) (#251)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    was also important for Obama to be considered legitimate.
    This smacks way too much of the Supreme Court deal in 2000.  I'm sure I"m not the only one who is going to take it that way.  

    Just pretending that 1.7 million people didn't vote or playing games with the number of delegates the insiders will "allow" HIllary to have, while insisting she can't count the popular vote in Florida, will not miraculously erase the neurons in which we  have all stored the knowledge of her Florid win. I don't think the DNC and the Obamaites have that much power.

    The Floridians, for sure, will not forget this little piece of information.  Obama will be seen as just as legitimate as George W. Bush was after his first "selection" by the Supreme Court. The result:  a lot of Hillary voters will sit on their hands in November and Florida and Ohio and maybe PA will go to McCain.


    It seems clear that the point (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    of this whole venture was to get Obama into the WH any way, any how. Look back to his grooming at the 2004 convention, before he had even won his first federal election. How many times does that happen?

    Sorry to get tinfoil, but that's how I see it. It gets more clear by the day. We are getting railroaded into Obama just like we were railroaded into Bush.  

    Some folks who claim to be free of bias (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    Are underestimating the potential for this kind of narrative to take hold amongst Clinton supporters.

    Certify FL as is, if Obama still wins, then that narrative evaporates.


    Potential (none / 0) (#139)
    by chrisvee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    Agreed.  That narrative is already taking hold, I think.

    I see it the same way (none / 0) (#71)
    by stillife on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    adjusts tin hat firmly on head

    I think the Democratic Party bigwigs would do anything to take down the Clintons, even if it means another 4 or 8 years of Republican rule - which I believe we'll get b/c I'm hearing more and more people, not fanatical Hillary supporters but ordinary solid Democrats here in NYC, saying they'll vote for McCain over Obama due to the Wright connection.  

    And in the event McCain wins, Hillary will be blamed for running a "divisive" campaign.  The nerve of that woman!


    I got a fundraising request from Howard Dean (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Foxx on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    Got an email from Dean today asking for money for the party.

    I wrote back, no money from me until you seat Florida and Michigan, and until you and Brazile stop trying to strong-arm Obama into the nomination.

    Perhaps if enough of us stop donating . . ..

    I did the same thing (none / 0) (#240)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:15:55 PM EST
    I sent one back to the DNC this afternoon telling them if they weren't going to count my vote, they shouldn't count on me.

    This delegitimizes BO's nomination. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:43:24 PM EST
    Millions will sit out the general election because of this.

    Yes I'm sure (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    millions of people will sit out the election because the state of Florida was dumb.  

    This is just plain silly talk.

    Obama didn't make the rules and 4 years of McCain is far too much of a punishment for this country simply because the Florida Democratic Party and the DNC are idiots.


    Florida is definitely gone now (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    That's 27 EVs.

    That is a fact.


    not a fact (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM EST
    It's your view.

    True enough (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    We'll see it turn into a fact in November.

    Can I borrow your crystal ball? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    Mine's been in the shop since the Iowa caucuses.

    Not silly talk at all. People from states other (none / 0) (#111)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    than FL will be royally pissed and will stay home.  In order for either nominee to be legitimate all of the votes must be counted.  Otherwise it is a sham.  

    Why? (none / 0) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    This is not the first time that delegates have been stripped.  As a matter of fact it happened in 2004.  

    This is a party nomination process, not a legal election.  And 99% of Americans are not involved enough with politics to care if the Florida voters had their voice heard.


    Obama should have led on this (none / 0) (#163)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    He should have been in favor of a revote.  That would have helped with uniting the party and he still would have had the best chance of winning.

    There's no way Obama could have overcome... (none / 0) (#187)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    ... the opposition of the Florida delegation, especially as the supermajority of its members are fervent Hillary supporters.  His advocacy for a re-vote would have done nothing but firm up their opposition.

    Who owns the Florida Delegates anway? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    To me it not the DNC's right to do whatever they want with the delegates especially when they are mostly responsible for this screw up.
     Don't the people who voted have a right to the disposition of the votes. Why can't  Florida voters sue the DNC to demand the seating of the delegates as originally shown and let the court decide. Even if there is a counter suit by Sharpton.  You can kiss Florida goodbye in the general if you do not seat the delegates as originally shown.  So if you loose the general election becasue of Florida, don't blame Hilary, she wanted the votes to count as  originally recorded. She at least went to thank the Floridians who voted after the election was over.  The Floridians know that at least one candidate cared that their votes should count.   Maybe there is a way to incorporated that she fought for the Floridians right to vote in the rest of her campaign and use that as a strategy.  

    I still cannot understand what terrible thing happen because Florida went and voted against the wishes of the DNC, other than a bunch of voters who went out to vote in record numbers.  Think about we disobeyed a stupid rule and a record number of people voted.  What wrong with that.  All the candidates had an even playing field.  No one had an advantage.  Obama was very well know by the time Florida came around.

    I'm tired. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tandem5 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    This issue isn't about the candidates, it doesn't matter if it changes the results or not. If the Democratic party doesn't care enough to make the people of Florida heard I don't really feel like voting for anybody in the general, not Clinton, not Obama, nor anybody else. Spare me the, "then McCain will win" spiel - call me an idealistic sap, but I'm holding out for a Democratic party not run by gelatinous goo.

    Legitimate ? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Sunshine on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    If the deligates are not seated, Hillary has every right to challenge and fight for the nomination...  I don't care what they call it, they are taking away wins in 2 very large states... If Obama wins this way, it is not legitimate....

    And FTR (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    I think the odds are now stacked well against us for November.

    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:07:19 PM EST
    Florida is gone. Michigan is in play now.

    It all depends on tomorrow I agree with that.

    But the nominee will be Obama now.


    Florida is gone. (none / 0) (#222)
    by mm on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    But the nominee will be Obama now.

    I remember not too long ago that you were saying with the same certitude that there will be a revote in FL.

    This cannot stand.  We should be demanding that Dean fix this problem rather than rolling over and accepting this as a fait accompli.  Obama will not have my support if he wins this way.


    I fail to see why she should drop out (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by davnee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    Of course, HRC would be better served by a revote, but I don't see this as the end of the world.  Assume hypothetically she gains the momentum over the next two months and wins big in PA, WV, PR and KY where she's expected to do well, grabs MI convincingly, and outperforms expectations in IN and NC.  Let's also assume she gets out ahead consistently in the national polls, and that Obama continues to flounder.  Now let's say that all that brings her up just short on the popular vote, but including Florida bumps her ahead.  Does anybody seriously doubt that with that kind of momentum, the public and the SD's are not going to note her performance in FL as part of the popular vote narrative?  Remember the popular vote narrative is not trapped in technicalities.  It is separate from the sacred "rules," that Obama supporters obsess over without fully understanding them.

    Sure, lots of things have to break her way in the next two plus months to get her where she needs to be, but after this past news cycle I hardly see it as implausible.  Things may shift back against her.  Obama may convince every one he is our racial messiah after all.  Nothing is guaranteed.  But I'm hardly persuaded to throw in the towel.

    Forget counting Florida (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:22 PM EST
    That is why your hypothetical fails.

    Unless Obama melts down tomorrow, it is over.


    Connecting the dots... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM EST
    I don't think it's coincidence that Lord Kos threw all the Hillary supporters of his site at the same this news came down. Disgusting.

    I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is, legitimate or not. But I will not work for Obama, since he hasn't asked for my vote and, in fact, actively drove me away. I will work for policies like Universal Health Care and Social Security, since Obama, along with the so-called creative class, is busily walking back from the first, and put the second in play for privatization. In the meantime, I'll try to help Hillary win PA, since that's better for the policies I want.


    Yes, Kos probably has a red phone (none / 0) (#243)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    directly linked to the Florida Dem delegation.

    Why can't it be counted? (none / 0) (#199)
    by davnee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    I'm not talking about pledged delegates.  I'm not talking about anything official.  I'm talking about SD's and the wider public recognizing that the Florida vote as it was, imperfections and all, drew nearly two million people to the polls.  Recognizing that it is the best proxy we have for the preferences of the people of Florida.

     If the only thing keeping her from getting out ahead of the popular vote tally is Florida, then I think she has a good argument that she is the popular choice and the more electable candidate.  Keep in mind that this narrative of the popular vote is in no way rooted to rules.  It is rooted to perceptions.  SD's have carte blanche to vote their conscience if they choose.  Perceptions will be important.  Of course, in order for her to get close on the popular vote at the end means she has to have been kicking butt and taking names.  I concede that.  But if she has been doing that from PA onward, then I think the wind will be at her back when it comes to summertime perceptions about popularity and electability.  I think she has a big hill to climb, bigger now than it would have been with a revote, but I don't think its Everest.


    Just to clarify... (none / 0) (#216)
    by davnee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    ... when I refer to Florida putting her over the top I mean the margin by which she won the January vote being enough to push her ahead in the popular vote tally.  I think that was clear, but if not there you go.

    There's no official popular vote count (none / 0) (#232)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    anyway, so neither you nor Dean nor Brazile nor me can tell the super-delegates what to count or not, correct?

    There's no official legit-o-meter, either.  Much can happen.  As you say, tomorrow is another day . . . and there are many tomorrows ahead for Obama to have days as bad as the last several days, too.  

    I do consider the Gallup tracking poll -- not the daily, the tracking poll -- to be pretty darn good, and it's looking pretty awful for Obama already.  But let's you and me see what comes from your World's Greatest Pollster soon. :-)


    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#142)
    by vj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    by "racial messiah" but I don't think Hillary has to drop out.  However, I'm beginning to think that if she is able to hang in there, she should  try to run a totally positive campaign from here on out.

    Rephrase it as the post-racial candidate (none / 0) (#212)
    by davnee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    If he can win people back tomorrow on the post-racial message then she'll likely be sunk.  But he's going to have to wow people in order to repair the damage done to his single most valuable electoral asset as the transcendent candidate.  

    Seems like the expectations are high (none / 0) (#221)
    by vj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    for this speech tomorrow.  Guess I'd better watch it.

    Has there been an official announcement ? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    Has there been an official announcement I've missed today that this is a dead issue for all time? If not, please stop saying it's over. It's opinion and misinformation.

    On revotes? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    Yes. It is an official statement of the Florida Dem Party.

    no you are equating (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:27:16 PM EST
    a revote with a counting of the Jan. 29 primary. They are not the same. It has only been decided there will be no new vote. It has not been decided there can be no reversal of the earlier DNC decision or a new plan.

    I am wondering what chess game Clinton has (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:15:46 PM EST
    up her sleeve, in this whole thing...and BTD, if you honestly think that Obama can win the GE after this pastor scandal, I want some of that stuff you have been smoking...:-)

    Update: It's not over (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    CNN says Karen Thurman says there are other options, they are still working on it, and not all options have even been explored, let alone decided.

    The revote is over Jeralyn (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    I know you do not agree, but many of us saw that as the prize for Hillary so that her popular vote win in Florida be considered legitimate.

    The delegate issue is a sideshow. +38 is not going to be the difference. And more likely +19 actually.


    the revote is not the only option (none / 0) (#192)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:27:54 PM EST
    it was just one possibility. There are others.

    The revote was not even a good option (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    the better option is a recission of the decision the vote wouldn't count.

    Well (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:43 PM EST
    I utterly disagree with you on that as I have for a while now.

    Why is defrauding Florida voters (none / 0) (#244)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    a better option?  Seating the delegates means they were lied to on Jan. 29.

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#209)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:37:32 PM EST
    Is there any way now for the FL popular vote to be considered by the superdelegates?  After seeing her today talk about the economy and so self-assured, I just can't see her giving up on the nomination so damn coldly.

    Apologies if this is absurdly stupid question.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#218)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    The super delegates can take anything they want into consideration. The popular vote would seem to be a very wise thing to consider.

    Wow, thanks for that news (none / 0) (#213)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:39:04 PM EST
    I may be saved from voting for McCain yet.

    I had a dream lastnight (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST
     I dreamed that I saw Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, and Bradley running to the hills, pulling their hair out yelling "what did we do, what did we do", then I saw Hillary standing behing them smiling, while singing, "time is on my side, yes it is, time is on my side, yes it is".

    All we know for sure is there will be no (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST
    new Florida election. What that means is completely a matter of perspective and opinion now, not fact. I really think it's important to distinguish the two.

    BTD I would appreciate it if you wouldnt (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    call for Clinton to fold her cards until we can see if Obama can in fact survive this pastor scandal (which I don't believe he can)...To fold too soon would be foolish IMHO...

    Could the DNC (none / 0) (#7)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:17:15 PM EST
    now force Hillary Clinton to take a raw deal ?
    (the absurd 50% cut)  I worry about "black-mail"
    her into either she takes that or it is her fault the FL delegation is not seated (?).
    Of course I think they should fight this but between
    Pelosi and Dean I lost all faith in a fair
    resolution. They are hardly objective arbiters...

    What do you think?

    Obama won't go for it (none / 0) (#14)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    This isn't about delegates. Obama's people have been successfully pushing the meme that the only thing that matters is "the will of the people", as defined by the delegate count. But there is another way of counting - popular vote. If Obama lets even one delegate from Florida be seated, then Hillary can add all of those Florida voter's to her "popular vote" totals, which will likely put her way over the top.  Then the superdelegates have to make a choice - do they go with the delegates or the popular vote. Polls have indicated that most Americans prefer popular vote to electoral delegates (2000 wasn't that long ago). If no Florida delegates are seated, then Obama can argue that their election wasn't valid and that discount their popular votes as well. Of course, Clinton can argue that their votes count anyway, but her argument has less weight if their delegates aren't seated.

    I don't see this argument (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    There is no "official" popular vote count, i.e. it is not an official part of the process, so supers who think Fla got a raw deal could still consider those votes in their decision.  (I have not checked your math but I doubt Fla puts her "way over the top.")

    I think the best thing for the party is to seat the delegates with the 50% penalty.  Obama should agree to this.  I think he looks bad if he does not just as I think he looks bad for not being more out in front to get a revote in MI.

    This has the advantage of being what the rules said to do in the first place and being what the Republicans did to their delegates, which should neutralize it as an issue in November.

    And the DNC sucks.


    He should seat the whole delegation (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    38 delegates net are not going to make a difference.

    The big thing was no revote.


    I think that's probably right (none / 0) (#188)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    And I don't think its so clear we lose Florida.  Remember, the republicans are still imposing the 50% penalty.  If we seat all the delegates as is then why assume florida is lost?

    The big thing (none / 0) (#210)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    for who?

    For folks (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    who wanted a legitimately accepted popular vote count.

    When no one accepts the January popular vote in FL, remember me.


    It's not "No one" (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    It's "Not everyone".


    Some do!


    No (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:02 PM EST
    They are not fair.

    Why do we keep giving in to Republicans? (none / 0) (#9)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    It was Republicans who pushed for an earlier election date, forcing this issue on us. They keep playing us, and we keep going along. I wish they were as good at running the country as they are at winning elections.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    actually said to my husband yesterday, maybe the D. C. insiders want another Republican administration.  He thinks it's ludicrous, but things are leaning that way.

    It's not impossible (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    The next 4 years are going to be ugly. Iraq is not going well, and whoever pulls out will bear the stigma of "losing" the war; the financial crisis is having devastating primary and seconday effects - the recession might turn into a full blown depression; oil prices aren't going to go down anytime soon, which will aggravate everything. There is a certain logic to "Republcians made the mess, let them clean it up".  If Obama is the candidate, then we will probably draw in enough young voters to increase the number of Dems in Congress, which would effectively hold off the worst of the Presidential excesses. The strategy could be to let them have the Presidency, and the blame, while retaining enough control of Congress to minimize the damage.  

    I don't think it is ludicrous (none / 0) (#37)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    I think it is a rational assessment of the realities of the situation.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    I still do not understand why the Dems went along and all voted with the Repubs to move up the primary. Yes, I know that the Repubs tacked on a paper trail measure that the dems wanted but the vote would have passed with or without the Dems cooperation.

    The Dems could have all voted no and come out with clean hands had they all voted no.


    "Present." (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM EST
    They should have voted 'present.'

    A paper trail was at the top of the Dems' legislative list so there was no way they would have voted 'no' and seen that used against any Dem running for reelection to the legislature...


    Was Present An Option? (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    I do not think all states have that option. I guess it makes some but if I were a FL voter, I would have gotten my paper trail anyway, and had some respect for my representatives for not being forced to take GOP BS sitting down. They could have honestly laid the whole mess in the GOP's lap.

    Abstain is always an option (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    No legislator is forced to vote...that I know of...

    Avedon Carol (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    linked to someone who explained the FL primary debacle from a local POV.  It is interesting.

    FL Primary at Wampum:  FAQ

    If national Dems can't hang together, how can we expect state Dems to have more backbone?


    Of Course (none / 0) (#31)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    It's still not too late for Florida to hold a Democratic caucus, which would mean that delegates chosen that way could be seated at the Democratic Convention.  Given how frantic the Clinton campaign is that the Florida delegation get seated, I'm sure Mark Penn will be pulling out all the stops to help Florida Dems hold a caucus.

    Caucus was already rejected by FL (none / 0) (#80)
    by ricosuave on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    That was the original offer from the DNC: 120,000 votes statewide in a caucus.  Aside from the fact that caucuses are horribly undemocratic, there is a reason why they are generally held only in small states: they don't scale.

    Look at my state: Texas.  Our caucus was an absolute disaster.  It has been two weeks and we still have no clue what the outcome was in most of the state.  There were widespread allegations of fraud and abuse, both before and during the caucus.  And (worst of all in my opinion) the two-step serves as a great experiment to demonstrate how different a the results of a caucus (to the extent that they are known!) diverges from a fair, accessible, well-run election.

    The caucus option is an Obamaphile straw man --thrown out there to have a semi-acceptable position so you don't have to take the real (and distasteful) Obama position: ignore the voters of Florida.


    no caucuses (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:10:39 PM EST
    that's an Obama tactic.

    1.7 million Americans voted in a Democratic primary to choose the nominee. They need to be seated before a nominee is chosen.

    The "Democratic Party" is an institution, an organization, not a human being. It has no "will" to express.


    Well (none / 0) (#247)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    The rules is the rules, ain't they.  So if HRC can get control of the Credentials Committee, then the Florida delegates will probably be seated.  That or if their votes don't really matter anymore.  Otherwise there's no way the Florida delegates will be seated.  

    Florida Democratic voters were screwed first by their Republican legislature, then by their own state party, which didn't lift a finger for more than a year to come up with a different election that would pass DNC muster.

    It doesn't really break my heart that party insiders (cause that's who delegates are for the most part no matter who they're pledged to) from Florida won't get floor passes for the Denver convention.

    I went from Northern California down to Tampa for the 2004 election to do election protection.  All of us in Tampa were struck by the dearth of Florida lawyers -- even from Democratic firms -- working on protecting the rights of Florida minorities to vote.  Almost every one of us was from out of state.

    They played a game of chicken with Howard Dean and lost.

    And by the way, caucuses are not "horribly undemocratic." That's basically what direct democracy is.  The House of Representatives and the Senate are like this.  In your view it would probably be less "horribly undemocratic" to have instant on-line polls by which citizens could vote directly on all legislation.

    Politics always favors those who are more committed and those who have more time or money to contribute.  Caucuses happen to favor those who spend more of their time working on behalf of the Party.  Those who are more focused on and concerned with helping the Party win elections.  Giving more weight to their views is not less democratic, it's just a different kind of democracy.


    How will they calc the popular vote? (none / 0) (#40)
    by smott on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM EST

    There is no "official" popular vote (none / 0) (#141)
    by ricosuave on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    It is all in the superdelegates' heads.  Some SD's will look at the raw numbers.  Some SD's will consider caucuses to be crap and elections to be important.  Some will only consider their own state, district, fiefdom, etc.  Some will consider Florida.   Some will say it doesn't matter.  Most will have their own preference for whatever reason and (like Pelosi seems to be doing) will come up with their own justification for supporting it.

    Sadly, this means we will hear more pontificating from Obamaphiles for the next few months on what complicated math they should use in their calculation (count pledged delegates, but only if we're ahead, and don't count Hillary in Michigan, but count ones we get from back-room deals in Iowa, but if Hillary does it call it cheating....)


    OMG. What a nightmare. (none / 0) (#47)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    I hope she sues to get her delegates seated and votes added to her total. What a SCAM. The DNC needs to pay for what they have done. I hope she sues them.

    And we thought election 2000 was bad? At least that wasn't our own party screwing us over. This truly is a nightmare.:(

    Unfortunate for Florida's citizens (none / 0) (#49)
    by thefncrow on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    It's unfortunate that the state of Florida has declined the opportunity to schedule a primary contest under the rules of the DNC.  Such a contest could be used to enfranchise the voters of their state.  Sadly, they chose to brazenly flaunt those rules, and felt that the expected penalty of losing half their delegates was worth it in order to gain the importance they'd receive from being a pre-Super Tuesday primary.

    Democratic elected officials failed the people of Florida in a horrific way by failing to stand up to this action, paper-trail item or no paper-trail item.  They also failed to plan for the contingency that the DNC actually meant what they said.  The people of Florida should be very upset with these people, especially since the party rules seem to require that the Florida superdelegates still get a vote even as they failed to secure one for the people they represent.

    Now that the state has decided that it will not hold a legitimate primary contest, a decision must be made to either seat an honorary Florida delegation, one which will not impact the results from the states which ran legitimate primary contests, or to let the Florida delegation stay home.

    Seating even a single delegate based on the illegitimate January 29th contest would be an absolute travesty, and ensure that in 2012, we'll see several big states voting prior to Super Tuesday, and destroying the notion that a presidential candidate doesn't need a 200 million dollar warchest and national popularity before running.  For the good of the primary process, the illegitimate January 29th results cannot be allowed to stand.

    I wish the elected officials in Florida had made another decision, that they had chosen to participate in the Democratic primary under the rules set by the DNC, but those officials chose not to, and now that they've made their bed, they get to lie in it.

    I'd rather see more early primaries (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    than this.  Why is Iowa's primacy in the primary calendar so important that it means disenfranchising another state, and one with far more Dems?  Why is it so important to you that you agree with Dean and Brazile on this?  Seriously, I don't get it.

    The main explanation seems to be one state's hallowed tradition -- a tradition to which no one paid much attention, not in the media nor even in Iowa, until relatively recently (for ratings and for media dollars, both ad dollars and tourist dollars).

    So disefranchising a state is a better tradition?  And this state, this party?  I just don't see it, considering the ever-useful cost/benefit ratio.


    Not about Iowa and New Hampshire (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by thefncrow on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    Early primaries mean maximimizing the impact of face time in the media and money on the political process.  I don't think I'm alone in thinking that anything which makes money more important in the race is a bad thing.

    It's not that Iowa is necessarily so sacrosanct, but a number of small states should always be the first primaries.  Small states allow for candidates without 200 million dollars and 70% of the country recognizing their name to run a legitimate campaign for President.  If we simply accept that the punishment for jumping the line is the loss of 50% of your state's delegates, you won't see any small states jumping the line, because they have only a handful of delegates, and they need to make those count.  States like Florida and Michigan, however, have plenty of delegates, and feel that trading half of those delegates for the increased importance of their primary is a trade worth making.

    If push comes to shove, and the only options are seating delegates based somehow on the illegitimate Jan 29 contest or letting Florida sit out, I'd honestly prefer the latter, telling all the large states that they will only lose by deciding to try to jump the line.  

    However, I could be satisfied if the delegates from the illegitimate contest were seated after those states lost 80-90% of their delegations.  50% is clearly too few delegates to strip, because the expectation of losing that many delegates didn't stop either Florida or Michigan from running on right past the rule.  Losing 90% of their delegates might teach them a lesson, although, again, some of the big states could take 10% of their delegates and still be sitting with a decent number of delegates, and decide that it was worth jumping the line in order to gain those.

    I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should always be first, but I do think small states should always be first, and anything that will keep the large states from trying to move up and take those positions is a necessary tool to preserve the primary system.


    So it's over?! Just like that?! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:44:24 PM EST
    You've got to be kidding me!  Obama cannot win the GE and we're picking him?  Oh, dear God.

    Is there even a chance the FL delegates will be seated as is?

    That is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    Obama's only chance now.

    Nomination vs. GE (none / 0) (#104)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    I can't see how Obama will refuse to lose the nomination, even if means he'll all but ensure he'll lose the GE by denying FL delegates.  Unbelievable.  I don't even blame him anymore, as much as I hold his major Democratic enablers: Kennedy, Kerry, Brazille, Dean, Pelosi, etc.

    Are they seriously going to throw away FL for this man?  God, they honestly think they can win the GE without it, don't they?  If I don't laugh, I'll cry.


    Hillary and Florida (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bill S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    Nice try but while the GOP may be the real culprits here,Hill and ALL the candidates knew that Florida and Michigan violated the rules by going before February 5th. If no penalty is given it will just make for more mischief in the future (and in 2012 Iowa and New Hampshire's alleged God-given rights to go first should be permanently eliminated). Next time don't front load the primaries.

    A 15% off the top penalty must be extracted for both states. Just letting the Florida delegation be seated without a penalty is asinine and unfair to Obama. Clinton is desperate for any good delegate news.

    Satire? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST
    There should be no mischief in the future (none / 0) (#185)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    if the rules are changed at the convention.

    How is it unfair to Obama? (none / 0) (#252)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:18:26 PM EST
    His supporters are subtly (and not so subtly) pushing the notion that his supporters in Florida stayed home while hers voted. I've seen no research to indicate that. I think you could argue that the election was fair in the sense that it was equally unfair to all of the candidates.

    And I know the fact that Obama has run TV ads has been mentioned so many times as to lose all meaning, but TV ads are actually pretty influential in a state where no other campaigning is going on. I find it hard to buy that this process is somehow unfair to Obama. Between his ads and the Michigan ballot, he's gamed the electoral system like a dyed in the wool Republican.


    What happens (none / 0) (#70)
    by smott on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    ...to the approximate 400K in popular vote for HRC in FL??

    It doesn't count (none / 0) (#120)
    by vj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    It's as though it never happened.

    And, if they seat 50% of the delegates, I'm not sure if the 400k votes get counted either.


    I'd think that (none / 0) (#149)
    by smott on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    whether or not she gets that 400K is far more important than the delegates...she will never win the delegate count.

    she won;t (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    Dean (none / 0) (#133)
    by chrisvee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    The road to 270 for the Dem candidate will no longer include FL.  It is lost.

    This is a tremendous failure of leadership on the part of the DNC.  Dean needs to be held accountable.  It should never have come to this.

    Massive failure to lead... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    ... on the part of Dean, IMO. I didn't love him as a Presidential candidate, but I've generally had a positive opinion of him otherwise. His "hide until it goes away" approach to this problem has been a real disappointment.

    Dean (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by chrisvee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    I've actually always liked Dean.  I've been absolutely dumbfounded about his approach to MI/FL.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#176)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    Obama supporters would stay home if they believe the Clinton delegates were seated illegitimately?

    Well, I'd imagine (none / 0) (#207)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    massive Al Sharpton-type protests and/or lawsuits. Sharpton has already telegraphed his intentions in that regard.

    not true (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    Officials say it  is not over.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#214)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    could you expound on why you don't think it's over because of this news?  I don't think it's over, either, because I think that Obama's negatives are going to keep going up and that the press is going to realize that soon, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

    Call me dumb (none / 0) (#135)
    by MMW on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:24 PM EST
    But I don't understand why they can't just be seated as is?

    This is good for Hillary as far as I can see. Obama will not be legitimate, you can't take back the votes. A revote doesn't account for the original vote. I don't get the logic of most posters here.

    According to the statement Floridians want ir original vote to count. It's their words that matter, not anyone elses, because it was their vote.

    And No I don't think she should accept or push for VP. What's the incentive for her to be VP?

    So she can fight all his battles? So she can put out fires that he will get credit for? No.
    To help the democratic party who is trying to screw her.

    Well, I really don't think... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    ... that Obama can afford to fight for excluding Florida at all. So I think when push comes to shove he'll have to accept seating the delegation. And he'll spin that to the superdelegates as not a legitimate Clinton win, and he'll still have the delegate lead. It's probably the best he can do, politically speaking. If he doesn't get beaten badly in Michigan, it ought to work out okay.

    If they're seated as is (none / 0) (#169)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    And added to the popular vote totals, And Obama still wins the popular vote (which shouldn't be that hard for a transformational candidate with and exceptional ground game) with all other states reporting, I'll consider his victory legitimate.

    Well, I always wanted (none / 0) (#191)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    our own Kathleen Harris!!  Hi KAREN.

    I'm sure Ms. Thurman will now put much more energy into justifying her decision than she ever did in coming up with it.

    Scorched earth campaigns?  We just bombed FL off the map.

    I find it hard to believe that Obama supporters, with FL gone, will not have at least uneasy thoughts about the legitimacy of Obama's nomination.  Not that that means Clinton's is more legitimate, but if you can only win with 49 states in our wacky system, we have a problem on our hands.  I guess depending on how the campaigns handle it, FL could still be in play.

    Maybe if the convention was in Miami, not Denver, we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.  These decisions are all political.  What kind of debate would we be having if FL was at 50% and Hillary won the popular vote there (forget the DNC's idotic delegate stripping).  The delegates would obviously, obviously, not represent the popular vote.   I don't think at this point Clinton has no chance but her argument might strike one as professorial.

    OH thank God Jeralyn thanks for (none / 0) (#200)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    that update!!! Didnt make sense to me that Clinton would suddenly capitulate....She is way too smart for that and also getting more and more popular with the Democratic voters...

    I think they will be seated as is. (none / 0) (#233)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    I posted an article from the Tampa Newspaper quoting Barack saying "I want the delgates seated. I think every persons vote should count".  This was in September.

    I e-mailed it to all the powers that be at all the MSM outlets and still have never heard a word about it.  I sent them the reporter's phone number and his e-mail address.  I sent copies of the article and all the responses from my blog.


    I have decided to vote for whoever comes up with the best ideas on how to fix the Democratic Primary process. This has been a cl*sterf*ck from the start.

    Keep us posted please.

    Along with Clinton having a path to (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    nomination, Wright is making Obama a pretty poor November prospect.... You should see the ratings for Obama's Friday night tour to talk about Wright.

    Who won?  Hannity and Colmes


    We can only speculate why -- on a Friday night -- that Hannity had nearly double O'Reilly's ratings while Countdown and Cooper remained unchanged.

    Anyway, my point is, seat Florida so Hillary can win.  We need an electable Democrat.  And with all her warts and thorns, I believe she's a relatively lesser risk.

    They should (none / 0) (#248)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    seat the Florida delegation as is. I just got this form another site...I think this is exactly what Florida was trying to avoid. I mean Florida has a republican legislature tat would never have allowed a revote. Please see below for update on Michigan:

    Michigan state Senator Cameron Brown (R - Fawn River Township) released a statement today expressing his skepticism at the possible re-vote for the Michigan Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.

    "Holding a second primary would tell many Michigan residents who participated in the Democratic primary that their votes meant nothing," Brown continued. "To do so will ensure that Michiganders participating in elections from this point forward will forever be uncertain as to whether their votes will later be discarded."

    In recent days, leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party have attempted to organize a primary re-vote that is consistent with the delegate selection rules for the Democratic Party of the United States.  The Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee, voted to strip Michigan of its delegates to the Democratic Party's presidential nominating convention after  the panel found the state's Democrats to be in violation of the rules allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to go first.

    Sen. Brown, who heads a sub-committee that any re-vote legislation would have to clear before becoming law, also spoke against a privately-funded re-vote.

    "A primary funded by special interests, wealthy Democratic donors, or corporations would still require a massive time commitment from our state election officials and county, city and township clerks," Brown said.  "They ran a successful primary under intense time constraints in January, and should not be required to do so again."

    If a re-vote is not held, Michigan Democrats may appeal to the national party's convention credentials committee to have their voting rights restored.

    Comments closing (none / 0) (#250)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST
    new thread on Florida here.