Dean: FL And MI "Not Our Problem"

By Big Tent Democrat

I can not believe Howard Dean said this:

The two state [FL and MI] parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said. "We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Not your problem Howard? Michigan and Florida are not the DNC's problem? Sheesh. I know the DNC does not have the money to pay for this. But the problem is YOUR problem, and of YOUR making. It is our problem regarding winning the Presidential race in November. And quotes like "not our problem" just exacerbate the problem. At this rate, Dems are going to lose Michigan and Florida in a landslide.

< Obama's Latest Endorsement: Rolling Stone Magazine | Hillary Raises $4 Million Online Since Tuesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A resolution in Florida and Michigan. . . (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    We need our money to win the presidential race

    would certainly help us win the Presidential race.

    No sh*t (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    Someone tell Howard.

    starting to look like (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    Howard may end up being the problem

    Don't you get it? (none / 0) (#119)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    The ROOLz are more important than winning the election in November.  The ROOLz are a matter of high principle -- even more important than the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

    And if the ROOLz are that important, and MI and FLA want to be forgiven for breaking the ROOLz, then they will have make penance by paying for it themselves, so that the DNC can save its pennies to win a general election without the voters of MI and FLA.

    Which means, of course, that the people who are REALLY going to pay are you and me and every other person who will have to live under the Presidency of John McBush, who doesn't believe constitutional ROOLz either.


    Do you really think that's the case? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Romberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    I doubt that following eight years of Republican rule and seeing the results of "conservativism" on the national budget, the economy and both domestic foreign policy that general election voters in Florida and Michigan are going to refuse to vote Democratic because their delegates were not seated at the convention.

    In addition, it's far from a sure thing that their delegates won't be seated. The rules change before the convention and the credentials committee takes over. See here.


    I don't know what will happen (none / 0) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    but I do think that not seating delegates from MI and FLA will depress Democratic voter turnout, and in two such important states, you want and need every vote to count.  Why would you take a chance with those two states?  Why wouldn't you want the state parties to be working in tandem with the national party?  

    I just don't get it.  Leaving aside the wisdom of the ROOLz ab initio, the DNC didn't have to eliminate ALL FLA and MI delegates.  They could have done what the RNC did -- seat half of them, proportionate to the vote. The DNC just dug in its heels in the name of party discipline.


    I can't speak for everybody (none / 0) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    But I'm from Michigan and I know John McCain is pretty popular there.  And then if they don't get seated somehow - just watch for the backlash against the Dems to occur.

    i CAN believe it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:35 AM EST
    I used to be fond of the Democrats for not being the disciplined ranks of soldiers that the Republicans are--for being a bit blundery and not all on the same page.

    But now I am starting to hate the Democrats in a sorrowful way.  Does anyone know what I mean?  It really hurts--like giving up on an old friend or someone in your family that you loved and loved but just can't love any more.

    That sounds so maudlin--I have to go toss up my breakfast now.  But this has been an AWFUL year.

    yes I had high hopes very sad, but Im with you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    very strange too never looked at it this close and will never do it again, I am only here because of Senator Clintons candidacy at this stage and will not give up until she wins we need her talent in the White House we can not take 4 more years of decline debt deficit and job loss and our soldiers being sacrificed for our sins.  The last three years have been brutal for this country and the decline must be stunted if turning it is not possible.  We really need these prima donna's out of the way how about a march on the DNC where is it by the way.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    know exactly what you mean.  If these people are going to survive as a viable party, they really need to get their stuff together.  I never realized what petty, vindictive people a lot of the Dem leaders are.  

    What's been very disappointing to me is that in a vital election year, this party has done so much to alienate their members on every hand.  It's starting to look like another Republican administration is not totally out of the question.

    Perhaps that's the problem.  The Dem insiders are overconfident because we have the advantage.  Now they're on the brink of grabbing disaster from the jaws of what had looked like a sure victory.


    Petty, vindictive, and more (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    We used to ask:  "What's the Matter with Kansas"? Now we must ask:  "What's the matter with the Dem leadership"?  Talk about choosing to act contrary to your own best interests. Where's the leadership?

    The rethugs must be laughing.  They pushed up the date for the Florida election, and the Dems are being punished in a most publically painful manner.  I'm sure it's working out very well for the rethugs.


    losses (none / 0) (#86)
    by teachermom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:02 PM EST
    I feel the same way about KO and Stephanie Miller. We had one beautiful year -- and now its ashes.

    As for the Democratic party --here we go again. Kennedy the spoiler, Dean clearly favoring Obama here.  Yet we're in no position to start a third party, and we have to win in November. Oy vay!


    But Women, if they choose could (none / 0) (#92)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    we are not the victim types we need to keep in mind we have electorate power if we choose to use it, maybe that's what's been wrong maybe Bloomberg should fund a run with a women on top. Free agents indeed insert Dean scream.

    It's the anti-authoritarian wing of Dem party (none / 0) (#105)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    that is really fired up now and they're determined. Look at the hatred of Terry McCauliffe, anything insider.

    This wing is at its peak and in the process of flaming itself out, at least for a while.


    Yes (none / 0) (#113)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:52:48 PM EST
    I'm with you too.

    I used to be a strong Democrat.  I'm sorry to say that Howard Dean and company look like a bunch of idiots.

    Put them in a room, let them make some decisions, and it comes out wrong every time.

    Absolutely inept!


    I think my head actually exploded. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    That's the stupidest thing he could have said.

    No, it isn't stupid. (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    It's the Republicans' fault.  Go read my comment at #4 on the thread.

    I read it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    But, I think that putting a quote like this out for the public to read is a mistake.

    Well, putting the challenged quote out front (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    is more the fault of the editor, or the repeat-er of the story, than the person initially making the statement later taken somewhat out of context, no?

    If he hasn't learned by now (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    that anything he says will be taken out of context if possible -- then I wonder if he'll EVER learn.

    Nope, it's the soundbyte era (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    for some time now, and you state every sentence and even every phrase as if it may stand alone. Or you don't say anything at all.

    Seems stupid to me (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    Why dontcha go read it in context (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    here and think again.

    Seems to me he wants to have the re-vote, but wants to place the burden for paying for it on the knuckleheads who moved the primaries up - in violation of the party rules - in the first place.

    The national party didn't make the mess, so why should they pay for cleaning it up?


    The national party (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    needs to look at this whole mess and realize that we need to have a National Primary Day that will be held in a good-weather month when all Democrats go to their primary polls.  It would cut out possible fraud and would be cost so much less in campaigning.  But the best reason for it is that is would be fair to everyone.  Then, the nominee would be settled, and the Dems could start campaigning in earnest.

    it seems to me they are on the (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    obama train to a november loss. oh well! it isn't like we didn't tell you so.

    Read my post (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    I know he has no money.

    My point is the quote - "not our problem."

    And he needs to work hard on this.


    As we said in the "excessive '60s" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    . . . if you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution. Tell Howard Dean, then, to be part of the solution -- but it doesn't come from dumping on the problem people, the states (and especially in FL, where they're not part of his people). It comes from coming up with solutions from which they can pick.

    Context is everything. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Romberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    As I posted below, context is everything. If you can find time, please take a look at the links from my post below.

    Those links go to columns written by noted financial author (and also author of "The Best Little Boy in the World", a story about the "perfect child" coming out as gay to his parents) Andrew Tobias who also is writing with the perspective that comes from being Treasurer of the DNC.

    The first link in particular is invaluable for understanding the mess that happened in Florida. And if you want free tickets to the DNC convention, see the last link and look to the end of the page.


    There is no "context" (none / 0) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    that explains "it's not our problem." Because even assuming he doesn't have the money, or he wants to hoard it for the general election in which our nominee will have to fight with one hand tied behind his/her back, he is the chairman of the Democratic Frakkin' National Committee, and he is supposed to HELP solve problems, not create them or make them worse.

    The FLA state party tried to get the DNC to help fund a separate primary, and the DNC said "not my problem."  It was more important to uphold the sanctity of the ROOLz than to come up with a pragmatic solution beforehand that would have allowed both the national and state committees to save face, and more importantly, allow FLA voters to have their votes counted.

    To now say that the state parties should come up with a fund their own solution or bring a credentials fight to the convention is lunacy. He shouldn't be posturing in the press.  He should be on the phone or in a conference room with these people and making something happen.

    If he doesn't, the money he hoards for the GE isn't going to buy much.  


    Perception is everything n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    Sinking feeling for Nov starting to wiff this way (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST

    he and Donna are going to sink this election for Senator Clinton she even needs those States.  I just wrote the State Party here great team to see if they can help right the national ship loan them some talent and get them under control before they BLOW it for our State candidates we are a swing State and it will take little to ruin it for our team the balance needs to be upbeat honorable.  And again why allow this to happen, I believe everyone knew Dean would be trouble, but maybe not this destructive.  Is this a stick it, if its not my guy no one?

    The (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    Dem leadership's determination to ruin Clinton is becoming one of the most appealing things about her candidacy.  Still, I agree with you the Howard and Brazile will pull out all the stops to push her out.  IMO it will be so sweet if she wins.

    there is something in what you say (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    she would be a rowdy pet donkey to be sure.

    IF (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    the superdelegates are making their decisions rationally, then they will take FL and MI into their calculations regardless of whether or not the delegates are seated.

    HOWEVER, actually including the FL and MI votes in the delegate count will help blunt the "election was stolen from Obama" rage. That is why it is important.

    Check out the maps (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    at Surveyusa.com. According to their latest polling, Hillary takes PA, FL, and OH, and Obama only takes OH.

    This is a problem that Dean CANNOT ignore.

    but he is! (none / 0) (#32)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    alast fair dems, i didn't know you that well! or something like that! how clueless!

    Obama takes Michigan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    Hillary does not.

    But what if this gets the traction it is getting?

    Obama loses Michigan.

    HoHo does not care.


    See SUSA map; Obama too close (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    for comfort in MI (map is downthread, from 30,000 interviews).  And look at FL.  Then look at how close the total EC counts are for both candidates.

    We need FL and MI, and it's too close for comfort to fool around with this, Howard Dean and Donna "Walkout" Brazile.


    And loses NJ (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    Obama's map gives him much tougher math, IMO.

    And counting on Virginia (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    seems foolhardy to me.

    Clinton's map is much more reasonable.


    It's a map I believe she can win (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    I don't believe Obama can win the map painted for him. I think we can probably say that they'll both win NH and NJ, though.

    Maps suggest Dean willl dump FL (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    since it goes for Clinton but he'll figure out something for MI since it goes for Obama.

    If so, won't the party sparks fly.


    Now that I finally see these maps (none / 0) (#82)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    I have problems.

    I live in Oregon.  Kerry was supposed to be iffy here in '04 but won comfortably.  Clinton loses Oregon and Washington in the SurveyUSA maps.  I don't see it--especially when Clinton did well in the WA primaries (or her losing Michigan or NH).  I also don't see Obama winning North Dakota.


    They have Obama winning ND (none / 0) (#123)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    because of the support of Tom Daschle, who has been one of the Obama campaign's gurus.  Yes, Tom Daschle, who was booted out of the Senate by the people of North Dakota.

    Tom Daschle, who pressured Democratic Senators to vote FOR the Iraq war resolution.  Because we had to support the president, and not make the war a political issue.

    Yeah, Obama will take North Dakota all right.

    Please excuse me while I go barf.


    Not to nit pick (none / 0) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:02:36 PM EST
    But Tom Daschle was from South Dakota  :)

    Ooops (none / 0) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    In that case, I have no explanation for why they put ND in the Obama column.

    But I still think Tom Daschle is a tool.


    However, they both win the electoral votes (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    So if Obama wins anyway, Dean doesn't have to care about Florida (or MI).

    True but then you have a Nov problem (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    How is it you believe the voters that were marginalized are going to rally around the Dem May Poll its not just the Mich and Fla States these are differing Base demographic groups and grudges have been played that impacts extended groups of voters, Jewish, women, retirees and Hispanics. And who do you believe has the clout in the Party to do that Gore, Carter, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Clyburn, Dean, Brazile, Leahy, Sharpton, Durbin, or Daschle, kos, Huff no ..............no of course not.  It will require folks like Rendell, Strickland, Granholm, Menendez, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Emanuel, Rangel, Brunner, Murray...and on and on and many will be unable to participate with out repercussion for their States or downstream candidates or there own job. if you are thinking pols like Rendell or Strickland in swing States where Senator Clinton in Ohio won 83 out of 88 counties by 70 percent minimum can jump whole heartily on Osama's band wagon, that's just silly thinking you Dems keep throwing away and disregarding these State and these demographics and well you know full well the outcome.

    oops typo my apologies that is clearly intended to (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    be OBAMA's wagon.

    After the last two horrific elections, (none / 0) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    and the last eight monstrous years, does Howard Dean really think he "doesn't have to care" about a single state? Isn't this the man who is supposed to be advocating a 50 state strategy?  

    Can you give me a link (none / 0) (#64)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    to this SurveyUSA map?

    I'm sorry but I can't find it.  


    Just look at their FP (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    Oh yeah! (none / 0) (#74)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    Drat, what's the EV count(s)???

    You can do a quick check (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST

    Hillary is just over 271, but I forgot to add WV. I haven't checked Obama's.


    SurveyUSA has a nifty graphic (none / 0) (#78)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST


    It is from a poll that asks "Would you rather have a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket?"

    The answer is 48-36-16 for Clinton at the top/Obama at the top/not sure.



    I saw the maps (none / 0) (#114)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    Survey usa has obama winning

    north dakota

    Hillary wins
    tied in michigan (which they give to mccain????)
    west virginia

    others states tied

    I do not believe them on Nevada and Washing - I believe Hillary would win there, and also in Michigan.


    For the first time since 2004, I am (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    glad that Dean was not the Democratic nominee.
    He's worse than McAuliffe.

    I am also (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    glad that our nominee wasn't Dean.

    I wasnted him to win.  I now see what a mistake that would have been.


    I hope they collected their Money (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    from Fl already.  I think they may have a problem collecting money from the little people in Fl after this.  The Big Money People will always give to be able to influence latter decisions.  It's the little people they don't care about.

    This sounds more like a negotiating (4.80 / 5) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    position to me.

    It's going to cost a lot of money - which is the fault of the Republicans (in FL) and who knows whom (though I think it was the Republicans, in MI) for moving the primaries up.

    Dean is, on a matter of principle, correct in insisting that the DNC not pay for the end effect of the Republicans crapping all over the Democratic party's rules.  Especially where the DNC made its position on its rules (silly though they might be - they are the rules) clear literally months in advance of the MI and FL primaries.

    What also should be insisted upon, in the event these re-votes do go forward, is that they be closed primaries.  No point in having Republicans crossing over (and, in some cases, effectively being allowed to vote twice) to select the Democratic nominee.  They've already made enough of a mess of the Democratic nominating process by forcing these two primaries up on the calendar.

    I believe that Dean is (4.25 / 4) (#14)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    supporting Obama as is his sidekick, Donna.

    ^ million Democrat votes do not count.  Too bad.  

    Think about who wins if MI and FL are not included.

    And Howard, we don't need a 'daddy', telling us we're bad kids.
    Stop the condescending attitude and quit dismissing us. We are grow-ups.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    agree.  When I first read his remarks I wondered if Obama had won both primaries, would there be all this angst about seating the delegates?  Doubt it.  The partisanship among the Dem leadership is unconscionable IMO.

    And many of us already have our big girl panties (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST

    FLA was not an open primary (none / 0) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    as I recall. So that means 1.7 million DEMOCRATS voted in the FLA primary in January.

    MI was open; in fact kos was telling Dems in MI to vote for Romney since the Dem vote wasn't supposed to matter.


    Democratic Message To MI And FL (4.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    We don't care about your votes.

    Bet the Republicans are collecting all of these statements as well as JJ Jr.'s recent statement for distribution in MI and FL before the GE.

    Never say that the Dems can't every possible way to choose defeat over victory.

    What was JJJr's recent statement? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    Basically The Rules Are The Rules (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    Here are the last two paragraphs:

    Fourth, since there was no campaigning in either Florida or Michigan, and neither the names of Obama nor Edwards even appeared on the Michigan ballot, the idea that the votes cast there represent "the will and intent" of the people is nonsense. We must not allow the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan to "nullify" the will of the large mass of voters in all of the hotly-contested primaries and caucuses around the country where the candidates did campaign and the voters had the chance to meet the candidates, ask questions, hear their message and make an informed decision on who would be the best nominee for the Democratic Party.

    Finally, I want to be clear that this is a disagreement between the DNC and the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties. This is not--and should not become--an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan. Senator Obama will reach out to the voters in Florida and Michigan as the presidential nominee of our Party, and will work hard to carry these two important states for Democrats in the November election.

    Sound like an argument for a revote (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    to me.

    I Didn't Read Jackson's Comment As Advocating (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    a revote. I read it that he was saying that MI and FL will not be counted because they broke the rules and once Obama is the nominee, he will smooth it over with the voters in those states. (Fat chance IMO)

    please (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    the caucuses are SO undemocratic

    they should be done away with

    They discriminate against shift workers, the elderly, military voters, women with childcare issues

    And they give contradictory results.  Witness Texas where she beat him by 100K, and she lost the caucuses.

    I will NEVER accept Obama as our candidate based on caucus wins.


    I don't understand JJ Jr's (none / 0) (#126)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    point about FLA being "uncontested" just because the candidates didn't campaign personally there. All of the candidates were on the ballot, none had an advantage over the other (except arguably Obama, who ran ads in FLA as part of some regional ad buy that supposedly couldn't carve out FLA), and there was a record turnout. Does he think the people of FLA live in caves?  Lots of Super-Tuesday states didn't get personal face time with the candidates, and yet those primaries are considered "contested."

    But then again, this is the man who doubted the sincerity of Clinton's "emotional moment" in NH because he had not seen her cry in public over Katrina.

    MI is another story. There are some Clinton supporters who argue that the vote should be counted because Obama and Edwards didn't have to withdraw their names from the ballot, but what matters is what the voter saw when s/he stepped in the booth.  Only one name was on the ballot, and even though it's the name I support, I think you have to have a re-vote in MI.


    Forgot The Link (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    The party officials in FL and MI (1.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    went along with moving up the dates of their primaries with the full knowledge that they were not going to count. All candidates, INCLUDING CLINTON, agreed to this in 2007.

    Was Clinton not thinking clearly when she endorsed cutting out those two states?

    Well, it doesn't matter. If the two states want to run a primary that counts, they need to pay for them.

    Or maybe they can run cheaper caucuses.

    Or they can take their chances at the convention.

    If you're caught cheating on a test by your teacher and she lets you take the test again, don't get angry at the teacher because she throws out the first test that you cheated on. MI and FL parties violated the rules.

    BoP, was your candidate Obama (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    thinking clearly when he said that he would do everything he could to have FL's and MI's delegates count?  (circa November 2006, in his press conference in FL that violated the pledge he signed)

    Don't feed the dysfunctionalism of the Dems, Bob -- not here.  Haven't you learned that there's always something in your candidate's record to comebackatcha?


    I forgot that quote (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    thanks for reminding me.

    Your smug disregard (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    is EXACTLY what Dean is conveying in that quote.

    Thanks for fleshing it out for me.

    What disaster.


    BTD (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:05 PM EST
    am I right that the state parties get to decide how they choose to run their elections?  Why can't they just get representative delegates from each area to vote on where the delegates go?   Thus, 210 people from FL and 156 from MI are designated delegates who get to vote as to where the final delegates go?  Sort of a ratification process, right?

    Nah (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    A revote is necessary.

    I understand where you're coming from... (none / 0) (#31)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    But Dean doesn't have a choice, here. He can't reward states for breaking the rules, or else what little party discipline we have will collapse, and that would be much, much worse than even a loss in November.

    party discipline (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by teachermom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    You must be joking. If the Dems had party discipline we'd be out of Iraq and the telecoms wouldn't be spying on us.

    Party Fascism Not Discipline (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    Fascisms not a Democratic Party value. For the GOP it is like apple pie. No thanks.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    give a rat's arse about party discipline when all around everything is falling apart.

    Why were Michigan and Florida punished to begin with?  Why can't they have their primary an whatever day they want?  The states pay for it, not the DNC  Their rules are completely arbitrary to begin with.

    I have no respect for Dean and the other party leaders.  


    Loss of party discipline is worse (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    than the election of McCain in November?

    This isn't toilet training.  This is the Constitution of the United States going down for the third time.


    rules are made to be broken. (none / 0) (#35)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    come on! you want to lose so much to repubs that spanking florida and michigan means so much. it was silly to begin with especially since other states did the same thing.

    That sounds very similar to (none / 0) (#84)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    a close reading of Bush v. Gore.

    I wish to hell that all the people who just want Results, Results, Results and if the Rules Don't Allow Results, then Change the f'g Rules would wake the f'k up and realize they are, by taking such positions, not much different than Bushie demanding torture, and getting it, Rules be damned.


    I don't think you can compare (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    the Democratic National Committee rules on scheduling primaries to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    look, you have a point. but the truth (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    also is we are shooting ourselves in the foot. this rules are rules and rest doesn't matter doesn't fly with me. it is also important to be pragmatic. this is the dnc being uncooperative. they can do better than that and should. that is what i meant. and yeah, rules, especially arbitary rules that accomplish nothing and put the presidential race in danger deserves to be broken especially with the mindset of the dnc these days.

    He does not have a choice in the words (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    he uses? Sheesh.

    Oh, I see. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    I take it you're more concerned with the 'Dean Scream' aspect than the actual decision?

    I can agree with that. Of all people, you'd think he'd have learned by now. ;)


    Actually (none / 0) (#39)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    the rules read that 50% of the delegates be seated, but we don't ever hear the Party say anything about that.  Why did they decide to deprive the states of ALL delegates?  Makes me think even more it's because Hillary won.

    Oh I know (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    And Rule 21 absolves Florida anyway.

    But I was not go around that mulberry bush with Bob again.


    Rule 21 and Catch 22 (none / 0) (#52)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    For some reason, I never noticed point "C" of rule 21 until this morning:

    C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.

    Which I think means, no matter what you had to do or what you tried to do, we can do to you whatever we want.


    But that puts the onus on the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    In other words, it is Howard Dean's problem.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    ok, include s carolina or you have no (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    argument. you can't be selective like our dim dems seem to be.

    Wow an Obama supporter wanting Caucuses (none / 0) (#81)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    That is a coincidence!

    Vote by mail (none / 0) (#85)
    by DaleA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    The state party could send a ballot to every registered Dem. And the Dems could vote and send them back to be counted. This can be done quickly and cheaply.

    I don't get it. (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ajs214 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    The Democratic leadership made rules. Florida and Michigan did not obey said rules. The punishment is that these votes will not count during the primaries. Whether this was the best way to do things is certainly a question ripe for debate, but not the application of the rules. The people in Florida and Michigan have only their local leaders to blame. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton beats uncommitted in Michigan and wins a name recognition contest in Florida. Will the people in these states be allowed to vote in November? Of course. Would I like it if Democrats spent time campaigning there so they have a shot in November? Absolutely. Do we need to redo primaries there? Not in my opinion. Why should the national committee have to spend money that could be spent on trying to win back the White House to instead undercut the power of the DNC as to when to schedule state primaries?

    The best way to do things (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    is the debate in this post.

    I do not plan to educate you on how the DNC broke its own rules and how Iowa, NH and South Carolina broke the rules.

    Now is the time to figure out what is best for the Dem Party.


    Saving money for the GE (none / 0) (#133)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    in which you will have disadvantaged the Democratic nominee in two key states.

    Sounds pennywise and pound foolish to me.


    Ah, well ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    Howard Dean was always a loose canon.  It's why we love him, it's why he hate him.

    The Dems (none / 0) (#15)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    aren't going to win Flordia and aren't going to lose Michigan.

    Keep thinking that (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    Didn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    MI go Red last election?

    No (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    A Dem squeaker. Same as PA, OR and WI.

    Obama brings advantages folks. Do not deny the obvious.


    Advantages? (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Pennsylvania Froward post by Jerome at MyDD would say otherwise.



    WI, NM, Colorado, VA (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    Baloney (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    Senator Clinton has a very real chance of winning Fla she has consolidated Jewish, elderly and Hispanic retirees from Ohio and NY fill the State and vote for Dems.  Add if the feds again watch the polls in Duval County and make sure their votes for President count again it should move the State BLUE, its absolutely full of her demographics and they LOVE her.

    She already won FL, with record turnout (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    of these and other constituencies.

    Yes indeed my reference was to the GE (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    No the Dems (none / 0) (#117)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    are not necessarily going to lose Fla.

    According to Survey USA today:

    if it's Hillary, and not Obama, Florida goes Democratic.  If it's Obama, and not Hillary,  Michigan goes Democratic.


    Yes agree (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:11:28 PM EST
    30 million bucks... (none / 0) (#21)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    ...if Clinton really supports seating the delegations, then she should be willing to split the cost with the DNC, the state parties and the Obama campaign, right?

    They could do a special online pitch for it and get it raised in a week.

    I tend to think the state parties should be the ones trying to come up with the funds, though.  Doesn't Sen. Nelson have some funds he can ante up?

    The GOP lege isn't going to ante up one cent for a re-vote, so the responsibility, I think, should be borne first by the state party apparatus, second by the most flush elected Dems in the state, third by affluent Dem voters in the states, 4th by the DNC, and lastly by the candidates.

    Figuring out where the money's going to come from will delay resolution of this for at least a couple weeks.

    until there is a solution (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    this only makes Crist look better.  He's screaming for democracy in front of the cameras, then refusing to pay for it in private.  Very republican of him.

    Thought (none / 0) (#48)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    he offered to pay for it.

    nope (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    said FL cannot afford it (which is actually true-no one can afford it.  The whole country is in financial crisis thanks to GWB, but heaven forbid we spend a little now to fix the problem later by electing a dem president)

    You Know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    If Schumer was running this and Clinton was benefitting from it, you know what kind of theories would be floating around out there.

    OK.  Dean and the Clintons hate each other.  Am I supposed to believe Dean isn't letting his hate for the Clinton affect his decision making here?

    If Schumer were running this (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    none of this would have happened he too smart and he knows how to win.

    What a mess! (none / 0) (#51)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    The whole thing makes the Democratic Party look shady and inept.

    new ideas from Obamaland (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    New Obama tactic: Neither of us experienced: Developing...

    Ye gods, give it to McCain that way (nt) (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    Unity time better be coming soon (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    Forget reaching across the ailse, we need to reach out to those sitting next to us.  Dean is whacked here.  What, he doesn't think he can scare up more money by making a passionate plea to donors to help fund the righting of a democratic wrong?  By saying we MUST set the just example here, setting a precedent for the certain "irregularities" we MUST believe we will face in the GE.  

    Come on, Howard, it's time for the party to be better than it's leading part.

    I think you're reading this wrong (none / 0) (#55)
    by s5 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    I took this as saying "paying for it is not our problem", which it isn't, not that "MI and FL aren't our problem". I agree that his choice of words were poor, but he is correct.

    I disagree, the lack of integrity in the process (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    like caucuses that deny certain demographics opportunities, HELLO, to participate was also done on the cheap, where dose all the national money go if not for this very purpose it should be the priority.

    And really folks why would you put someone who lost as the head of your National Party that is there to sheppard candidates to win not fix the race, lordy, ok I'm done with this it's a massive political blunder and it has far reaching consequences and the DNC both he a Brazile are just making worse every time they open their mouths..

    Who knows do the State Parties have rights to break off from National Party if they choose and act free Democratic agents?

    It of course dose not help my thinking that Granholm, is a female elected official whose demographic is under represented in SD's and at the National Party Level and that she will surely suffer from a dished State party.


    I can believe it (none / 0) (#62)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    I can believe it, because I have known from the beginning of his fame that Howard Dean was a careless bumbler. The "Howard Dean" that brought Democrats together, generated the net roots, and was destroyed by the MSM is a myth. In actuality, there were more Democrats (like myself) who quietly feared a Howard Dean candidacy than supported it, the net roots were around before Dean (and in fact the 2001 inauguration protests were net-rooted, and I made large donations to that group), and the MSM boosted up Howard Dean far more than it knocked him down.

    My nutshell description of Howard Dean goes as follows: This is a person who, unwittingly, insulted White Southerners, insulted stock car racing fanatics, and endorsed the Confederacy. Of course, some people say that the MSM made him do that, but that's simply an argument that Howard Dean is easily flustered, and I would agree with that, too! :)

    IMO Michigan needs to do re vote only (none / 0) (#73)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    but I do not think Florida does.  The playing field in Florida was even for all candidates.  All of them were on the ballots, all of them did not campaign, the people knew who each candidate from  past primaries.  In fact Hilary would be willing to say the only candidate that did any TV ads was Obama and we are willing to let that slide.  Has anybody gotten a poll from Florida to see what the people want?

    "Not our problem" must be in context (none / 0) (#76)
    by Romberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    Dean was clearly speaking of funding a new primary/caucus in the states of Florida and Michigan when he said "That's not our problem." And the mess in Florida is not directly of Dean's making as Dean is not a dictator at the DNC. The problem was created by the rules committee and their (Donna Brazille led) decision to strip both states of their delegates completely.

    I encourage people who want to know what went on generally (and in Florida specifically) the "Florida and Michigan" section of this article by Andrew Tobias (who also just happens to be the Treasurer of the DNC.)

    Some additional relevant follow up columns and letters on the Andrew Tobias site:

    Florida - What Happens Now

    Equal Time

    Superdelagtes - Click the Link

    All very nice but still (none / 0) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    does nothing to explain why this committee chaired by his friend took all the delegates away instead of the 50% the rules required.  The rules were applied wrong in a very sensitive area in hopes that by convention time we would have a clear winner.  We don't and now it's time to pay the consequences.  Hope people forget by November?  Hah, you think the Republicans will let them forget.

    All I can say is read the links. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Romberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    Tobias asks "What would you have done?" and it's a fair question. In fact, the DNC solicited a great deal of input and no workable solution was at hand.

    (Just to be clear, the solution that Donna Brazille and her allies on the rules committee came up with was, to say the least, not good. This is especially true for Florida where the timing of the primary was taken entirely out of the hands of the Florida Democratic Party.)


    One thing they could have done is follow (none / 0) (#108)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    the rules and do the 50% delegate cut that the rules contemplate they did not have to go for the 100% cut.  Then they could have a better argument about the rules must be followed.  And they could have offered a better proposal as an alternative to the Jan 29 primary other than 125 polling places in a state as big as this.  

    Would following the rules themselves (none / 0) (#109)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    and done the 50% been workable?

    That Is What The Republicans Did (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    And what according to the rules (none / 0) (#112)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    the DNC should had done.

    Yes (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    Doesn't it become his problem (none / 0) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    When Michigan and Florida vote Republican in the fall?

    Paying for Fla. & Mi redo (none / 0) (#111)
    by sharon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    Hillary should start a new fundraising effort in both states just to pay for a new primary - and enourage other groups to participate. But maxed out donors could donate again for the new primary and she should win them both.  I am a first time poster and a Canadian not used to your system so forgive any errors.