Howard Dean: Only 2 Ways Fl and MI Will Be Seated

Howard Dean on CNN tonight: There are only 2 ways Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated. One is if Hillary and Obama agree on a plan. The other is after the nominee is chosen when she or he will control the credentials committee.

In other words, Florida and Michigan are not getting seated in time to have a say in the nominee.

If I were a voter in Florida or MIchigan, I'd be livid.

The one thing neither Dean nor the DNC can control is whether the superdelegates consider the votes in Florida and Michigan. They can factor the votes into their own calculations of the popular vote. They can factor them into their decision as to which candidate is more electable in November.

Florida and Michigan voters who want their vote counted ought to let the superdelegates from the other 48 states know. Here is a list of uncommitted superdelegates, and here is a list of committed superdelegates. Both should be contacted since superdelegates can decide or change their mind any time before they vote.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< No More Drudgico! | Justice Dept Releases John Yoo Torture Memo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is where Gore is needed. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    He of all people can make the case that excluding FL and MI cannot stand.

    Where is Jimmy Carter? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    I know he has declined to endorse but his speciality is making sure votes count.

    This is Dean's mess. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    Gore and Carter want no part of it.

    And the longer the news media refuses to hold Obama's feet to the fire, the more confrontational things will get.

    I can't speak for Michigan, but I know down here in Florida there's organization among the 55+ lady Democrats for a mass voter registration exodus to Independent if the Florida vote isn't counted by June 3rd, and a closing of  pocketbooks to the DNC.

    If Dean thinks Michigan and Florida will fund the nominee when millions of voters were disenfranchised, he's in for a rude awakening.


    This is Dean's mess (none / 0) (#235)
    by NANTU1938 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:28:13 PM EST
    I'd like to know more about the organizing of 55+ women to register with the Independents if this matter is not resolved by June 3rd.  I feel we here in FL must let Dean and all the DNC know we are furious about this mess.

    He said he's staying out ot it (none / 0) (#4)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:41:03 PM EST
    as of last Sunday's 60 Minutes. Doesn't want to be the uberbroker.

    Yeah but what about the election (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    broker? Doesn't Carter care about fair elections in THIS country?

    President Carter has said (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    many times that US elections would never pass muster to be monitored by the UN/his team.

    Our elections are a joke and a nightmare...all at the same time.


    I wouldn't go with Carter (none / 0) (#40)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    his specialty is running elections, not power meetings.

    why is this news? (none / 0) (#194)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    we have known since the decision in dc.

    what's the rumpus?


    You don't have to be a voter (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by tandem5 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    in Florida or Michigan to be livid.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    ... I'm pretty livid and I don't live anywhere near those two states.

    Shouldn't the infamous MoveOn (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    be mobilizing its contributors?

    Very funny... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:43:48 PM EST
    ...but I dropped MoveOn after they openly endorsed Obama, and continue to be a part of the Obama network.  

    I may go back some day, but I don't think MoveOn had any business endorsing and working on behalf of a democratic candidate until the GE, especially because they now can't voice an objective opinion on critical issues like these.


    It's the best outcome for obama (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    By treating FL/MI differently than other rule breakers, he gets 56 net votes of regular delegates.

    Alternatively, if FL/MI are treated the same as SC/NH etc, then you get:

    --Delegates (AP) with FL/MI estimate from demconwatch
    Clinton 1427,  Obama 1528 (101 diff)

    and with super delegates that means the current situation would be 68 difference:
    --Delegates (AP), and FL/MI estimate and super deleg (AP)
    Clinton 1677, Obama 1745  (68 diff)

    It is COMPLETELY unacceptable for people to be calling on HRC to resign in this situation.  Dean made a serious mistake early in the cycle, refused to correct it, Obama refused correction and now the democratic nominee is thus being handpicked by party leaders.  We won't be winning in nov with this sort of BS.


    Not a penny... (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    ... more from me for the DNC, or any Democratic elected official or organization who has any role in this massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, for a long, long time.

    I donated all those times so you'd fight for the public interest, not against it.

    Dean is playing into GOP hands re FL (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    and being a harda** by trying to look like a "tough enforcer" of the rules.  But the GOP will just find another way to screw Dems during the next primary season. It was so easy this time.

    Now I see what Obama wants only pledged to count (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by lambert on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
    He wants to disenfranchise MI and FL even in the judgment of super-delegates. Nice.

    GREAT (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    Well, if Obama wins because FL and MI are disenfranchised then the Democratic Party just lost my vote in November. I don't care if he choses to seat the delegates as a formality, that is not how Democracy works. You cannot disenfranchise people who do not wish to vote for you, and if you do so, you are not worthy of my vote.

    I am ashamed to be a part of the Democratic Party right now...

    Howard Dean is destroying the Democratic Party (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    before our eyes.  I just got off the telephone with a soft voiced fund raiser for my state party (neither MI nor FL).  She told me despondently that she was getting a lot of refusals from long time contributors because of this very issue.

    I had the same experience the other night. A lady (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    from the DNC called me and I lit into her, saying that there was NO way I would give the DNC money because of the way they were keeping their thumb on the scale for one of the candidates and the outrageous way that Hillary has been treated.  I said I was furious about this and that, if they kept it up, there is NO way I will vote for Obama in the fall.

    She said she had heard a lot of that and apologized and said she'd tell Dean (which I asked her to do -I said I had supported him in 2003 and 2004 and that disenfranchising Florida and Michigan was the stupidest thing I ever heard.)

    Anyway, I guess they are hearing it but it's going in one ear and out the other. It's amazing what cognitive dissonance can do.


    My theory (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    My theory is that Dean and some people advising him have bought into the ridiculous "Clinton's negatives are too high for her to win" idiocy, and they're determined to do everything possible to throw the nomination to Obama, even if it means alienating two key states and a lot of Dems across the country.

    This is both wrong and stupid on multiple levels, the most notable one being that Obama will have negatives just as high as Clinton's once the Republican attack machine has a few months to chew on him.

    In the coming years there will be shelves of books written about this election, none of them pleasant to read for the blue team.


    He's almost there (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    According to today's Rasmussen, Hill's negatives are 55 percent after 15 years of Republican attacks and a daily beating by the press, while Obama's are 50 percent with just a few years on the national scene and a daily pampering by the press...

    The republicans will not have to work too hard.


    Jeez I hate to do this but I've got to (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    agree with Ed Rollins that Dean is the most incompetent chairman of either party in the last 40 years.  Hasn't outraised the RNC in this best of all years.  Completely screwed up the primaries with the disenfranchising MI and FL.  If he had any pride, he would resign now.

    To the best of my understanding... (none / 0) (#176)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    Dean's mission has been a 50 state mission where previously the Democrats have focused too much time, energy and money on the presidential race to the exclusion of the more local city/county/state races.

    So in light of that as a mission, it's not that surprising that he would adopt some controversial methods and take a lot of criticism.

    The presidential contest between Hillary and Barack has sucked the air (and money) from the DNC and the notion was that the DNC would be able to raise money after the primary was settled. Clearly some of Hillary's supporters are unhappy and have suggested that the DNC and other Democratic organizations might find it more difficult to raise money from them this year - at least if they feel that their candidate is unfairly treated...and wrote Nancy Pelosi a letter expressing exactly those sentiments.


    Funny that the first (none / 0) (#211)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    year where he can implement his famous "50 state strategy" we are down to 48 states. LOL. I guess if 2 of the 50 vote for Clinton they can't be part of the strategy.

    If Hillary wins the popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    by more than say, 50,000 (including FL), and is denied nomination, we will have an illegitimate nominee on our hands.

    Keep yelling that (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    but with two states not included, there will be a tainted count.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    1.7 million Fl democrats made a (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    choice to vote in the primary in Jan.---a record turnout, by any metric. They voted because they wanted their votes counted.
    So screw them?

    Obama, Meet Bush (none / 0) (#143)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    Barack Obama has now joined George W. Bush in seeking to achieve power despite the will of Florida voters.

    What an exclusive club!


    You can focus on rules (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    all the way to defeat in November.

    Michigan is a "must win" state.


    Did you say something about consequences? (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by MaxUS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
    From http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

    Speaking of rules.... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    do the rules say one candidate get all the votes cast for "none of the above" if that candidate deliberately takes his name off the ballot?

    Sort of a "scorched earth" policy (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    Obama chose early in this election to use tactics that would divide the party. He seems to be incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions. When he bought the house with Rezko, when he chose to remain in a church in spite of a "controversial" minister, when he repeatedly told lies about his birth and early childhood... each time he had short-term gains, but he made the choices without considering the long-term implications.

    That is an interesting (none / 0) (#93)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    data point.  Would you take the next step, and say that this piece mitigates or reverses the fact that the DNC, all candidates, and all voters knew and acted on the fact that the MI D primary would have no affect on the delegate selection process?

    The candidates didn't think no effect (none / 0) (#114)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    the ones who took their name off the ballot thought Michigan would have a minimal effect.

    After all, he (or she) who wins early, generally wins the nomination.

    In Florida, Obama did hint that he thought the delegation would be seated.

    The Tampa Bay Online still has the story posted.


    And if they thought MI wouldn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    then why did Obama and Edwards lobby for people to vote "uncommitted" in that primary?

    Clearly, they were hoping to make points.


    Which adults are those? (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    The people of Florida and Michigan did not choose to push their elections forward. They had no say in the matter. They do have a say in how they will vote this fall, and Obama won't have any way of ensuring that their votes don't count in that election.

    what about the (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    voters. This is not about the pols, what about the votes of regular people.  Why are they being punished, they did not break any rules!

    I care about rules (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    like equal protection under the law. I have another rule - I don't support a party or a candidate who disenfranchises voters.

    I'm an adult and fully aware of the consequences of my decision.


    What's J's defin. of "chatterer" again? (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:02 PM EST
    Doesn't matter anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    We lose in Nov.

    It's the smugness (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    that I love so much about comments like this.  I've been wondering for awhile now ...  what is it?  Is it the tunnel vision?  Is it the short-sightedness?  Is it the thin-lipped grip on the rules?  

    Sigh.  All of these are strong contenders for the prize.  But I'm going with the smugness, because you could have all of the above, and if there was ALSO an element of humility or even modesty, the whole feel would be different.

    Congratulations; you pegged the smug-o-meter.


    It is (none / 0) (#118)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    allready illegitimate if Fla and Mich do not get to vote.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#122)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:52 PM EST
    I agree with you that if Hillary is ahead in the popular vote including FL, she has a valid claim on the nomination.  I would not consider it illegitimate if the super delegates decided to vote for her -- even if Obama were ahead in pledged delegates.

    However, if Obama remains ahead in pledged delegates, it wouldn't be illegitimate if the super delegates voted for him, either.  Basically, the primaries would be a split decision and the super delegates would have to decide.


    I think that's a fair assessment UNLESS (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    with the inclusion of FL delegates, Hillary would also have a pledged delegate lead. (unlikely)

    I don't know about illegitimate (none / 0) (#147)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    But I expect she will get the nomination if she makes up that much ground.

    If the percentage of pledged delegates (none / 0) (#184)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    is the same as the percentage of popular vote, I would agree with you.

    Unfortunately, Obama's percentage of pledged delegates is a point or two above his percentage of the popular vote (including estimates from caucuses).

    Proportionality is skewing the results.... and frankly that's one of the places superdelegates should balance the scales.


    OK (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    that seems to seal it.  He seems to really want the Boy Wonder (as in Batman) to be the nominee.

    I don't even recognize the Democratic party anymore.  You'd think after 2000, they wouldn't do anything so STUPID!

    Dean has helped me make my decision.  I will definitely do one of two things:  sit out the election,or vote for someone other than Obama.

    "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn."  Screw Dean ad the DNC.

    And my friends and family will probably be doing the same.  We are all big Hillary supporters from PA.

    Just vote for Dems downticket! We have to stop (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    the privatization of social security and the 100 year war!

    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by honora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is doing the disenfranchisement. Howard Dean will not take my calls, but he takes calls from my Democratic Governor, my two Democratic Senators, my Democratic Representative.  If the Democrats that we elected were doing their jobs, then Dean and Pelosi would not be able to do what they are doing.  At some point we have to say "enough is enough". I am going to write in Hillary and leave the rest blank.  I did not come to this decision lightly, but it is my vote and I will not give it to the current Democratic Party.

    I'll be writing her in also (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:09 PM EST
    I'll be writing to some super delegates and will still vote Dem in my state since many are Hillary supporters, but anyone that I find is an Obama supporter won't get my support.

    Hillary write-in and... (none / 0) (#209)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    actively working against those that support the disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters is my plan.  I have said that this was my litmus test and the Dems are failing.  Therefore, I will renounce my life long Democratic Party affiliation and join the Progressive Party if this happens.

    I sure wish that I had not supported Dean.  He really has been terrible.  


    I don't see how Obama could win FL (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    in the general. But in his "270" calculation, is he even including it?

    Florida voter (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    As a Florida voter, I am not livid. I was livid last summer but now I'm more or less resigned to the fact that the Democratic party doesn't care about Democratic values. And they sure as hell don't care about Democratic voters.

    I've said since this first occurred last summer, no primary vote means no general vote from me.

    RMcCauley (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    We get your point. Stop trying to dominate the thread. Come back tomorrow.

    RMC thinks voting should be difficult. (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    He thinks you should have to demonstrate in the streets to get the right to vote.
    This is SUPPOSED to be the USA, not the Ukraine!

    Apparently, he also thinks (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    that Florida's Democratic voters would have had sway with their Republican-controlled legislature.


    Gee, if only you Fl people had been willing to fight it out in the streets, you coulda been a contender!


    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    that the minority Democrats could have persuaded the GOP majority legislatures' to honor the 'rules' of the DNC?

    Keep your sympathy (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    I blame you for the Iraq war. You voted the idiots into office that were responsible so obviously using your logic it is your fault.

    Anytime Repubs pass laws to restrict voters rights, I see people complain about the laws. Except in this situation. This time, because a law was passed which caused the DNC to disenfranchise voters it was the fault of the Democratic voters in the state. How people are willing to contort themselves to justify the unjustifiable is beyond me.


    "cut in half if not a quarter." (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    Maybe you can reduce the state's value in the General also?

    My understanding is that the vote (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    in Florida to move the date up was unanimous because it was part of a bill that eliminated touch screen voting. That bill was necessary to get the hated machinery out of Florida in time to substitute a better voting technology in place for November.  If this is accurate, I can see why the Dems might vote unanimously.

    obviously you have no Idea what was on the (4.66 / 3) (#156)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM EST
    bill that was voted on in Florida.  Since 2000 the Florida Democrats had been trying to have a paper trail set for electronic voting in florida.  That was part of this bill if you did not vote for this bill you would be voting against having a paper trail during elections.  The Democrats tried to have the Bill divided into two and failed.  That is why even the Obama backers in the Florida legislature voted for this bill.  Please if you don't have the details do not comment on the issue.

    Didn't hear a peep? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    You weren't listening.

    Nelson suggested the 4 early states move up their dates since the Fl Dems couldn't change the date. The DNC said no.

    The FDP looked for alternatives, but couldn't afford any. They took in just under 5 million last year, meaning they couldn't afford any solutions unless they got money elsewhere. They asked the unions about contributing some money but were turned down. The DNC offered around 880k but it wasn't nearly enough for anything. Without the money there was no other solution possible.

    The reason why you started to hear about a revote was because others stepped forward to offer financing. They didn't whip together that plan, it had been on the table since last year.

    Just because you were listening doesn't mean there was peeping going on.


    then you weren't listening , we in Fla (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by fly on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:26 PM EST
    did everything we could to make this a national issue long before January!..we were screaming about it and screaming to the dem party and the DNC to no avail..just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean we weren't trying to resolve this!
    All our Fla papers rans stories about hwo unfair it was and how Obama cheated the day after he signed the sanctions!

    Stop blaming others because you were ignorant to what was going on.
    We in Fla were not.

    from a 2004 Fla dem delegate.


    What world do you live in? (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    Are you insane? How do you propose that I stop my state legislature from passing a bill. Because if I could do that I would stop them from their Take Your Uzi to Work bill that they are currently passing.

    Why don't you stop funding the Iraq war and get back to me on how you finally brought the troops home before you lecture me on how I'm somehow responsible for a primary date change.


    How do you prevent (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    Primaries in December, or having most of them in January?  

    Have they prevented that yet? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    Have they prevented it with this action? I don't think so.

    You want to control state legislatures by taking action against party voters? It doesn't make sense. If you are from one party and control the legislature of a state and you know the other party will shoot itself in the foot if you move up the date, why not? All the Dems have done, is show that any Repub controlled state should move up its primary and then sit back and watch the party implode.

    If you want to keep legislators from voting to move a date, you take directed action towards legislators. Not voters.


    How do you prevent (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    legislators from doing that?  

    There is no easy way....but there needs to be a way of enforcing some order on the process.

    Dean and Ickes, now a Hillary supporter, decided to not count the delegates....That was deemed reasonable and necessary at the time....  


    You don't do it by disenfranchising voters (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    It was neither reasonable nor necessary. You never punish people for the actions of others.

    There were other actions available to them. Delegate cuts (as long as you leave a few delegates people aren't disenfranchised) to lessen impact of early states. Financial repercussions for Dem legislators to discourage voting for legislation. You NEVER disenfranchise the voters.

    The truth is they did it because they could and because it had no cost in their mind. Because actually punishing legislators might have consequences where voters don't matter to them. Dean said last year he believes voters won't care because other issues like Iraq will matter more. They expect that Dems will vote for them no matter what. They can disenfranchise voters, they can fail to act on Iraq, they can allow the administration to repeatedly break the law and people will still vote for them. Because what other choice do people have?

    They had choices. They chose poorly. Now I'll remind them I have the choice not to vote for them in the general. It won't restore my primary vote, but maybe it'll remind them that they need to earn support not expect it.


    Why does that concern (none / 0) (#172)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    trump the right to vote?

    It doesn't.


    Why all the hostility (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:28:19 PM EST
    towards FL voters?  How does blaming the victims help here?

    It's the only way to defend Obama (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    The only way anybody can justify disenfranchising millions of voter's in order to benefit one candidate over another is to suggest that they are being justly punished for their transgressions. It's a thin argument, but it's the only one Obama supporter's have, so they are clinging to it like a barnacle to a stone.

    Well I hope they are happy (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    with their self-righteousness when I'm at the beach Nov. 4.

    Yeah, I know it's an empty threat.  I'm one of the suckers Dean is talking about who will vote against McCain no matter what. But the DNC isn't getting any of my money.  Those Obamafans are on their own funding this one. Hope they still have some money left on Dad's credit cards.


    I don't know what I'd do... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    ...if I were in a state that was competitive. I'm in California.  Whether I vote for the Democratic candidate or not my electoral college votes will go Dem. I won't vote for Obama, and I won't contribute the the DNC or his campaign (I gave a lot to Kerry)., but I will vote for and support downticket Dems. They're not all bad. But I'm not going to get emotionally vested in an election I don't think we can win. We have to focus on making sure that the Congress is as strongly Democratic as possible to minimize the damage.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:39 PM EST
    Obama may get my state, but he won't get my vote. I will support keeping a strong majority in congress. But I gotta tell ya, even that is going to tick me off.

    Oh well, with out being invested in the race, I'll be able to concentrate on my other 'stuff'  


    sorry (none / 0) (#186)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    But I live in SF, and i will strongly oppose pelosi, she's done a poor job as it is, but this straw broke the camel's back.  In fact I am strongly considering voting against dems until they get their act together.  

    Democracy requires clear procedures, clear elections, clear discourse and even when the democrats totally control the process they are too anti-democratic to do the right thing.

    How can I support a party that subverts the foundations of a functional democracy even when they have no excuses and can't blame anyone else?


    You can support the party... (none / 0) (#203)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    ...because by not supporting it you are supporting a party that is far worse. I won't argue over Pelosi, but let's not forget that the right wing is out there waiting for us to give up and let them win. I hope we'll all be very careful about how we protest the actions of the party. Protesting their actions is important, but it's also important to not strengthen the right.

    It was the same bill to ban DRE voting machines (none / 0) (#237)
    by fly on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:05 PM EST
    and to MANDATE ..VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS..NO WE DIDN'T FIGHT TO CHANGE THAT BILL..but that is the very bill the republicans tied the amendment to change the date of the primary on.

    Any dem who would have fought that bill would have had their heads removed in this state after wen endured 18,000 missing votes in Sarasota in 2006 in Katrine Harris's county..

    but we were the very first state to Ban the DRE voting machines for the 2008 election and the first state in the nation to mandate VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS..for the 2008 election..the only state to do so in the nation!!!!!!!!!...but call us silly..

    but this is the very bill Dean punished us for!!

    and Yes the FDP tried to get that amendment removed for that bill to no avail!

    Dean is a liar , he planned this he planned it because as soon as this bill was signed he began pushing the FDP into a caucus..and his push kept it up and in Oct or Nov he offered the FDP $800,000.oo + to do a state wide caucus..so no one will tell me his plan to steal elections by Caucus was not planned!

    Howard Dean is a crook..he is a cheat and so is Obama ..this was all planned!


    does this mean (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    we have to go back to the 48 star american flag?

    48 Only (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    Is there a graphic of this - Obama's "States of the Union"?

    Doesn't Obama always talk about the "United" States of America?  


    clearly (none / 0) (#144)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    he will now do his best to ensure that the delegates are seated. we'll be watching.

    What a great idea (none / 0) (#189)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    I'll pass it on

    And the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    will have to change its name to the D(EFM)NNC

    (The Democratic (Except in Florida and Michigan) Non-National Committee)


    ...and the Obama blogs (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    will be cheering.

    Pretty pathetic.


    They (none / 0) (#126)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    need Hillary's voters to win.

    specially in m state of PA.

    Well they're not getting them.  They can augh their arse out of about 27 electoral votes.


    Heh...time for a populist party (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    Heck with them.  

    I actually wonder what the polling would be... (none / 0) (#248)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    in a three way race with McCain Obama and Clinton.

    I heard Dean (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:17 PM EST
    and I was stunned. Is he that clueless? Does he not realize that by not including FL and MI, he has handed the White House back to the Republicans? I am sick. I have not given cent to the DNC and my checkbook is now closed in the future as well regardless the nominee. I will continue to support Sen. Clinton.

    Is he that clueless? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:06 PM EST
    Yes. He is that clueless.

    The democrats have found a way to snatch defeat from the overwhelming chance they had for victory.

    And, the sad thing for me is that at this point I could care less.

    The last time I felt the merest breath of optimism was when the dems regained the house and senate in 2006. And look how that turned out.


    They act like (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    the Democratic Party is its own branch of government.  Sadly, it's just not true.

    Right. It's like they don't need us. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    We don't matter to them. They can live on ether, I guess.

    And do we see... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by rebrane on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:12:07 PM EST
    This video of a Florida Democratic leader openly mocking the DNC's warning of sanctions and making it totally clear that he welcomed moving the primary up  is really instructive to watch to overcome BTD's spin about this whole disenfranchisement crap. The situation is regrettable, but who should Florida Democrats really be angry at? The DNC for not performing the traditional Democratic spinal reversal in response to any pressure, or their own state party leaders who irresponsibly started a showdown with the DNC that they appear to be losing?

    By the way, really smart move by the Florida Democratic party there. Because if they had scheduled their primary for the second Tuesday in March, it wouldn't have gotten any attention from the candidates or the media at all. Nope. Good thing they went for it!

    What does it matter who I am mad at? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    It is wrong, no matter who was responsible. It needs to be fixed, no matter who fixes it.

    You can't unscramble an egg. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    I don't think there IS a fix for this anymore. All anyone can do is make sure this doesn't happen again. Which is actually what I think Dean is trying to do, by seeing that states aren't rewarded for bad behavior, though obviously not everyone agrees with his course of action.

    That is obviously NOT (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    "all" we can do. Dems in MI and FL, for example, can sit out the November election. Dean's pronouncement that they will vote for the Dem candidate anyway because McCain is so bad is pure hubris. It is in the spirit of "lie back and think of England." Unacceptable.

    That doesn't fix anything. (none / 0) (#131)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    It might help insure that this doesn't happen again, but it certainly doesn't repair any damage.

    Of course it doesn't fix it. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    But Dean has given up on fixing it, and I think he is nutty to believe that Dems in FL and MI will fall in line.

    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    Let me know when it's fixed so I can consider voting for Democrats again.

    The DNC is punishing FL and MI voters unfairly (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by echinopsia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    So I'm not going to reward the DNC for this behavior.

    We are Democrats. We COUNT votes.

    And the day we stop doing that is the day I stop being a Democrat.


    I read something yesterday that said that all the (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    Florida Dems fighting for the date change were supporting Obama.  I wish I could remember where I saw that.  But it just occurred to me, could they have been trying to screw up that primary too? Maybe he also realized he couldn't win Florida and that by supporting moving the primary up, it might compromise Hillary's win as it has? If he was plotting that in Michigan, maybe he was plotting it in Florida too?

    I never thought of that before.  Wonder if there would be any way to find out.


    You realize that the man who is a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:50:49 PM EST
    next to governor Chris when he signed the law and applauding is an Obama supporter.  The reason why he was applauding was because that law also included the paper trail the Democrats had been fighting for in Florida since 2000.

    That's right. I remember that now. That's the (none / 0) (#163)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    reason Dems were supporting the change. It went hand and hand with getting the paper ballot.  Since I am totally for having paper ballots and think we lost the election in 2006 because of electronic voting machine and other fraud in Ohio, I can't really criticize the guy!  

    I'm over livid (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    At least Dean has been consistent. This has been what he has been saying for months, and as a Florida voter, I'm not livid anymore, just resigned to the fact that the Democratic party is still clueless. I usually register as an Independent when that is allowed, but decided to register Dem when I moved here 2 years ago since I vote that way anyway.  I never dreamed they would be the party to discount my vote in Florida, of all places.

    Jeralyn, that is a great suggestion about contacting the Superdelegates.  They need to hear from us.

    Doing us this big favor and counting us after they know it won't matter is just insulting. Obama should have the stones to say right now that we will count.  I firmly believe he will win anyway, especially if he made this bold move. Just because Rove says it doesn't necessarily make it a lie.  (Though I'll grant it raises the odds to about 99%.)

    This could seem OT, but really it's not (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Baal on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    because this race between HRC and BO is still being contested and both candidates and their followers are trying as hard as they can, which inevitably means raising every possible issue that might give them an edge.  That means feelings and emotions can get pretty hot.  I have my own thoughts about this but they not important.

    If it transpires that BO wins the nomination, and some Clinton supporters consider voting for McCain as a result, I link the following from Pam Spalding to remind you of who McCain now considers to be his base.  It is worth reading.


    I won't be (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    blackmailed into voting for Obama.  For too many years I've been held hostage by the Dem Party to abortion rights and the Supreme Court.  I voted for Kerry b/c, you know, all this stuff was too important to take a chance on.

    Yet the one Dem president in my voting lifetime, the Dem president who protected choice and the SCt, is being demonized as a racist and a failure.

    I'm really tired of the emotional and poltical blackmail.  If you really don't want McCain elected, insist that the DNC and its minions stop weighting the scales for Obama.  That's the real problem, that, if anything, will be the cause of McCain getting elected.

    If MI and FL, and by extension the voters, have to live with the consequences of their actions, so do the DNC and the Dem Party.  Stop expecting me to bail them out of their own stupidity and mendacity.


    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
    I've been defending the Democratic Party for a very long time, and there comes a time when you just can't compromise any more. This isn't about Clinton v. Obama. Obama is going to win whether Michigan and Florida are counted or not. It's about basic fairness. How can my party arbitrarily decide that a tiny New England state is going to be the arbiter of who we are going to choose as the next Presidential candidate and disenfranchise anybody who tries to move ahead of them?

    I have spent more hours defending Pelosi and Reid than I care to admit. But this is too much. I can't support them writing off millions of Democrats in order to make it easier for a particular candidate to win. All they have to do is to decide to let Florida and Michigan count without Clinton or Obama having any say in the matter. They come up with something fair, and Clinton and Obama can go along with it.


    OK vote for McCain (none / 0) (#164)
    by Baal on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    Enjoy the results.  I am sure it will feel great, I certainly wouldn't want to blackmail you by suggesting that some of what McCain has been saying lately should disqualify him from holding any elective office because, well that would be blackmail.

    By the way, I liked Bill Clinton too.  John McCain is someone very different indeed, but like I said, enjoy.


    You'll be able to enjoy it with us (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    unless something is done to restore the franschise of MI and FL voters.

    It seems more sensible to work on that than trying to scare or blackmail people.


    I'd never vote for McCain (none / 0) (#217)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST
    It will be very painful, but I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Because the choice between him and McCain is bad vs. worse. And I'm used to feeling that way every four years.

    That being said -- Obama had better not choose a running mate like Casey, whose political views are anathema to me. That could tip the scales on whether I vote or stay home.


    Enjoy disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#229)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    Are you that naive to think the GOP won't constantly bring up this primary election to call our party for its hypocrisy and get away with future disenfranchisement?

    you said (none / 0) (#177)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    it exactly

    why should i bail them out of their stupidity?

    why should I allow myself to be taken for granted again?

    the dem party has taken women for granted too ong


    The politics of fear (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:04:03 PM EST
    is not going to get me to vote for a party or candidate that disenfranchises voters, particularly when some of its most ardent supporters are actually gleeful about it.

    Even if you think I'm a low information voter, I don't need to do any additional reading to know who McCain is or what a McCain presidency means.

    I also know the republic will not collapse if McCain is elected (although 4 more years of Republicans in the White House will make collapse more probable). If I thought it would, I'd have moved to Canada already.

    Here's a counter offer for you: Instead of trying to scare people into supporting Obama, why don't you and other Obama supporters stand up and work for the rights of voters in MI and FL, just like voters in the other 48 states, to participate in the Democratic nominating process? Then a lot of us would be happy to support the Democratic Party and its candidates.


    I wondered what the other side ... (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:41:11 PM EST
    ...was saying about this, so I wandered over the the big orange and looked. There is a front page diary about how the Florida Democratic leaders didn't object strenuously and really wanted to move their primary forward, therefore the people of Florida are being justly disenfranchised. About halfway down there is a comment that is nearly hidden (3 hides, 1 rec). The fact that this is being troll-rated kind of says everything I need to know about the formerly "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".

    "Disenfranchising voters in 2 key states = DUMB! (1+ / 3-)

    Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox
    Hidden by:
        Mogolori, defluxion10, lgcap

    Howard Dean has turned this entire primary into a total fiasco.  He made the hot-headed and unprecedented decision to strip MI and FL voters of their right to participate in the primary.  George Bush got appointed President because Florida voters were disenfranchised.  Why are going back down that road?  What did the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida ever do to deserve this?  The voters' rights are paramount.  If they aren't heard, any candidate the Democrats choose will be tainted."

    I uprated. It is now 4/-3 (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by jes on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    How else could they be seated? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    Isn't Dean just stating facts at this point?

    If my understanding is correct, if the states had decided to hold revotes in accordance with DNC rules, those revotes would have had to be honored regardless of what Obama thought about them.  However, the states did not decide to hold revotes.  In FL, very few elected officials supported them. In MI, elected officials who supported Obama blocked them.

    Now that revotes appears to be off the table, how else can the delegations possibly be seated other than via an agreement between the two campaigns or at the credentials committee?  

    This isn't a rhetorical question -- if I am overlooking something I really want to know.

    Obama's lawyers blocked the revotes. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:46:36 PM EST
    Not in FL (none / 0) (#137)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:24 PM EST
    There just wasn't enough support for them there.

    In MI, I agree, Obama blocked the revotes. But he did with the assistance of his supporters in the state legislature.  Had there been overwhelming support for revotes in the state, they would have happened.  The plan that was being floated complied with DNC rules and the DNC would have had no choice but to seat the delegates if the revote had taken place.


    I didn't see the interview (none / 0) (#124)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    so I don't know all that he said. But I would like the party leader to do a bit more than just state facts, so that's what I am reacting to. And he appears to brush this off as not really a problem because Dems will fall in line. So he appears not even to see the problem in a 48-state strategy.

    Laugh? or Cry? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:44:07 PM EST
    Dean Leaves No State Behind - TIME
    Oct 23, 2006 ... Could it be that Howard Dean is really a savvy political strategist? ... $8 million to carry out his controversial "50-state strategy. ...
    www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1549330,00.html - 37k

    Hurts too much to laugh (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:52:15 PM EST
    I truly believed in him.

    50% penalty for Florida (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    delegates, which is the Republican solution for jumping the gun.  That would minimize the damage.

    Seat the Michigan delegation 50/50.

    Florida and Michigan are different.  Michigan Dems had  control over the date of the vote with a Democratic Governor.  Obama was not on the ballot.  Plus, the Mich. vote has been declared invalid by the courts.

    Florida is more murky but the Dems in the Legislature didn't break their backs to avoid breaking the DNC rules....

    Democratic turnout in Fl. and Mich. were lower than anticipated and supressed--if you look at the fact that everywhere else, except there and Utah and Alabama, the Democrats constituted the majority of primary voters, i.e., more people voting in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary.....A lot of Democratic voters stayed home....

    Re-votes set a bad precedent.....If you do it this time, every time there is a problem a re-vote will be demanded....

    Howard Dean had to do something to keep from having primaries in December.....

    You don't get it (none / 0) (#157)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:06:59 PM EST
    50/50 is exactly the same as ignoring the vote, and the people of Michigan are not so stupid that they can't figure it out. I have no idea why re-votes in the case of invalid elections set a bad precedent. That makes about as much sense as stopping recounts because they might undermine the legitimacy of the winner of the election when they show that he wasn't really the winner of the election.

    Howard Dean did something to prevent primaries in December. But he did could very easily have done that AND found a way to let the people's votes be counted. He didn't.


    There are irregularities (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    in every election.  

    Finality is important. You need to know that when someone has won, they have won, and there won't be a do-over because of some rules violations....

    The Washington Gov's race a couple of years ago was won by a couple of hundred votes with accusations of impropriety.....The Dem won.

    Should there have been a re-vote in Florida in 2000?


    Yes, Florida should have revoted (none / 0) (#174)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    ...in 2000. If an election is to mean anything, it has to reflect the will of the people. When an election is so badly messed up that the people's will cannot be known, then there must be a revote. Democracy is not always easy, or convenient. If you know who has won, then there doesn't need to be a re-vote because of a technicality.

    This is not an "irregularity". It's flat out disenfranchisement. You can say that it's justifed. I disagree. But don't call it anything but what it is.


    50% penalty for both (none / 0) (#175)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    as originally outlined would be fair, IMO.

    Obama and co weren't on the MI ballot because they removed their own names, which certainly wasn't the MI voters' fault.  MI turnout was depressed, probably because half the candidates chose not to be on the ballot. But the 600,000 people who turned out to vote on that cold, miserable day deserve to be heard, just as they voted. Obama and Edwards can fight it out for the uncommitted delegates.

    The 1.7 million FL turnout was the largest Dem primary ever there--because FL has more registered Republicans, they had a larger turnout, but the Dem turnout was ~43%, which is right in line with 2008 turnout in other states.

    "Plus, the Mich. vote has been declared invalid by the courts."
    Can you please link to this? I hadn't seen that, just a court saying the primary records couldn't be released to meet DNC requirements for a revote.

    Also, didn't BTD say that revotes were in the original DNC rules all along, as long as they took place before June 10?


    The Federal District Court (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    in Michigan ruled that the Michigan Presidential Primary law was unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists to the parties.  Here is an article describing the ruling.

    Here is a copy of the actual opinion.

    A re-vote would seem impossible.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#210)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    If I'm reading this right, the original primary wasn't ruled invalid, just future ones under these rules, so the Jan primary could reasonably be used to award delegates.

    "That election is on the history books, and it doesn't disappear because the law that created it is off the books,"

    I agree that a revote seems difficult, because the DNC couldn't ensure one voter, one vote. But wasn't that the Obama camp's main sticking point, that those who voted in the R primary couldn't vote again? Sounds like they could now, along with everyone else. Oy.


    True, the court (none / 0) (#214)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:03 PM EST
    did not expressly hold that the primary was invalid, but there was no severability clause in the statute, and I believe a clause that stated the opposite, so the whole statute was effectively gutted....

    There is a very good discussion of this here in the comments--the article is wrong.

    Short version:  It is a legal mess separate and apart from the issue of breaking the rules by holding the primary too soon.


    The ACLU brought the suit (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    The Mich statute (none / 0) (#205)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    had a non-severability clause stating that if one provision were held unconstitutional, the entire statute would be invalidated.  Thus, the entire Primary is effectively marred.

    Michigan screwed up its own election in more than one way....


    Count the Florida votes (none / 0) (#219)
    by macwiz12 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    The suggestion to seat the Michigan delegation 50/50 is not an answer. The only choice is to count the votes the way they were cast or have a new vote. The Obama campaign blocked the new vote choice.

    In Florida, the democrats in the legislature had one choice, vote against the January primary AND against a paper trail or vote for both. They tried to separate the issues but the republican majority prevented that option.

    Excuse me, but 1.7 MILLION people voted in the Florida democratic primary. Also note that there was a state property tax issue on the ballot that brought a lot of people to the polls. This was a VERY big issue in Florida.


    Dean Is Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    I did a post today on Corrente looking at the Credentials Committee and unless I've completely botched things up:  

    1. Neither candidate will have enough allocated members on the Credentials Committee to control the Committee, the deciding votes will be cast by the 25 people Dean appointed; and

    2. None of that matters anyway because the Call to the Convention specifically reserves all credential decisions to the full convention. So the final decision on seating delegates is a vote on the convention floor.  Since we know neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win a floor vote (absent a concession or collapse), that means all those Super Delegates get to decide how much they want to go on national television and vote not to count votes from Florida and Michigan.  Linda Sanchez, your district went more than 2-1 for Clinton, your state went to Clinton, but you're an Obama Super Delegate.  Tell me, in addition to going against your constituents, are you willing to vote to disenfranchise thousands of hispanic voters in Florida to ensure he wins the nomination?   How about you, John Kerry?  Or you John Conyers?  You going to vote against seating your own state?  Or Al Gore are you going to vote against counting Florida?  

    Howard's blowing smoke to try to cover his butt, crossing his fingers and hoping his decision - and his lack of leadership in resolving the matter (e.g. forcing revotes) - doesn't lead to a disaster at the convention.   And ultimately this is a party problem.  This decision was not made by Obama or Clinton.  Yes, they could make a deal to get the party out of it and probably should, but this is ultimately the DNC and all of the state parties' making (and I do mean all because the NH and IA primacy is an old, sore issue that should've been resolved before it came to this).

    If You Head Over to My Post (none / 0) (#243)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    Be Sure to Read the Comment from Bringiton who has additional information (interpreting the DNC Rules is like trying to interpret a statute with half the sections missing).  It may be that the Credentials Committee lacks jurisdiction entirely over Michigan and Florida.  If that's the case, what on earth are Brazile and Dean talking about?  

    I swear I'm a good lawyer.  I don't know why I can't figure this out.  Oh, right, it's designed to be confusing so when DNC officials go on television and make up rules and lie, I won't know it.


    Seating Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by edinmissouri on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    Fl and MI are lost causes.  One should not be mad at the DNC, they warned these states that this would happen.  all candidates were notified of the possible exclusion.  It should of been then, not now, that the Democrat primary candidates should of protested these party rules.  These 2 states can thank their state legislatures for putting them into this mess, not the DNC.  The DNC doesn't make election laws.  As Florida Democrats, you should be telling those independents that the Republicans, not the Democrats, put them in that mess.  Work on getting those Repubs out of office so they can't do the same thing again.  But I have a feeling that this explanation will not go over well with Hillary supporters who are trying anyway they can to get her nominated.  Please stop badmouthing Dean, he helped get the Dems back in control of the legislature under his watch with his 50 state strategy, plus he's a Dem and this invective on both sides needs to cease.  we need to stop tearing each other apart.  Both candidate will make a great nominee and will beat that mummy  running on the other side.

    What is Dean supposed to do? (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:17:46 PM EST
    As far as I know, Dean is doing what he has to do. He's not the king of the DNC, he can't just say, oh we'll seat the delegates as is, or we'll split them 50/50, or we'll give them all to Obama delegates. All he can do is enforce the rules and procedures put in place, and the credentials committee is the instrument put in place to handle things like this. Now if the rules are lousy, then they need to be changed, but that's not Dean's fault; he can't just make up the rules as he goes along.

    Now I may be wrong here, I don't really know that much about DNC rules, and if someone knows otherwise feel free to enlighten me. But honestly, what is Dean supposed to do?

    Correct in my view. (none / 0) (#252)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:38:46 AM EST
    I'm not quite clear what he's supposed to do here. The only ways HE can "control" things is via the convention. Other than that he could put preassure on the candidates directly but that's really not his job.

    In any case I'm suprised people are suprised. This is actually not new information to anyone who's been paying attention. It was quite clear when the revotes failed/got blocked that this is what was going to happen.

    It remains the case that the supers are free to include FL and MI in their independant calulations.

    I just hope that all the people who are livid over this channel their energy into calling for national primaries in the future since that's the only way to avoid people being disenfranchized each and every primary season.


    I believe Dean released the balloons at the RNC (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    Can  you hear the noisemakers. Woo hoo!! They did it. The presidency was handed to the democrats on a silver platter, and they actually, beyond even the most cynical among us, blew it. Stunning. Positively stunning. Dean and company couldn't possibly have constructed a better way to loose the election in '08 if they had planned it. My hat is off to them.

    On John Stewart's show tonight, he made fun of the democrats by playing out their greatest fear and dread, democracy. Oh noooo, we can't handle the dreaded democracy. Not in the democratic party.

    The Democratic Party. The biggest joke going. And they said we couldn't do it.

    That the people of MI/FL (3.66 / 3) (#11)
    by mattt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    are getting screwed is beyond debate.  I submit that the facts suggest their ire be directed at their elected state representatives.  The local GOPs played a role in moving the primaries up, but lots of state Dems were on board, too, some leading the effort.

    Meanwhile, Hillary said nothing about the DNC stripping MI/FL delegates until she realized she needed them.  She didn't speak up for revotes until it was too late.  And I don't recall any posts at TL about the DNC decision until it looked important for Hillary, either.

    That's pretty subjective (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    your sense of timing there.

    BTW: Hillary called for the delegates to be seated, and came out in favor of a re-vote while the state parties were discussing a re-vote.


    It doesn't matter... (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    ... who was at fault originally or who has been consistent. The right thing to do is still the right thing to do.

    As you said, it's beyond debate that MI and FL voters are being screwed. The question is how can we fix it now? Obama deliberately sabotaged any chance of a revote in Michigan and Florida--there's no question that was the wrong thing to do.


    Howard Dean apparently doesn't (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    think it is "too late."  Does Obama?

    I am flat out appalled! (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by splashy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    This is not democracy. No way, no shape, no form.

    I am totally ashamed of the Democratic party. Totally ashamed.

    Gore has said he's not taking the role (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    of Boss Tweed (his words) and playing broker. He's not interested in it.

    What a mess (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    how can we make the case to the American people that the dem party is ready to lead when we can't even dig ourselves out of this mess?

    Absolutely incredible.  Everyone said it was ours to lose.  I hate when everyone is right.


    Per Jeralyn's post, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    FL and MI Dems should contact the Supers to express their dissatisfaction about Deans proposal and to make clear how this will effect their vote in the GE.  She has even supplied a list!  Tell your friends in FL and MI to contact the Supers.  

    All Dean and the crew (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:55:01 PM EST
    had to do was abide by their own 50% rule and take away half the delegates instead of totally screwing the voters in MI and FL.

    The GOP had the same issue and just went by their original rules and stripped 50% from MI and FL.  But they also went by their rules and stripped NH of 50% when they moved their primary up.  The GOP went by established rules, without any hypocrisy, and no problem.

    Dean and the crew had to have some big pissing contest and now everybody loses.  He really ought to admit this was a huge mistake and resign.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#199)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM EST
    The rules allow us to get ourselves out of this bind.  That shows Dean only cares about the Obama Rules.

    I have another question, Jeralyn. Where does it (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
     say in the rules that the candidates have to agree on solving this kind of situation?  That's ridiculous, because obviously whoever would lose by seating them or having a revote would be against any solution, as we have seen happen.  Can't Dean be challenged by Clinton just because HE isn't following the written rules on how such things should be settled?  EVerything I've read recently says that there are written rules that Dean is completely ignoring. Am I wrong? I'm confused on this.

    Here are the two options according to rules: (none / 0) (#159)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:07:21 PM EST
    Dean from a while back:
    "We would love to have them [Michigan and Florida] seated, but they would have to be seated within the rules. A year-and-a-half ago, we set a primary schedule which Florida and Michigan both voted for. What you cannot do is change the rules in the middle of a contest. I think every American understands that.

    There's been a lot of talk about things they can do; we've been very clear what they can do. One, they can resubmit to the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee a set of rules to pick delegates that are within the rules that they agreed to. Or two, if they don't want to do that, they can appeal to the Credentials Committee and hope for the best in July."

    The FL revote has been deemed logistically impossible by the FL Democrats, regardless of BO and HRC.  A MI revote is very unlikely because the new plan needed to exclude BO supporters who went for a second or strategic choice in the R contest because they were promised that the D primary didn't count, not to mention BO wasn't on the ballot.  

    This is an irreversible mess.  HRC was against seating, then for seating as is, then against revotes, then for revotes.  Of course, I realize that all politicians are political, not just HRC.

    Hopefully, some blame is aimed at the MI and FL leadership who caused this mess.  Yes I know the Rs control FL (of course we should remember that almost all of the Ds voted along with the Rs.)


    rules bend... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    but principles are inflexible.

    The 48 state strategy makes absolutely no sense.

    I will say one more thing...that this insistence to exclude the delegates from MI and FL renders every claim that Hillary will do anything to get elected entirely absurd by comparison.


    pssst! (none / 0) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:26:40 PM EST
    By tomorrow morning it will be her fault, so we should all happily vote for Obama now  ;)

    She was on (none / 0) (#182)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    record for the exclusion before the vote.  And, part of her campaign (Ickes) actually voted for the exclusion.

    My only point is that both candidates are politicians.  And, the voters of MI and FL should be upset with their leadership, because they created a situation where it is impossible to roll back the clock and make sure everyone's choice is heard, the implications of the first vote ensure this.


    The point is that (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    neither Clinton nor Obama should get to control the process, regardless of where each stood on the issue before or after those primaries. Darnit, this is not about them, it's about the rights of voters to not be disenfranchised! And even if Dean decides it's only about the rights of the party, then it still stinks, because angering the voters of two delegate-rich states is infinitely dumb and counterproductive. There's no further credibility in calling the Republicans the bad guys, especially when it comes to Florida's votes.

    And I realize I haven't said anything new here. Just venting.


    on the record? (none / 0) (#236)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:30:21 PM EST
    if you mean that she understood the fact that the DNC had decreed that the candidates were not to campaign there, yes...

    if you mean that she was part of the decision to penalize Michigan voters, then no.

    I suppose you can twist it to a point that makes you feel better that your candidate is positioned not to become part of the process that renders Michigan voters without franchise but if you want to paint Hillary with the same brush, you need to clarify what it was she has done to create or make permanent this insult to Michigan.

    At least she has made efforts to get a re-vote in Michigan whereas Obama deferred by stating that the plans were 'complicated'

    I find the 'complicated' commentary most enlightening since here is someone claiming that he can bring people from both sides of the aisle together to solve America's problems and he can't get together with another Democrat and solve Michigan's problem.


    Not sure if you were replying to me (none / 0) (#241)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    I don't disagree with you. I'm just making the point that Dean is the one who should have shown strong leadership in making sure MI and FL delegates counted, rather than putting the onus on the candidates, before or after the primaries took place.

    nope...not replying to you (none / 0) (#246)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:49:17 PM EST
    and you can tell by hovering your mouse over the word 'Parent' and seeing the number after the # in the link area at the bottom of your browser. That number is the comment #.

    Of course, you can always click the word 'Parent' but then you would lose the 'new' tags in red which I find useful.


    How many people on this site are from Florida (none / 0) (#8)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    and Michigan. I would love to hear their take on the situation.

    I am (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    a Florida voter and frankly, at this point, it's hard to separate out all my complaints about the Democratic party. They seem to have screwed up everything they possibly could have this election.

    What am I angry at most? Being disenfranchised by my party? The sexism tolerated by my party? The blatant favoritism of Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, etc.?

    My head is spinning. Yes, I'm mad, but I had already planned on exiting the party in protest the day after my state's delegation is not seated at the Democratic convention (and by the way, I don't consider our state being seated AFTER the nominee is decided as being a sufficient consolation prize).

    It'll be weird not to be a Democrat after a lifetime of being a member.


    No (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:07:15 PM EST
    We were assured that our votes would count. From several sources we heard that we should vote despite the problems because a way would be found to seat our delegates.

    On the strength of this, we voted in record numbers. I'm sure there are anecdotes from both Clinton and Obama supporters about how they didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count, but believe me, all signs - from the newspapers, the party, the pols - were that we should vote, since our delegates would, in fact, be seated.


    Precisely! Because it was absurd to think (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    the DNC would actually arbitrarily punish two specific states in the midst of the several other states who were allowed to move their dates forward. Can you imagine a Party actually ignoring two states?! It's so ludicrous, you don't think it'll actually happen.

    The (none / 0) (#139)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    DNC and Dean are holdin so firmly to this punishment because their favored son is ahead.

    The fix is in.

    Vote for Hillary as a write in.


    MI voters were also assured (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    that our votes would count.  Repeatedly reassured, by Rep. Conyers and Party chair Mark Brewer, among others.

    I'm an HRC supporter, but I made a specific effort to tell everybody I know to vote and if they wanted to vote for Obama or Edwards to vote uncommitted.  I really felt that this election was incredibly, incredibly important and that everybody needed to vote.  Now, I don't care who gets elected.

    I'll vote for HRC, but that's the only vote I'll make in Nov.  At least that's how I feel now.  I don't know if I should hope it lasts or hope it goes away.


    Were YOU marching in the streets in the run-up (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    to the war in Iraq?  One can have a strongly held and reasonable opinion that something is very wrong  without having to go march  in the streets.  Is this a requirement now from the Obamaphiles -that comments against disenfranchising voters in the US aren't valid unless the commenter has marched in the streets?

    There's a great deal that has happened in the last 8 years that would have caused marching in the streets in 1968. But in 1968, students could do that because one could live perfectly well with a part time job and a roommate, women could stay home and take care of their children because a man made enough money to support a whole family, you could work in the summer and pay your tuition for college. People had time on weekends because they didn't have to take their jobs home with them and they didn't have to work  all the time just to keep afloat and try to pay their debts off in a never-ending downward spiral.  Who has time to march in the streets? - not to mention what good does it do when no one in a position of power pays the slightest bit of attention?

    I think your comment is simply a red herring and totally arrogant. It's like telling us that caucuses are just as good as primaries, even though old people, young mothers, people who have jobs at that time or people who are ill -can't go to them, and that 7,000 people's votes (Wyoming) should count more than 2.5 million (Florida and Michigan).

    Give us a break! We know what your arguments would be if the situation were reversed and it was the Precious who needed to have Florida and Michigan count.  We also know that he would be strong-arming the DNC to seat them as they are and not even tolerate the idea of a revote!  We know your guy and we don't have a real good opinion of him.  Luckily, we don't need to march in the streets against him. We can just put our hands in our pockets and not vote for him.


    Ha! That's funny to think that (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:54 PM EST
    Democrats marching in the streets really would change the mind of the Republican FL legislature. In fact it would have the opposite effect and convince them they must be doing something right.

    We're not in the post-partisan Obamaland down here yet.


    I'm from Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:09:10 PM EST
    and I used to be excited about this election.  Now, I'm just sick to my stomach.  

    I've been writing to my Senators and Representative regularly for months.  I get the standard form email back from Sen. Levin, noting from Sen. Stabenow and nothing from Rep. Dingell.

    It really and truly is like slow motion car crash, nothing you can do to stop it.


    Florida (none / 0) (#104)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    My whole family lives in Florida. I do not.  Half my family voted for McCain, the other half Obama.  The Obama voters are now going for McCain in November.  That is what happens when votes don't count!

    I'm from Michigan (none / 0) (#178)
    by Simplicissimus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:26:04 PM EST
    The People's Republic of Ann Arbor! And yeah, I've got to agree that this situation really stinks.  However, while I can't speak to the situation in Florida, I do know that there were many who didn't vote because the candidate of their choice was not on the ballot.  You can argue this thing until you're blue in the face, but an election with only one major candidate on the ballot is neither Democratic nor democratic.  
    As for the inherent unfairness of the situation to my fellow Michiganders, there's no doubt about it.  I just wish that folks had brought half as much outrage and passion to the issue at a moment before the question became politicized.  But in the event, I neither heard nor saw any such outrage until supporters of one candidate (a candidate who initially agreed to abide by the DNC decision) suddenly rediscovered the Universal Rights of Man (and Michiganders).  I appreciate the solicitude, but it's a day late, a dollar short, and at this point, I'm having a little trouble taking it as anything more than partisanship.

    umm... (none / 0) (#207)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    There was no agreement to abide, there was only the decree that the candidates not campaign there and that the delegates to emerge from the voting would not be seated.

    Clearly Obama made a calculated move to remove his name from the ballot and he did so to satisfy his own perceptions of benefit. Hillary did not remove her name from the ballot, presumably for the same reason that Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot.

    The import of those decisions is clear...Obama never believed, wanted, hoped for the votes in MI to count. Hillary evidently believed that the DNC would not actually enforce rules that disenfranchised the voters in MI.

    You can choose whoever you want to blame:

    • Your legislators (for drafting the plan to vote in January)
    • Your governor (for signing it)
    • Obama for pulling his name from the ballot
    • Clinton for leaving her name on the ballot
    • Michiganlanders for believing/accepting that the vote wouldn't count
    • The DNC for creating an artificial set of rules that specifically favors/disfavors certain states for reasons that aren't entirely clear
    • any or all of the above who decided that it is acceptable for them to conclude or devise a plan to ignore the voters in Michigan.

    But after all that happened in FL in 2000 and OH in 2004, a party that devises an elective process that systematically excludes voters demonstrates that they have learned nothing and that they didn't deserve to win the two previous presidential elections.

    Why can't he just fight for (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    their votes to count or re-vote? That shouldn't be considered taking sides or brokering. It's about counting votes!

    Because (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    The Obama campaign along with the ever complicit media has made FL and MI about which candidate you want to win instead of being about the rights of the people...

    And as we have all seen, the corporate media is hard to take down. If Gore or Carter came out to help the voters, the Obama people would just shoot them down as Clinton shills and say they were just trying to help Clinton break the rules. If we had an honest press they wouldn't be able to get away with it, but we have a terrible press that will tear Clinton down at any cost.


    Yes, certain voters (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    like the ones that have already had their votes counted.  Stop with the bs.

    You get one vote in the primary (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    If you throw it away on Romney, that's your issue.

    Kind of the equivalent of casting an early ballot for Edwards on SuperTuesday. The state does not allow you to change your mind.


    That little thing... (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    ...we call causation: You only cross over because you are told, in no uncertain terms by the only people who have any say in the matter (the DNC) that your vote will not count.  It doesn't matter what the state party leaders say; they were responsible for the change in the first place.

     Now, maybe that didn't make a difference in FL, where everyone was on the ballot.  But I have no doubt it made a difference in Michigan.



    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    the causation problem in MI was thanks to Obama and Edwards, not the DNC.   Obama and edwards withdrew from the ballot to make HRC's win less of a talking point.  In addition, they wanted to make her look bad by showing such a large Uncommitted percentage--i.e. like people voting for a dead guy in protest.

    Obama's campaign created the MI crossover situation due to his own strategy to weaken clinton's win.  Well it worked better than he could imagine because people are still talking about Uncommitted and the vote is being called flawed because people either voted Uncommitted or crossed-over.  

    HRC's opponents created the mess in MI, not the DNC.


    Baloney (4.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:14:45 PM EST
    If you're a Democrat and you think your vote won't count, you don't vote Republican - you just don't vote, or you vote uncommitted.

    If you vote Republican, guess what?  Your vote counted, and you only get one, so you're done.

    If you voted uncommitted, there's no way to prove that your vote was really for Obama or Edwards or was an "I don't like any of these candidates" vote.  Too bad - so sad - neither you nor your candidate get to decide how those votes get allocated.

    And one more thing: it's actually not "causation," it's "consequences."  People make choices, and those choices have consequences, and if you weren't willing to accept them, you should not be playing with your vote.

    If I were a Florida or Michigan voter, I would not only be contacting the superdelegates, I would be letting Senator Obama know that anyone who does not respect the right of the people to vote and be counted does not have the necessary grasp of democratic principles that must trump personal ambition in order to thrive, and he should do the country a favor, drop out of the race and go contemplate the history of voter disenfranchisement before he comes back.


    Right... (none / 0) (#231)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:21:44 PM EST
    ...consequences.  Like violating national party rules have consequences?

     It would be one thing if people supporting the revotes were being anything but partisan in how they want that revote.

     If you wish to say that my parents and others should go take a hike because they crossed over after the DNC told them their votes would not count, in no uncertain terms, and you use the superdelegates to award the candidacy to someone behind in popular votes who they didn't support and didn't have the chance to support, you're gonna lose time and money.


    How is it partisan (none / 0) (#233)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:25:06 PM EST
    to prevent people who have already voted from voting again?

    It's against state law for a person to vote twice.As it should be.

    I'm a democrat before I'm a Democrat.


    Oh, come on - (none / 0) (#238)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    the DNC didn't tell Democrats to go have a blast screwing with the Republican primary, did they?  No one showed up at their homes and forced them at gunpoint to vote for a candidate they did not support, did they?

    What I wish to say is that we only get one vote, the DNC doesn't control what I do with my vote, and if your parents chose to vote in the Republican primary, for a candidate they did not support, all I can say is that I hope they will be more careful next time.

    Again: I'm a Democrat.  The DNC can tell me my vote won't count, but there is no way I am casting it for a Republicam candidate for president.


    Maybe we should all just keep (none / 0) (#242)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:40:03 PM EST
    re-voting until we get it right.

    Not only Michigan. Maybe the rest of us who had our votes count should re-vote.

    Some day, maybe we will get it right.


    Regardless (none / 0) (#197)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    suffrage is one vote per person.

    Higher principle than voting because of a political strategy.

    If you were told badly, and you followed, its your issue.

    Personally, I rarely follow what any candidate tells me blindly. I check it out first, and accept the consequences.

    That way, I never have the excuse to cry "poor me."


    So... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:19 PM EST
    ...the superdelegates should only pick whoever has the popular vote?  Because if you consider electability at all in your calculation, as opposed to who has the popular vote, you're overturning the will of the voters.  If, in response, you say party rules, I say "the DNC made the rules, too."



    How do you reach that equation? (none / 0) (#225)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
    from one person one vote?

    50 States? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    50 states of hypocrisy.  

    50 ways to leave your party (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    Had one eye on the teevee (none / 0) (#13)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    and one on this site.  Didn't he also say he hopes the Dems will come out in November because we can't have 4 more years of Bush (or something to that effect)?  I wonder how many FL and MI Dems will come out in November????

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    When asked whether people would be less likely to vote for the Dem nominee if these states are not seated, he basically said, no McCain is too awful nobody will vote for him...

    Dare me Howie, just dare me...


    NObama! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    Is he a tad out of touch? Methinks he needs a 'few' emails . . .

    I have sent (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    at least two per week for the last several weeks. No one cares, no one ever responds, they just disappear into cyberspace.

    He should have thought of that (none / 0) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM EST
    before he destroyed the whole political process.

    It's his cross to bear.


    Why? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    My state representatives changed the Repub primary date and somehow the RNC handled it without disenfranchising any voters. It's a sad day when the Repubs are more competent than the Dems.

    It is about competence and values (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    Of course it has to do with competence. Same action. Same rule broken. One group, RNC, follows their outlined punishment and manages to avoid disenfranchising voters. Other group, DNC, decides to up their punishment (they are allowed to do that) and disenfranchises voters.

    If you think only people who march in the street matter, you are living in a strange world.


    it's worse than that (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    The DNC selectively enforced the rules using two different standards of judgment.  MI/FL got it hard, the other states didn't even get a slap on the wrist.  And it's their own management idiocy for setting up a situation that would later come back to haunt them--oops, a tight race.

    Hell, if they'd halved the votes from all the rule-breakers Obama would still have a larger lead, but it wouldn't be as blatant and might have squeaked past the press.  The blatant disregard of the voters is another thing entirely.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    If the DNC had stuck with the 50% loss of delegates for breaking ranks, most voters would have understood that. Completely disenfranchising is a whole other ball game.

    1/2 the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    was actually the original outlined punishment for the DNC as well.

    You (none / 0) (#158)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    obviously don't know what you are talking about. As the rules clearly said 50% delegate reduction. If you are just repeating talking points, I would suggest you actually do some research into the issue before you state any more factual errors.

    One reason is (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    that we wanted our paper trails.  Another is that we thought our party would be reasonable and not punish us for what the Republican led legislature did.

    Now, guess what?  Republican legislatures in every state know how to mess around with Dem party unity.  Way to go DNC.


    On the blower to the fam and friends net right NOW (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    This is disgusting. I went I(ndy) after '04 for a variety of DNC and DNCC letdowns, plus the failure of prominent Dems to stand up for core and constitutional values.

    I agreed with Jeralyn COMPLETELY that as a non-Dem, it wasn't my place to pick the nom. That position cleared a lot of ambiguity for me, so I happily contributed to individual candidates and issues as suited my political makeup.

    But I'm not the only Dem within my fam & friends network in MI and FL, and more loyal to -- less disgusted with? -- the party than I.

    Stripping loyal voters of their rights and influene to satisfy the petulance of one campaign and protect backroom dealers' influence will NOT going over well.

    If the DNC doesn't provide MI and FL with instructions for write-in presidential choices along with this anti-democratic "solution", they lose all credibility as a viable alternative to the reign of King Stompy, President of the Republican Palace.

    It's equal (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sunshine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    Howard Dean is making sure everybody is equally mad, The women are mad, the AA's are mad, Mi is mad, Fl is mad and everybody else is mad because the Mi and Fl votes don't count or they think they might count ... Then some just don't think their candidate is not getting a fair shake...  What to do now, we can't all stay home....

    It ain't over 'till it's over. (none / 0) (#83)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:59 PM EST
    No way the DNC can disenfranchise FL and MI.  And the Hillary Dems, all 47% of us who have supported her (49% if you include FL and MI, which makes is a 49% to 49% primary), are too significant a bloc to be alienated.  I refer to an earlier post on this site today about Pelosi's back-tracking about Supers as evidence.

    Actually, they can... and are (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    Damn... it just hit me. Dean and Pelosi know this is likely to lose us the Presidency. They don't care if we win the Presidency. Heck, they may prefer that we don't. Whoever ends up President for the next 4 years is going to have a huge mess to clean up and there is no way to do it that will benefit his party. But Obama will bring new, young Democrats to the party and encourage the AA's whose interest in the party was fading. This will prop up Congress and the Democratic Party even if we lose the Presidency.  It's a pretty cynical strategy, but it might work to benefit the party in the long run.

    Or I may just be feeling more cynical than usual (I have the flu, so the entire world looks pretty miserable). Unfortunately, the most cynical ideas I've have had generally been proven right in the long run.


    Problem is short sightedness (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    yet again (on their part). Ah, those fickle young voters. Do you really think they will stick around after Obama crashes in a landslide? And are they REALLY Dems? And have they (Dean and Pelosi) alienated the base?

    Apparently in Tx, the Obama fans weren't real good with down ticket. Seems they may need to be educated about down ticket voting from their mentors . . .

    on a side note, I always wondered why anyone would want the next Presidency after Bush. Hillary I can kinda understand, but even for her, it's quite a mess. Heh, maybe they'll 'give' her Majority Leader and she can kick some serious behind  ;)


    Everybody but Obamafans is mad. (none / 0) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:55:17 PM EST
    They're happy to be ignoring the votes of millions of people.

    Win the primary, lose the GE.


    This is the kind of thing that destroys a party. (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    It alienates people who aren't part of the party but still interested, and it alienates people who are part of the party, but take umbrage to hearing "get in line!"  

    Today, I read my NC voter's guide.  "If you properly register, you have the right to vote:

    Without being intimidated, coerced or threatened by any person."  

    What on EARTH do they say in a caucus state?

    On one hand, I understand it's "party rules."  But for a party who hardly gets its act together, that encourages difference throughout the 50 states, and that counts among it many members who think of themselves categorically as Democrats perhaps even last...get in line won't work.  There needs to be some ethics involved.  Which is why revotes make sense.  Ethics you can shape with attitude - Obama doesn't have to lose through this.

    This umbrage over caucuses (none / 0) (#84)
    by rebrane on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:23:09 PM EST
    would have been refreshing to hear before they were held, but I don't recall hearing a negative peep about them from blogs, much less from any candidates.

    And as far as 'the right to vote' and 'counting the votes' goes, the states of Michigan and Florida did hold elections which were free and fair, and which the results of were accurately counted and reported openly. And we've all seen and all know the results of those elections, and the results are obviously a powerful statement made by the citizens of those states. It would really be a shame if this wasn't the case, and I think everyone agrees with that. On the other hand, we have this issue of whether the results of these elections should correspond to voting state delegations to the convention in August, and I think we should admit that admitting the delegations is a different issue from the right to vote, though still an important one.


    The right to vote (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    is meaningless if those controlling the election have the power not to count those votes.

    I am a Democrat. I believe voting is a right, not a privilege. I do not believe my country, my state, or my party should be given the power to ignore the votes of the people.


    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    the point remains:  clearly based on CAUCUS turnout [average], rather than PRIMARY turnout [average], more people gave a crap about primaries than caucuses...maybe cos they were easier to ATTEND....and by attend I mean...PARTICIPATE IN?  And as the heat goes on, more people care about the way the Dem Party comports itself vis a vis elections than otherwise?  

    My tears may be those of a crocodile to you, but more people get plugged into this race by the day, and blocking them out through early caucuses, and then through non representation, is not the way to deal with this 'crisis of interest.'  

    OF COURSE the blogs don't care about caucuses.  Blogs don't represent the views of those who can't make caucuses, in general.

    And no, I don't think we should revote every caucus.  But the Dem Party has a problem on its hands, and its roots go into central tenets of American government.


    A lot of people voted in Zimbabwe... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    ...under exactly the same policies you describe here.

    we are (none / 0) (#152)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    in real deep when we have to be compared to Zimbabwe.............

    I'm guilty of never complaining about them before. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    ...but I never really paid them any mind until this year. And now I think they are FUBAR in most cases, though they probably work okay when hordes of outsiders aren't bused in to a state to run roughshod over the process. I doubt this happened very much before this year.

    Well, I was railing against the WA state caucus (none / 0) (#191)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:37:57 PM EST
    for many weeks before February 9. And believe me, all the party regulars and the Obama fans villified me for it. There was no rational argument and no factual argument that would satisfy them.

    But I've been persona non grata with the other NW bloggers since the beginning. So, no news there.


    As a California (none / 0) (#204)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:48:00 PM EST
    I can tell you there are progressive Californian bloggers out there on the state sites calling for an end to caucuses, and have been for some time.

    Since we have a primary, they have been posted under headlines like "let California be the example".

    Not our business to tell people how to vote really, but since the CA Dems were asked to help out during NV, we took the opportunity to voice our opinion.


    Your bloggers are right to oppose caucuses (none / 0) (#213)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    I grew up in California, and voted there from 1978-1984. Had to register by party, and got to vote in closed primaries. It's a perfectly sensible system.

    WA is wackier than you can imagine.  


    I trust my state politicians (none / 0) (#221)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:09:45 PM EST
    except a few whacko cons, and that is an amazing thing to be able to say. We have a few crooks, but most of us know who they are.

    The last 8 years, I have felt like I was living in "normal land", and considering what hedonists we like to be thought of, I feel a little disoriented.


    I'd imagine it's almost surreal (none / 0) (#227)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:15:28 PM EST
    considering the state has had only one Democratic governor in the last 24 years.

    The same can be said (none / 0) (#228)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:17:22 PM EST
    about pledged delegates, superdelegates and delegate apportionment too.  

    When it comes right down to it, the Democrats and more specifically the DNC have created a nightmare scenario and made a mockery of our electoral process.  It becomes more obvious to me every day that the Democrats need to have some fresh leadership, and I am not referring to the candidates, that will work to reform the primary process in a way that is fair and respects the right of every individual to vote.  

    As LBJ said "right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless. It gives people, people as individuals, control over their own destinies."    


    Very well said. n/t (none / 0) (#239)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    and your point would be? (none / 0) (#91)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    Meanwhile, Hillary said nothing about the DNC stripping MI/FL delegates until she realized she needed them.  She didn't speak up for revotes until it was too late.  And I don't recall any posts at TL about the DNC decision until it looked important for Hillary, either.

    first off, i doubt you've done a complete scan of the entire site since jan. prove it.

    second, so what? that i don't immediately go running to an attorney, right after the accident, doesn't in any way negate the fact that i have a legitimate cause for damages.

    sure, perfection in political candidates (and bloggers) would be nice. when you become perfect, let us know, we'll alert the media.

    All right, all right (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
    I'll say I was posting and marching in the Florida streets.  Add Michigan, too.  Who can honestly prove otherwise?  Isn't that the point of the internet? (other than porn and kittenwar, I mean)

    What a silly argument to bring here.  I'm sure there are an awful lot of lazy or apathetic dems who stayed home instead of voting for Gore or Kerry who are now shouting about the injustice of Bush.  Probably a good many who are now claiming to have been opposed to the war from the beginning.  Or, you know, to have remained consistent about a really nice speech.

    To echo cpinva, so what?  Do we thrash and wail about the past, or do we decide what to do now?  Because the fact is that now, in the present, we are ticking off two very important states--and many other individuals in the process.  We are alienating donors and making our party look as if the Keystone Kops were a well-oiled machine.  It matters none what was done by whom, or who is contesting what.  We are talking about making sure votes count...or not, as the case may be.

    Maybe we should change it to the Oligarchic Party.  Democracy seems to be the last thing on the minds of the echelon.


    Agreeable? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Sunshine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    Howard Dean said that the deligates would be seated but it would have to be in a way that both candidates could agree on it...   How is this possible?

    Only the most adamant masochists (none / 0) (#111)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    will think, oh, of the two Dem candidates we have to pick from, one was chosen regardless of two large states, but, because of the RULES!!!, to which any loyal democrat is beholden, so yes, I must VOTE, and fall in line.

    We're already pressing our luck with a fair percentage of the electorate.  Turning the Party into a secret society in a treehouse is not the answer.

    Obama can win with MI/FL counted!  This isn't hard!!!

    Dean himself is April's fool joke (none / 0) (#130)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
    This charade will hurt the Dem. party for a very long time; they are setting a terrible precendent.

    Why Gore and Carter or Pelosi or Dean.. (none / 0) (#153)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:04:02 PM EST
    why are we crying that these leaders come to the fore to forge an influence on the automatic delegates... why can we NOT leave these automatic delegates make their own independent mind ... that is what democracy is all about.. exercise your own independent judgment!

    I don't think there's much hope. That much (none / 0) (#170)
    by WillBFair on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    was obvious when it took young people all of half a second to accept the smear campaign.
    And it's nothing new. The media called Bill a murdering, drug dealing, lesbian rapist; and people ate it with a shovel. Al used a figure of speech about his work on internet law. They called him a liar throughout the campaign; and the red States sucked it up like a thousand miles of dry sponge. The media published the swift boat slanders as it they were holy writ; the red States kneeled in supplication.
    It's only surprising how quickly the college set fell in the ooze. They didn't absorb slowly. They were on board in three minutes and have dumped more bile into the public square than Rush Limbaugh on meth.
    Mostly, it's upsetting to see the party's values being dumped like so much garbage.

    In response to this and other (none / 0) (#173)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    underhanded tactics does anyone think Clinton should start openly playing up rev. wright, commercials ect? They already call her every dirty name and the media will not be fair no matter what, so would it help or hurt?

    I hope not (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    I was so proud of her for staying out of that situation and hope she continues to do so. Even after the Obama campaign sent the BC/Wright photo to the NYT, smeared her over attending a Bible study group, and brought up the Lewinsky matter, she stuck to saying she wouldn't have belonged to that church and referred all further questions to Obama. Focusing on the issues and contrasting qualifications is the right thing to do, IMO, and I hope she keeps it up.

    Fl and MI could decide this general election (none / 0) (#179)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    I know Hilary wants a re vote primary in both states and Obama does not.  Seating the delegates after the nominee has been selected has no meaning to FL or MI voters.  That's a no brainier in their minds. They must play a role in the nomination process.   If Obama wins the nomination by just seating the MI and FL delegates after he is nominated he will be the illegitimate nominee.  It would be ironical if he looses the GE and the two states that brought him down would be FL and MI.

    I am really proud of the voters, because (none / 0) (#188)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:19 PM EST
    despite the constant negative drumbeat against Hillary, they have continued to support her and hold her up as their hope for the next administration...I really think that Dean, etc thought she would be easy to take down, but they were very mistaken.....To know Hillary is to love her (and this from someone that didnt start out supporting her)....

    Proud of voters too (none / 0) (#232)
    by Terry M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    I totally agree - I am amazed at how many millions of voters are able to see the truth behind the media smear campaign against HRC.  And the blogosphere - there are precious few sites interested in democracy or honest debate anymore.  It is their man or no one.  TalkLeft has been an oasis.

    I live in Florida - WE ARE LIVID.  I've written and telephoned the DNC and never got a response.  That organization will never get another dime from me.  And if Obama is the party's nominee, I openly promise here and now that I will not vote for him.  Since he doen't want my voted counted in the primary season, he certainly won't get it later.

    I sometimes wonder if I am actually living in Cuba, and not Florida after all - you know, a place where votes don't count and party elites tell the average citizen what is best for them.


    Query: What is disenfranchisement? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    Not to be overly technical, and I would be happy with a do-over in MI if we could agree on some principles about the vote, but how has the DNC "disenfranchised" voters?  If that is the case, having closed primaries disenfranchises voters and the results of those primaries are all illegitimate.  And if you are arguing from an ethical principle (every voter should have a hand in deciding on the nominee), you are excluding those who are not registered Democrats...

     Moreover, if you argue that the superdelegates should decide the vote as opposed to whoever carries the popular vote, then you can't really use the word at all.  If they line up behind a candidate because they think they would be favored in the GE against the Republican nominee, you are not only disenfrachising the voters, you are overturning their will.

    So forget about "disenfranchisment" (none / 0) (#223)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:11:52 PM EST
    of voters and simply ask yourself this:

    Does rejecting the FL and MI delegations help the Democratic party?

    I'd say "no, it doesn't".


    You need to read back (none / 0) (#234)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    through some earlier discussions, as this has been discussed to death.

    The issue is a) can you vote? b) does your vote count in the outcome? and c) are all eligible voters treated the same in every state?

    States or state parties can set eligibility rules, just as states do in Federal elections. The issue of open vs. closed primary is an issue of eligibility.

    The issue of superdelegates is one of the party being able to set its own rules. Parties get to set the rules for their nominating process. What they don't get to do is apply those rules unequally in the various states. The parties can allow the superdelegates to count for 99% of the delegate votes (or even 100%) if they choose to - as long as they apply the rules equally to every state.

    Denying voters a chance to have their vote count is one way of disenfranchising voters. It's the method the SC chose in Bush v. Gore, and the method the DNC is currently using to disenfranchise MI and FL voters.

    Feel free to respond, but don't expect a reply, as I've had this discussion in detail at least a half a dozen times now, and it's highly unlikely you'll bring up something original.

    If you disagree, that's fine - I'm just not interested in going over it yet another time for someone who can't make the effort to look back over past discussions.


    Dean and his antics (none / 0) (#198)
    by carrienae on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    are out of line for the democracy of this country.

    B-I-N-G-O ! !~~ (none / 0) (#202)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:45:17 PM EST
    "The one thing neither Dean nor the DNC can control is whether the superdelegates consider the votes in Florida and Michigan. They can factor the votes into their own calculations of the popular vote. They can factor them into their decision as to which candidate is more electable in November."

    **this where Hillary clinches the nomination,IMO!

    FL Dems Votes NOT Counted (none / 0) (#220)
    by NANTU1938 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    As`a FL Democrat who understands that it was the Republican dominated Florida Legislature that moved our State's primary [with personal gain in favor of the Republican party, of course] I am livid that we FL Dems have once again been robbed of our votes and have absolutely no say so as to who occupies the White House.  I plead with someone - anyone - to correct this injustice.  Otherwise, you will surely put McCain in and this will be devastating to all of America.

    ahhh But Guam abd Puerto Rico will count.. (none / 0) (#230)
    by fly on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    but not this American Floridian former delegate for the state of Florida taxpayer!!

    Nope first my votes were stolen by Republicans and the DRE voting machines with no capapbility of an audit..now it is stolen by Howard Dean and Obama and Donna Brazile..and Pelosi, and Kerry  and Kennedy..

    if you can tell i am angry..that is only the least of it.

    I will be voting for Mickey Mouse in November..they didn't want my vote for the primary , they will not get it in November, and I will Vote Mickey Mouse 08, so the dem party gets the message loud and clear!

    As a 2004 elected  delegate for the state of Florida I stand with the voters of my state and the voices of our elected representatives- our delegates!

    I painted a penny red with nail polish and sent it back with a DNC survey i recieved, i wrote , not another Red Cent from me.


    Geez Jeralyn... its only two states... (none / 0) (#249)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:12:31 PM EST
    ...its not like 5, 11, or even 19... Oh wait, nevermind.

    I think we should... (none / 0) (#253)
    by Josmt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:34:49 AM EST
    Let him know how we feel...

    Mailing Address:
    Democratic National Committee
    430 S. Capitol St. SE
    Washington, DC 20003

    Main Phone Number:
    (For questions about contributions, please call 877-336-7200