MI And FL Represented On Credentials Committee?

By Big Tent Democrat

So says Marc Ambinder:

The size of the committee will not be reduced even though Florida and Michigan are not participating as delegate-producing bodies, according to a DNC spokesperson. Florida and Michigan WILL be represented on the credentials committee.
Let me say this, that if Obama and the Democratic Party force themselves to exclude Florida and Michigan from the Democratic Convention, as Howard Dean seems prepared to do (though I must add that Kos is absolutely wrong about Dean's position on FL and MI. Dean favored revotes - OBAMA blocked the revotes), kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye for November. Chalk up 44 electoral votes for John McCain right now. There is STILL time to fix this - with party run revotes. Those who argue against this now are arguing against the interests of the Democratic Party in order to favor the interests of Barack Obama. For all the talk of Hillary's selfishness, and all pols are selfish, the biggest, most damaging act of political selfishness remains Barack Obama's blocking of revotes for Florida and Michigan.

< FL, OH, PA | If I Ran Hillary's Campaign . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If--IF--Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    MI and FL are lost anyway.

    As is the entire election, for that matter.

    True BUT much of the Base will also swing (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    another stolen election wont be tolerated many Clinton supporters wont rally if these States are not seated before the nominee is selected.

    kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye for November. Chalk up 44 electoral votes for John McCain right now.


    More on Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    from Nagourney:


    guess he is over his head (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    Wow, it sure reads that way (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    and that he has not been in much contact with MI and FL party leadership really ought to be a concern.

    I don't think he will get it either (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    takes a certain personality to do this kind of job, and I don't think the 'doctor' type has it.  

    He's commuting from Vermont. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    Not fully invested.

    Ehh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    I believe there is virtually no chance of Obama winning Florida in the GE, but I won't write off Michigan no matter how badly this situation gets handled, just because of the economy.  I dislike, however, the Obama supporters who glibly assert that Michigan (and Ohio!) will go Dem no matter what because of the economy - they just can't stop taking voters for granted, it seems.

    Apparently they don't know (none / 0) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    That Michigan is in a one-state recession with a Democratic governor. She's not up for re-election, but she's getting partially blamed (unfairly, in my opinion) for the economy.

    I'm originally from Macomb County - the epicenter and home of the Reagan Democrats - these people vote with their pocketbooks and they may blame Granholm as much as Bush.

    Rasmussen has now put Michigan squarely in the "Toss-Up" states, down from "Leans Democratic" - this is not a good sign.


    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    I think Granholm is a tough customer, but I think she's not as much of a partisan fighter as she ought to be.  It ought to be received wisdom that conditions in Michigan are the direct result of John Engler and his experiments in radical privatization and other misguided aspects of Republican ideology.  People know they're hurting, but they don't necessarily know why unless you make the case to them.

    Granholm needs to spend more time explaining why it's critical for Michiganders who want progress to get the legislature out of Republican hands, among other things.

    That said, my only point was that I don't write off Michigan to the same extent I write off Florida.


    Women Are In Revolt (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    This was a headline in The New York Times on April 14, 1924 pertaining to Charles Murphy (New York boss of the Democratic Convention) in his showdown with Eleanor Roosevelt over who would choose the women delegates to be seated at the convention.

    Murphy said men would choose the women.

    Eleanor insisted women would choose.

    She politely asked Murphy to acquiesce. When he refused, she went to the press, rallying female support by saying:

    "We will be enormously strengthened if we can show that we will fight to the very last ditch for what we believe in."

    Hillary Clinton has become our Eleanor.

    Florida and Michigan are our trenches.

    Murphy lost.

    So will Dean.

    Dems' treatment of women before 1920 (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    in refusing to support woman suffrage until the last, under the Southerner Dem prez, and then Dems' treatment of women in the '20s not only at this national level but also in state races -- all comprised quite a debacle that made Republicans look good to a lot of women voters.  For one thing, Dems kept women under men's control in a party auxiliary, while Republican women had their own, independent group.

    The real headway for women gaining political office thus often was won by Republican women for decades afterward.  Not that either party has done well by women since, but the Dems continue to have some real blind spots about gender, as we see again today.


    I wrote a letter to DNC withholding (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    financial support and maybe my vote- don't know if it does any good, but I felt better.

    I agree with your assessment BTD (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    but I'd go one step further. If MI and FL are not represented before the final decision is made, it will not only affect MI and FL but will affect others. I think there are actually other people in this party who care for democracy and will let that be known come November.

    Ok (3.66 / 3) (#12)
    by fladem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    I respect you very much, but I proufoundly disagree with the notion that Obama is to blame for this.  

    And I am getting very tired of seeing MY VOTE BEING USED A GAME in blogsphere.

    There is no consensus in Florida as to what to do next.  The Florida Congressional delegation does not support a re-vote.  There is no single remedy that commands a majority of Florida voters (as polling on the subject makes clear).

    The current circumstance is PRIMARILY the result:

    1.  Of a Florida Democratic Party that played a game of chicken
    2.  Of a Party Leader who did not uderstand how dangerous the game was that he was playing
    3.  Of a Republican Governor who would not change the date after it was clear the DNC was going to stick to their guns
    4.  Of the 20 plus states who moved to Feb 2nd only after the decision on Florida and Michigan were made, and made clear on the Rules and Bylaws Committee that they would move earlier unless Florida and Michigan were punished
    5.  Of the Clinton campaign who supported punishing Florida and Michigan when it counted.

    The Clinton campaign itself only supported a revote after the primaries in the last month.

    Obama is not primarily or even singificantly to blame for this situation.  Saying otherwise is both contrary to the history on this issue and rendering the chances of the likely Democratic nominee for president marginal at best.  

    That's ridiculous. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    You blame the Clinton campaign for only recently starting to actively support a revote, but the Obama campaign gets a pass for helping block a revote?

    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    Obama is, in all likelihood, going to be the nominee.

    He has far, far more to lose from this situation than anyone else does.

    Thus, even if other people are also to blame for the mess in Florida, that's really beside the point.  If he's serious about getting elected President, it ought to be his absolute first priority to make sure those states aren't lost.  Even assuming you're 100% right, it's his responsibility to be a problem-solver, and not one in a series of roadblocks.

    If that doesn't seem fair, then fine.  What happened to Al Gore wasn't fair, either, but it still happened.


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    This would be a time for him to show leadership by seating the delegates before the convention -even if it cost him in the election.  Voters wouldn't forget that and would reward him in the future. If he doesn't do it, gets the nomination, and gets blown out in the GE, his national political career is over.

    I agree. nt (none / 0) (#42)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    I am rather tired of you (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    acting as if you speak for the voters of Florida.

    For the record, I disagree with every particular of your comment but we will not discuss the history of the FL/MI revote issue again HERE. I will not waste my time correcting all of your misstatements on the matter Do not comment on it further please..


    But BTD . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:40 AM EST
    I'm very much trying to understand your argument that Obama is blocking revotes in Florida.  I took your invitation to review your archives and came across this post from you:

    Florida Dems blow it:

    Florida Democrats won't go forward with a plan to redo the presidential primary with a mostly mail-in vote. The plan to have the party run a second primary in an effort to seat the state's delegates at August convention was abandoned Monday after party leaders expressed concerns about the proposal.
    The Florida Dem House delegation has disenfranchised Florida Democrats. Good job there Wasserman Schultz, Hastings et al. Michigan Dems have put you to shame.


    Karen Thurman e-mail: "...A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline.

    "This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

    "When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, "The rules are the rules." Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates. As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today... Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." "

    Yadda yadda. Florida Dems stink.

    The State House Minority Leader, a Democrat, seems to blame the FL Congressional Dems:

    . . . While it was the only option available that would have given Florida Democrats an avenue to host a selection process that was in compliance with DNC rules, it lacked the consensus required to allow it to happen. Since an actual primary redo or a caucus are not plausible options, this will mean that Florida Democrats will essentially be delegating their fate to providence . . .

    The truth is, because delegates are awarded proportionally, the revote by mail would not have likely resulted in Florida deciding the nominee as it is mathematically improbable that enough delegates would have been generated to change the outcome. But a revote would have been in compliance with DNC rules thus making it an insurance policy against the nightmare scenario of a divided national convention with Florida delegates nowhere to be found.

    Many Floridians are rightfully concerned about this scenario. . . .

    What a disaster. BTW, for you Hillary supporters, her chance to be viewed as the legitimate nominee just went up in smoke.

    I've found nothing that contradicts this.  It is Florida democrats who have stood in the way of a revote here.

    I will on the other hand concede Obama's role in MI and I think it's a profoundly stupid move on his part.

    You make the assertion here that Obama has blocked the Florida revote.  Yet no evidence has been presented that I have seen.  Since you've persuaded me on MI.  Persuade me on Florida.  I have first hand knowledge as to Florida, but remain open to possibility I am mistaken.


    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    But Obama did not argue for revotes and despite the misgivings of the House Dems, the FLA Dem Party proposed a mail in revote. Obama IMMEDIATELY said he would not agree to it, thus ending its chances. He was the KEY, but not the only reason, the revote in FL died.

    I think the broader point is... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    that Obama has not encouraged any kind of re-vote. His surrogates have very actively campaigned against them, along with his supporters.

    The appearance to many who have a, shall we say, more objective view of Obama, is less than noble. Without the input of MI and FL voters, his candidacy will never be legitimate to millions.

    And appearances are unfortunately very potent in politics.


    Fine (none / 0) (#44)
    by fladem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    I am gone.

    As you wish (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    But leaving in a huff is rather ridiculous.

    At least you can acknowledge that you were not the only voter in Florida.


    In 6 years (none / 0) (#56)
    by fladem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    in blogsphere on DKOS and elsewhere I have never been troll rated.

    I take pride in that.  Because I treat people with respect, and offer arguments instead of personal insults.

    I clearly do not fit in here.


    Wow (none / 0) (#57)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    This sight boasts it enforces high minded discourse, and yet I rarely see such condescending insulting behavior by a moderator on any blog. Simply amazing.

    Don't let the door hit ya... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    It's only fair to NOT seat the Michigan delegation (none / 0) (#2)
    by foobar417 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    Speaking as a Michigan Democrat who voted in the Republican primary, I disagree. There is no feasible way to have the pledged delegate allocation match the fair apportionment of preferences among the two candidates.

    Many Democrats voted in the Republican primary under the belief that they did not have a way to register their preference in the Democratic primary and they should at least do something with their right to vote. There is now no fair way to untangle those previous votes.

    I blame the Michigan Democratic party officials who gambled, not either of the candidates. I will be extremely annoyed if they DO seat the Michigan delegation.

    Whether you are right or wrong (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:39:21 AM EST
    And I think you are wrong, to me is immaterial. Michgan voters, most of them will certainly disagree with you. What is CLEARLY in the best interests of the Democratic Party is a revote - in MI AND FL.

    This may be inflammatory (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:01 AM EST
    but I have no sympathy for dems who voted in the republican primary.  Like it or not, your vote was counted.  If Obama was your candidate, you had the option of voting uncommitted, for which his campaign actively petitioned.  He chose to take his name off the ballot just as you chose to vote in a different primary.

    One person one vote.


    No more discussion of the particulars of FL/MI (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:15 AM EST

    Further comments will be deleted.


    I apologize. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    I posted above before seeing this.

    I would appreciate a response though if you wouldn't mind.

    Email would be fine.


    I repsoinded to you (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    Breaking my own rule on this. For the record, we had deep, detailed and long discussion of all about FL/MI for a month and a half.

    When folks who just joined the discussion start repeating falsehoods that were debunked 6 weeks ago. It is a pointless discussion now.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    I still don't agree as to the degree of culpability for reasons I cannot establish beyong my own personal knowledge.  but I do see where you're coming from.  As you know I have previously agreed that has Obama taken a more agressive role in getting a revote done, it might have made a difference.  I am not convinced it would have.  But it might.

    Because we have bigger fish to fry... (none / 0) (#48)
    by tsteels2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    Like the ultra-corrupt mayor of Detroit.  Yuck!

    BTD, your right, all politicians are selfish.  But the particulars are what is causing the difficulties.  And I'm perplexed as to why Senator Obama is labeled as more selfish since he followed a stupid rule but a rule nevertheless.  Personally, I'm ten times as upset at the DNC than Senator Obama.


    blocking of revotes for Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    I am beginning to share your puzzlement about why she is not hitting this harder.
    does she think she can win in the credentials committee?
    its odd.

    I Thought She Was (none / 0) (#9)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    and taking alot of flak for it.

    Why a revote won't work (none / 0) (#5)
    by foobar417 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    To make my point clearer, here's why a revote in Michigan is unfair.

    If you restrict the revote to folks who voted in the Democratic primary the last time, then you are excluding a large number of Edwards and Obama supporters who voted in the Republican primary, biasing the election towards Clinton, which was a reasonable strategy at the time, given that no potential revote was even under discussion.

    If you open the revote to anyone, then you are including a potentially large number of real Republicans who had a chance to vote for McCain or Romney and now have a chance to cause significant mischief. There's no way to distinguish between real Democrats who voted in the Republican primary so as not to waste their vote as they understood it at the time from real Republicans. (I'm defining real Democrats as people who will vote for the Democractic candidate in November and real Republicans as voters who will vote for McCain in November.) Note, while this mischief-making is likely to favor Clinton, it could as well favor Obama. It's mischief-making, so we don't know.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    It's not unfair. You had your chance to vote in the Democratic primary - you could have chosen "Uncommitted". I know you knew about that choice - it was all over the papers and the radio and TV.  Obama supporters and Edwards supporters pushed it - why?  Because they knew that at some point the delegates would be seated. You chose wrong, now own your choice.

    As to the Michigan and Florida members of the Credentials Committee being seated - that would be something, especially since the Supers from MI and FL also don't get a vote.


    What about the people that did not vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:31 AM EST
    at all, thinking the votes would not count?
    I really believe this is why no resolution was reached on revotes. There are TOO many differing points of view, and each possible solution inevitably leaves out a group of voters, or disadvantages someone.

    that wouldn't be a problem. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by dk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    As far as I understand it, the state law only says that those who voted in the Republican primary would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic revote.  In other words, anyone who voted in the Democratic primary, and anyone who didn't vote in any primary, would be able to vote.  Seems reasonable to me.

    There are also alot of people... (none / 0) (#50)
    by tsteels2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    ...who didn't know about the "uncommitted" thing.  They stayed home since it didn't matter.

    And count me as a MI resident who didn't see those ads in the paper.  And I'm looking in our big newspaper archives at that time and still don't see the ads.


    foobar, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    I'm curious.  You say that voting in the Republican primary was a "reasonable strategy at the time."  What strategy are you talking about?  I mean, I can see how refusing to vote in the Democratic primary would have been a reasonable option for an Obama or Edwards supporter, but in what way did voting in the Republican primary help either one of them?

    No reply (none / 0) (#66)
    by foobar417 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    I'd be happy to reply, but a later comment from BTD asked that this topic be dropped.

    I disagree that it shouldn't be dicussed, but it's not my blog.


    you can talk about it (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:07:05 PM EST
    on the new open thread.

    If you listen to bloggers when you vote (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    and try to use your vote for a prank, you deserve to no have your vote counted.  

    I disagree (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:12 AM EST
    And I will not allow further discussion of an issue we have beaten to death - the history and particulars of the revote issue.

    No more on this. Further comments on that subject will be deleted.


    I've never bought... (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    ...the notion that at the end of the day, voters who'd lean Democratic will elevate retaliation at the DNC (or Obama)over Iraq, health care, the environment, Supreme Court nominees, outsourced jobs, etc.  Come November, this issue will be nothing.

    I hope I'm right.

    Hope is not a plan (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    If "Hope if Not a Plan" (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    ...then Obama really has nothing to run on!  </snark>

    Maybe not the bulk of them (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    But we're talking about margins here.

    We'll have a chance (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coral on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    to test that theory, come November.

    I thought voters would value all those things over an obviously fraudulent "swift-boat" attack vs. war hero Kerry.

    Alas, I was wrong.


    Florida voter (none / 0) (#58)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    I won't vote for the Dem nominee in November. Polls in Florida show that I should have company in my decision. Dean believes as you do.

    Guess we'll see in November.


    The worst problem with this (none / 0) (#65)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    is that the failure to respect voters is coming from the Democratic Party itself, not a particular candidate. People who dislike Obama or Clinton might have just left the Pres slot blank and voted Dem all the rest of the way down. But since this situation makes the party itself look badly incompetent, I think we're looking at a chunk of voters who'll just stay home altogether. Bad for Dems around the country, but especially in FL and MI.

    Logistical question... (none / 0) (#10)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    ...revotes would need to be done on or before June 10th to be in conformance with existing DNC rules.  There are a number of preparatory and logistical requirements in order to conduct a re-vote properly, including mailing out absentee ballots to overseas residents, soldiers, etc.; hiring staff; putting voter lists together, and so forth.

    Most of the estimates I read on this said you need at least 6 weeks for Michigan, and by law, at least 90 days for Florida.  Ergo, a re-vote in Michigan would technically be feasible, but of course there is that recent court ruling to consider.  Florida doesn't seem like it could be re-done.

    Do you have some information regarding Florida election law and DNC bylaws that I'm not in possession of?  Because I tend to think it's already too late to do a FL re-vote.

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#13)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    Who would represent those states on the committee? A slate of delegates sent by the states or a bunch of handpicked Dean toadies? Can MI and FL then vote as a block to seat their own delegates? Or would we have the spectacle of Obama delegates from those states refusing to seat themselves?

    3 seats per state... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    ...if I remember correctly.  Not really enough to tip the balance, in this instance.  Not really sure how Nevada and New Hampshire would vote on this issue, since it might be counter to their interests to seat those delegations, simply because it would encourage other states to jump ahead of them next time.

    NOT 3 seats per state (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:07 AM EST

    That is wrong.

    No Mi or Fl means no vote in the GE (none / 0) (#20)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    I blame the DNC totally for this fiasco.  Why was it so important for the DNC to be right just because two states MI and FL wanted to move up their primaries.  What can the DNC say or point to that was so damaging  because FL and Mi disobeyed their stupid rules.  I saw absolutely nothing negative that occurred because MI and Fl disobeyed the rules of the DNC other than this current fiasco and it only continues to exist  because the DNC does not want to admit they were wrong in penalizing MI and FL.  The could easily reverse the penalty.   In fact there was only positive things that happen because they disobey the rules.  The only thing that happen was a record  voting turnout in MI and Fl.  If the DNC considers the record voting turnout to be a negative result as a result of disobeying their stupid rules then they should welcome further breaking of  their stupid rules.  IMO Fl votes should stand as counted since all the candidates had an even playing field.  In MI there were three candidates on the ballot, Obama and others took it upon themselves to take their name off the ballot. Hilary got I think 55 percent and the second biggest section was 40 percent uncommitted.  I suggest that in MI the uncommitted go to Obama.  The only other way to resolve this is to have have redo primaries in both states.  If Obama stops this process  then this just galvanizes  my case not to vote in the GE if he becomes the illegitimate nominee.  The only exception that would mitigate this is if both of them get in a united ticket. If that is the case then I will vote in the GE.

    It's pretty messy... (none / 0) (#35)
    by muffie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    and hard to see exactly what rules apply.  There are, at least, some restrictions.  For instance, according to the 2008 Call to the Democratic National Convention, Appendix A, section 8:

    Voting: A member of the Credentials Committee elected by a state delegation shall not vote on a challenge arising in that state.

    So certainly MI delegates cannot vote on MI.  It's not clear to me whether the MI component of the Credentials Committee can vote on FL (and vice versa).  The main problem is how the committee members are even selected if there are no recognized state delegates (VII.1):

    The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall be elected by each state's National Convention delegates...

    Looks like MI/FL not represented (none / 0) (#39)
    by muffie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:09:22 AM EST
    Bad style to respond to oneself, but I just noticed the following.

    According to Appendix D of the DNC rules, which is a table showing the allocation of standing committee members, both FL and MI have zero committee members.  So I now think Marc is wrong, and they will not be represented.


    Maddox (none / 0) (#36)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    Scott Maddox from Florida will be on the credentials committee. I remember reading it and rolling my eyes.

    Naked Politics

    That's right. It will be Maddox, who was chairman when the party got hit with an IRS lien for failing to pay its taxes, who will sit on the committee that will decide whether or not Florida gets back its 210 delegates that the DNC stripped away after Florida moved up its primary to Jan. 29th. Dean nominated Maddox, the former mayor of Tallahassee and a candidate for governor, for the credentials committee and his selection was ratified by the DNC executive committee over the weekend.

    Dean and the FL delegation (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    "DNC chief Howard Dean, under fire for not resolving the Democrat's delegate debacle, offered nervous Floridians one bit of hope: Hotel rooms have been reserved in Denver for Florida's renegade delegates.

    Dean, who met behind closed doors with Florida's Democratic congressional delegation, offered the confirmation of hotel rooms as assurances that Florida's votes will be counted."

    and did he also identify which election (none / 0) (#61)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    they'd be counted for?

    Dean, who met behind closed doors with Florida's Democratic congressional delegation, offered the confirmation of hotel rooms as assurances that Florida's votes will be counted."

    i think i'm confused: if the MI & FL delegates won't be seated, because those states broke the rules on their primary dates, why would they then be on the credentials committe?

    every time i think the party leadership couldn't possibly be any stupider, they rise to the challenge, and prove me wrong!

    i wish they'd prove me right, just once.

    Dean States FL Will Be Seated (none / 0) (#62)
    by FedUpInFL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:15 AM EST
    He had a meeting with FL Dem chair Karen Thurman this morning.

    Dean says Florida delegates will be seated at convention

    Wednesday, April 02, 2008

    WASHINGTON -- Democratic Chairman Howard Dean said this morning that Florida's convention delegation will be seated this summer.

    "It is our intention to do everything that we can and we believe we'll absolutely seat a delegation from Florida at the convention. That is absolutely in the best interest of all of us," he said.

    Palm Beach Post

    I think the issue is whether they will be seated (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:11:04 PM EST
    in time for their votes to count in choosing our nominee. If not, it's worthless.

    Unconstitutional in Michigan & Florida (none / 0) (#69)
    by Woody Brown on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:54:57 PM EST


    The Howard Dean chaired, Democratic National Committee, via it's disqualifi-cation of the Democratic Primaries in Michigan & Florida is currently violat-ing Constitutional Law. This is Direct Disenfranchisement. What our country now requires is an attorney who can effectively argue constitutional facts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    FYI...Article 25; the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights:

    Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any... distinctions...and without unreasonable restrictions:
      (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through
          freely chosen representatives;
      (b) To vote...by universal and equal suffrage...guaranteeing the free
          expression of the will of the electors...

    The U.S. has accepted Article 25 as binding at both state & federal levels.

    Evidence of DNC direct disenfranchisement & its unconstitutionality:

    1. Combined, the 9th, 14th & 15th Amendments endow the (un)inalien-able right of enfranchisement to both minorities & all citizens equally.
      • Previously excluded by standard practice, the 14th & 15th Amendments in-/directly enfranchise all races, colors, ex-felons & taxed-Indians; the definition, thereby, of 'the people' was expanded to include minorities.
      • If taxed-Indians & citizen ex-felons are eligible for minority protection, then so too are citizen Democrat voters.
      • Because the people's right to U.S. government participation was assumed, commonly practiced & not under threat, the 14th & 15th Amendments do not specify enfranchisement as a right of 'the people'.
      • However, the 9th protects civil rights not specified in the Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      • Additionally, when the 14th & 15th specified enfranchisement as a right of minorities, voting became a de jure 9th Amendment natural Constitutional right `retained by the people', i.e., the U.S. citizenry.
      • Thus disqualification of Mich. & Fla. primaries is unconstitutional.

    2. The 14th Amendment grants citizens equal constitutional protection of our natural rights to `life, liberty & property' via `due process'.
      • One of our natural liberties is the freedom to democratic participation in our self-governance; the exemplar of this (un)inalienable liberty is our right to enfranchised vote, election & representative delegation.
      • Thus Howard Dean & the DNC's unilateral disqualification of Mich. & Fla. primary votes & delegation, sans it's day in court, is unconstitutional.
      • Also, the DNC cannot infringe upon the Mich. & Fla. state Republicans, who are enfranchised...ipso facto then, disqualification of the Dems' vote violates the 14th's enfranchised equal rights protection.
      • DNC disqualification is also de facto 15th Amendment discrimination.

    3. The 15th Amendment expressly forbids minority discrimination via the denial or abridgement, by any State, of enfranchisement rights.
      • It is impossible then for the deeds of either Mich. or Fla.'s governors or legislature to have committed any action which could carry DNC consequences disenfranchising their citizens' rights to election.
      • Denying Mich. & Fla. state Democrat voters their right of enfranchise-ment constitutes discrimination in contrast to: Republican voters, the Democrat voters in other states & their delegated representatives.

    4. As per the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, neither the DNC nor Gov. Dean need have a `discriminatory purpose' for disenfranchisement as sanctions for breaking party rules; `a discriminatory result is sufficient to invalidate' disenfranchisement as the form of punitive action.

    5. Our Constitution's `Comity Clause' states: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges...of Citizens in the several States.
      • This 2nd sect. of Article IV thus guarantees that citizens of one state may exercise those same rights exercised by citizens of other states.
      • This includes the (un)inalienable right to enfranchised voting & election.

    6. In Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), the Supreme Court ruled: `that primary elections were so pervasively regulated by the state that, in doing their part to run primaries, political parties were state actors & thus subject to the 14th & 15th Amendments'. Howard Dean's action then:
      • defined himself as a `state actor' subject to Constitutional law;
      • defined his action as unconstitutional re: the 9th, 14th & 15th Amends.

    7. In U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, the Supreme Court ruled that: `primary elections were such an integral part' of selecting executive officeholders, `that federal laws guaranteeing the right to vote applied'.
      • Thus all Articles, Amendments, Acts & Supreme Court rulings apply to any DNC representative or actions; this protects the enfranchised from arbitrary punitive abridgement or denial of that state's federal right to self-determined primary participation in our representative democracy.
      • No incumbent Governor holding an additional federal position or role, may act--regarding primary elections--within other states, without being subject to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Classic.

    Believe that, from Heaven, our Founding Fathers are praying for a Patriot.