Seating Delegates Not Enough, Their Votes Must Count

I am completely unimpressed by Howard Dean's statement about seating the Florida delegates today.

Seating the delegates at the convention is not the same thing as allowing their votes to count in picking the party's nominee. Timing is everything. If the delegates aren't seated until the convention in August, it will be too late for them to have a role in choosing the nominee.

Dean isn't saying anything that wasn't said by the party initially -- the credentials or rules committee, at the request of the party nominee, can decide to to seat the delegates. As Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman said back in January, before the primary:

Florida's 210 delegates will be seated at the national convention in August. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, honorary chair of the convention; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; and former DNC Chairman Don Fowler of South Carolina have all said that, ultimately, the presidential nominee will decide who attends the convention.

Dean seems to be implying that absent an agreement between Hillary and Obama, the delegates won't get to vote because the decision will have to wait until we have a nominee who makes his or her desire known to the appropriate committee.

In order for Florida's 1.7 million votes to really count, the penalty needs to be lifted before the last primary in June. Otherwise, Floridians will have no say in choosing the Democratic nominee. The risk in not lifting the penalty in time for Floridians' votes to count is that they will desert the party in droves in November, either by not voting or by voting for McCain. Who could blame them?

Here's Hillary Clinton's statement about Dean's announcement today:

"We have long maintained that pretending the voters of Florida and Michigan don’t exist is not fair in principle and unwise in practice. This morning’s Quinnipiac poll out of Florida reflects the urgent need for Democrats to get behind our effort to count Florida’s voters and seat its delegation. Chairman Dean is clearly committed to seating the Florida delegation and we urge Senator Obama to join us in calling on the rules and bylaws committee to make this a reality."

Florida has a total 210 delegates and 31 alternates. In addition to the pledged delegates reflected by congressional district and candidate in this chart, Florida is allotted 41 at-large delegates that will be chosen by the Florida Democratic Party State Executive Committee on May 17, 2008. Hillary gets 24, Obama gets 16 and Edwards gets 1.

Florida also gets 24 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates. Hillary gets 14 of these and Obama gets 10. They will be chosen this Saturday, April 5, in Orlando, FL.

Also on Saturday, three (3) unpledged add-on delegates will be selected by the Florida Democratic Party State Executive Committee from names submitted by the state party chair.

Florida also gets 22 automatic--unpledged-- delegates, who are Florida's members of the DNC and the state's Democratic members of the House and Senate.

Florida also gets 8 seats each on the credentials, platform and rules committee. They will be chosen in May.

What's the difference between the credentials and rules committees?

The Credentials Committee is charged with coordinating issues around the selection of delegates and alternates to the Convention and will likely meet in the summer. The committee will issue a report that is the first official item of business at the Convention.

The Rules Committee is responsible for proposing the Permanent Rules for the Convention, adopting the proposed Convention agenda and making recommendations for permanent Convention officers - all addressed as the second official item of business at the Convention. The committee will meet sometime in August, prior to the Convention.

Hillary's campaign refers to the rules and bylaws committee while the media keeps saying credentials committee. It's the credentials committee if it has to wait until the nominee is chosen.

Can the rules and bylaw committee make a new permanent convention rule to undo the penalty?

Update: It's not too late for you to weigh in. Here's Hillary's Alert.

Update: Comments closing here, new thread on this topic is here.

< Evening Open Thread | Idol Open Thread? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can someone please explain to me... (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:18:52 PM EST
    ...why the candidate's campaigns even have a say in this?  There will never be an agreement while both candidates need to sign off on it becuase they have such a HUMONGOUS conflict of interest in the outcome.  Any plan will benefit to one will to the detriment to the other.  There can be no option that both sides will agree to because any option will help one side more than the other.

    The DNC needs to just negotiate this with the state parties and tell the candidates that they are just going to have to live with it. This is ridiculous bordering on absurd.  This is not about the candidates.  It never was.  Or rather it never SHOULD have been about them.  This is about the voters.

    Dean is allowing his ego... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    ...to get in the way of good leadership. He is kind of is reminding me of Bush lately.

    Not ego (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:34:06 PM EST
    He just wants Obama to win, that's all.

    They have stars in their eyes (none / 0) (#76)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:16 PM EST
    Dean and Pelosi and Kennedy are hungry for all of those new voter's! Young people and African Americans lining up 10 deep to register as Democrats, and hopefully to say Democrats their entire lives. Obama is going to "redraw the electoral map". He is going to win the election and his coattails will not only include downticket Dems this election cycle but also increased power for the party for decades to come.

    I hope they're right. They're putting a lot of hope onto one lightweight candidate. Obama is not JFK or FDR, his campaign's comparison's notwithstanding. I can understand the party's desire for a shortcut past all of the hard work we need to do to re-write the frames and re-build a Democratic majority. It must feel very good to watch the Obama crowds. They're gambling on Obama, and I hope they win.

    I guess it's just the cynic in me that doubts that it's going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.


    they won't win.. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by fly on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    Obama is going to be like McGovern..he will lose nationally by a landslide..and i know in my Fla he will get slaughtered!

    Every Dem i know is saying they will stay home or vote McCain..

    I am personally going to write in Mickey Mouse if they steal my vote for the nominee and force Obama on us!Many of us will be voting that way! After all, what better way to show Dean how he treated us..in a Mickey Mouse way..from a Disney state.

    Oh and I was a 2004 Elected democratic delegate for the State of Florida.


    I've worked for Dem candidates I didn't like (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mark Woods on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:24:27 AM EST
    because I'm WAS a loyal party supporter, even when my preferred candidate lost a primary.  No more.  I will not vote for Obama unless Clinton is 1/2 of the ticket, no less, and this is because I'm so angry about my Florida vote being kicked around by Dean and his mindless minions.  I will drop my DNC membership and become an Independent voter for good if Dean doesn't get this one right.  I'm calling the DNC later today to let them know my check book and vote are about to go elsewhere permanently.

    Being VP (none / 0) (#141)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM EST
    isn't an important enough position for Hillary in my opinion. I've seen the idea floated of arranging things so she became the senate majority leader. Then she'd be the main person Obama would have to deal with in the senate to get legislation through.

    I don't think they're worried about that (none / 0) (#149)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:47:33 AM EST
    Dean and Pelosi have a long term strategy for the party. They know that the Democratic Party that currently exists can't move forward the kind of legislation wanted by the base. They know it will take years, probably decades, to undo the damage that has been done by right-wing brainwashing of the American people (how else can you explain them convincing people to accept tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while the middle class sees a loss of government benefits, among other things).

    I think they think this is a shortcut. At worst, they get millions of new Democratic voters. At best, they get a stronger Congress and the Presidency. It's a strategy based on Obama's charisma and his ability to attract young and black voters.

    If they lose the Presidency, then they still have won increased power. Power is currency in Washington.


    If true (none / 0) (#164)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    This is a huge assumption - that all these new young voters are actually a) going to turn out in the fall, when historically they haven't (especially if Obama gets shown to be a regular politician like the rest of them with dirty laundry and b) are going to to stick around and work for less charismatic candidates down ticket and even for POTUS in the future.

    This is a huge gamble - they are betting the entire party on it because if Obama is the nominee and he fails to deliver - I don't see how we recover for years.


    Ego, definitely (none / 0) (#14)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    And childishness. Dean is like a kid saying "Yes I am the boss of you!"

    Expecting the candidates to work this out is not only ridiculous, it is dangerous. Dean is not thinking about anything other than what he wants to happen.  Can't believe he used to be the supposed leader of "the new politics."


    Give me a freaking break. (none / 0) (#33)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    If you aren't going to answer my question, please don't litter my comment with this ridiculous BS.

    And that goes for everyone who agreed with him.

    And for the one who didn't agree with him, what the heck?  Is it really so far beyond your ability to conceive of the possibility that the head of the DNC is just trying to find a solution to a very complicated problem that is just further complicated by two intensely opposing sides?  You'd rather assume that Howard Dean is some inside agent for the Obama campaign?  Give me a freaking break!  

    Please, enlighten me.  What commentary has Dean made that would lead you to believe he's trying to game the system in favor of one candidate over another?  I'd really love to hear it.


    I was agreeing with you... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:07 PM EST
    ...its not the candidates' responsability-- they are simply the players in Dean's game.  My point is that Dean allowed the Florida GOP to dictate whether or not Florida voters will have a voice in deciding the Democratic nominee-- this thing could have been nipped in the bud if he just would have dealt with this last year instead of puffing his chest and daring Florida and Michigan to call his bluff. This was a mistake. Instead of owning up to that mistake, he's thrown the hot potato into the lap of the candidates. Again, he is allowing his ego to get in the way of good leadership. Instead, he should have just owned up to the fiasco, been a leader, decided on a plan to count Florida and Michigan, and the implemented it.  

    "allowed the florida GOP"... (none / 0) (#84)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    You do realize the Florida Dems went along with the early primary right?  They expressed a perfunctory objection and then, when asked if they were urging a no vote said "Oh no, we want this (early primary)".  There is video showing this. The vote to hold early primaries in Florda was unanimous.  Republicans and Dems.

    Dean isn't in any position to dictate to a state party that they absolutely can NOT hold early primaries. All the DNC could do was present consequences to that decision to break the DNC rules.  And they did.  And they've stuck with enforcing those consequences.

    It's not about ego.  Howard Dean is in the unenviable position where he HAS to enforce the rules.  Because rules matter.  That's his job.  And it's a tough position he's been placed in.  But the state dems in FL and MI are the original source of this problem, not the DNC.  THEY screwed up.  THEY broke the rules.  And now THEY want an excemption to those rules.  The DNC is trying to find a solution that fits within the confines rules because they HAVE to enforce those rules!

    It's a flustercluck, no doubt about it.  But the candidates are only adding to it.  


    Again (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:31:15 PM EST
    You do realize that the Repubs included the vote for a paper trail for Florida voters was also part of that vote, yes? If the Dems had moved to defeat the vote, which they couldn't do because they lacked the numbers, they would also have been voting no for the paper trail, something they had been pushing for since 2000.

    So they would rather disenfranchise... (none / 0) (#95)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    ...all their voters in an illegitimate primary, than possibly mess up a fraction of their votes because they don't have a paper trail?

    Is that the argument you're making?  They all decided to vote UNANIMOUSLY, as in not a single "nay"...because of a paper trail.  

    Uh-huh. That does not compute.


    Really (none / 0) (#103)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:28 PM EST
    The rules don't state that they lose all your delegates, the minimum number is 50%. So why strip them of all their delegates? Further, the Dems introduced a bill that would have moved their primary back to the DNC sanctioned date, that vote was also 100%, unfortunately the repubs also voted 100% against it. But I can see your point, our good friends the repubs would never employ a dirty trick to screw with the dems, now would they?

    The original punishment (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:31 PM EST
    was to stip the states of half their delegates, but still have them apportioned by the popular vote. If Dean et al had just stuck with that ruling, as the RNC did, we wouldn't be having any problems at all. Everyone understands that the DNC needed to do something, but going nuclear on FL and MI ended up hurting the voters most, not the decision-makers.

    you do realize you don't have the whole story (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by fly on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    don't you??

    The Main bill was to ban the DRE voting machines in 15 counties that had them, where no audit was possible, nor a recount..you do know this don't you?? And part of that bill was to mandate VOTER VERIFED PAPER BALLOTS.. and you do realize it was put forth by citizens of Florida and we became the only state in the nation to accomplish this  for the 2008 election..you do realize it was on this bill that the republicans slapped the primary date amendment to ..do you not??

    Do you or anyone else believe any state of Fla dem would reject this bill? Especially when 18,000 votes dissapeared from Sarasota in 2006 ..Katrine Harris's county...by the way..

    Any dem who didn't go along with this bill in the Fla legislature  would have been out of a job..pronto!

    Oh and you do know that instead of applauding Florida citizens for getting this bill to the floor of a very republican majority legislature ...Dean started to demand the FDP have caucus's in Fla..

    He even went as far as offering $800,000.00 bucks to the FDP to help them have caucus's..geee ..now the fix wasn't in , nor was Dean gaming the system in Fla was he??????????

    silly me for thinking that!!

    Oh but i was a volunteer for Edwards in Iowa and was a cuacus co-captain.,.what do i know about how disenfranchising Caucus's are and how they can be gamed and were!!

    Oh by the way..Why was South Carolina not sanctioned for moving their primary up but Dean was happy about it..since it got alot of AA voters to the polls early.

    ya know..i will vote for Mickey Mouse should Obama be forced on us ..and my vote in Jan was stolen by Dean and Donna Brazile and the obamanation!

    from a 2004 elected Florida delegate


    Most of my Florida friends are seething (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mark Woods on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:45:27 AM EST
    over Dean and we ALL faithfully have attended Democratic fund-raisers for years in Cuban Republican Miami and the beaches. Even my friends who support Obama are angry about our FL votes being kicked around. They are saying they will cross party lines if FL Gov. Charlie Crist is offered McCain's VP -- Crist's approval ratings are over 70% state wide -- but only if our votes for Hillary are NOT counted until August, effectively negating their value in the primary.

    No - blame the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    "But the state dems in FL and MI are the original source of this problem, not the DNC."

    You do realize that if the DNC listened to Sen. Levin and other members of a Michigan delegation 7 years ago and then 3 years ago (and I'm sure many from other states over time) about NH and IA always going first, this would have never been an issue. They recommended regional rotating primaries back then, but were blown off.

    However, as I've said before in other posts - I don't give a rat's a** right now about whose fault this is - we just need someone to show leadership and to fix it.  Assign blame after the election and get someone in there to find a solution so this doesn't happen again.  The Republicans are laughing themselves silly and I bet Rove is wetting himself - even he couldn't have dreamed up something this ingenious to hand the Republicans a victory and at the same time, erase all arguments about 2000.


    He's not going to make any commentary (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    Name one part of the process/rules/interpretation of the rules that has worked to Clinton's benefit.

    Really it just stands to reason.  We know there's a history there.

    He doesn't like the Clintons.

    So he wants Obama to win.


    that's still ridiculous. (none / 0) (#93)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:56 PM EST
    That's like saying reality has a liberal bias because it doesn't have any elements that favor republicans.

    It's not about what favors which candidates.  These rules about which states can have their elections early have existed for decades.  Iowa and New Hamshire have protected "first in the nation" status.  It can be argued whether they SHOULD have that status, but the fact is they have had that status for a very long time, long before Clinton.  

    MI and FL decided to break those rules.  

    And you keep saying Dean "doesn't like the Clintons".  Please, enlighten me, what is your proof?  Are you very close with Dean?  Has he taken you into his confidence to that effect?  

    Do you honestly find it more believable that Howard Dean would conciously subvert one candidate's campaign for president over the possibility that the DNC has had these long standing rules and it's his duty as DNC Chair to enforce them, regardless of who it benefits and regardless of who doesn't like them?

    Can you honestly tell me that?

    Because that's ridiculous.

    Howard Dean has consistantly, and even before he was chairman, put the good of the Democratic party before his own personal gain.  That is a claim that is backed up with actual deeds.

    I can not say the same about Hillary Clinton (or even Barak Obama for that matter).


    So it's really about the roolz (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Mark Woods on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:26 AM EST
    and not the 'voters' as you mentioned above, is it?

    Ultimately, as a Florida voter I don't care about any roolz invented or dragged up to punish me for things beyond my control or influence.

    All I know is, there will DNC Hell to pay if my FL delegate isn't seated before June, and Dean's career will careen to an end over this debacle, I predict.


    On the off chance you'll see this (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:49:14 AM EST
    I hope you don't mind I was looking at some of your latest comments on dailykos and I'm heartened to see that one person of note gets some of what's going on.

    I'm not going to boil the Obama campaign down to one thing, but I think any sufficiently aware person is going to admit that one of the components is Clinton Hatred.  

    But that component is, as some, Kid Oakland, and now maybe yourself, have begun to realize it's going to create a backlash in the General Election.

    BTD has been writing about this for weeks.

    Problem is, much of the damage is already done.  

    One of the ways to undo that damage is seat FL and MI as soon as conceivably possible, or have a revote.   Whatever.

    Just make sure those states have a place in the process.  Not just a place to sit in Denver after the process is over.

    But there's a roadblock there on that path to reconciliation.

    That roadblock's name is Barack Obama.

    I have said repeatedly that if MI and FL have a place in the process (Not just a place to sit in Denver after the process is over) and Obama still wins the popular vote, then I can recognize him as the legitimate winner of the primary.

    As hard as that will be, even after seeing the popular votes in TX and WA deviate wildly from the caucus results, and realizing how that might apply to other caucus states, then that's that.  Gotta call it a day at some point.

    So.  You know.

    There are other suggestions I have too.

    One of those suggestions is for Obama to address, specifically, Rev. Wright's comments about Clinton riding black people the way he rode Lewinsky.

    He's made a general denunciation of divisive comments.  I want him to address that statement specifically and directly.

    There is no way in hell I will ever vote for someone who leaves it open the possibility that he might agree with Rev. Wright on that issue.

    In a way, I really don't think you and Kid Oakland understand the depth of the damage that has been done here.

    But we will see.


    I learned it on DailyKos (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
    A guy there kept saying it over and over again.  "If Clinton wins, she'll have Dean replaced."  Going on and on about how Clinton and Dean hate each other, perhaps it was just a pathetic attempt to polarize a group of people who are loyal to Dean against Clinton.  

    In any case, IF it's true, it only stands to reason Dean's just acting out of self-preservation.

    Maybe that person on DailyKos was wrong.

    Maybe you wish to revise your response and say "Well they do hate each other and Dean is right to prefer Obama."

    What I do know is Dean imposed a Draconian punishment that was not required by the rules.  The rules were flexible on that issue.  And the states punished were states where Clinton was expected to win.


    Good point against calling for Dean's head.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by 1950democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:03:40 AM EST
    ... that gives him nothing to lose, more incentive to help Obama as his last chance.

    I don't think we should push a meme that Hillary will go after Dean if she wins -- at least not for revenge. She has a remarkable record of working with  her old enemies, people who helped impeach Bill.

    I keep hoping Dean will come to some survival instinct about wanting to win in November, and eventually back HIllary as the most likely winner (or at least start playing fair). Maybe both candidates should be offering him cabinet posts.


    Free and Fair Elections (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by solon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    The candidates need to agree to revotes because it is a basic requirement for free elections in democratic governments. Typically, in democracies, ballots must be honest and meaningful; the candidates, the parties, and the people (usually through their elected representatives) must agree to the terms and conditions of the election; the candidates must have time and access to campaign fully in an area holding an election; and, finally, there is a level playing field for all parties involved.

    The problem with the original votes in Michigan and Florida is that they do not meet these basic standards for legitimate elections as the ballots were not fully honest and legitimate, citizens may or may not have participated because of the lack of meaning in the vote, and none of the campaigns could campaign fully in the state.

    The problem with some of calls for new votes is that they may exclude voters who did not participate based on the original vote or voted in another way because the original ballot was not honest and meaningful. (There are other concerns such as the lack of voting machines, the problem with mail-in votes, voter registration, and absentee ballots that have been discussed on this site to varying degrees.)


    but there will never be an agreement... (none / 0) (#20)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    ...as long as the candidates have to sign off on it.  They are both playing to win and there is no solution that is honest and fair to the voters of FL and MI that would not somehow negatively impact one of the campaigns.  The campaigns care more for the outcome than the process at this point so it doesn't serve anyone to insist that they sign off on it, because you will never get BOTH of them to sign off on it.

    I Asked the Same Question... (none / 0) (#25)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    Earlier today - WHY do the campaigns, especially OBAMA'S, since he has been the one holding everything up, even getting to MAKE this decision?!?  It seems to ME that it would be between the DNC and the State parties, NOT the individual campaigns.  Why that became the parameter is beyond me...

    Oops. (none / 0) (#26)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    Sorry for the poor grammar - Why are the campaigns even getting to make this decision is how it should have read (the Yankees distracted me).

    Now don't be making this... (none / 0) (#29)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    ...just about Obama.  Clinton has been blocking off options as well.  Both sides have drawn their lines of what they will and will not accept in these negotiations and unfortunately, as the saying goes, nary the twain shall meet.

    That is the problem.  Both campaigns are the problem.


    I Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    Obama has consistently blocked options presented for both states, especially MI.  I have not seen Clinton's camp blocking anything except the ridiculous Obama plan of splitting MI 50-50, which does not come CLOSE to the reality of what happened there.

    Feel free to do a quick google search on that, or even do it here at talkleft, since it has been discussed a good bit at this site.

    Clinton has CONSITENTLY called for FL and MI to have their votes counted (oh - and don't forget that it was OBAMA'S big idea to take his name off of MI in the FIRST place - frankly, I don't think he should get a do-over there ANYWAY since it was a STRATEGY of his that backfired.  And, Obama DID campaign in FL, so he shouldn't complain abt their votes being counted EITHER!).  So, yeah - I am singling out Obama because he, along with the DNC, are to blame.  IMHO, of course.


    I agree.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:58 PM EST
    I agree. Hillary has been more than generous in agreeing to re-votes in both states, in effect giving Obama a chance to start over on a level field after he slanted the earlier field with his own shenanigans.

    Democratic primaries should favor Democrats and if necessary exclude Independents and Republicans, especially since they are known to have been gaming our primaries with "Dem for a Day" and "Operation Chaos."

    Hm, if HIllary suddenly decided to allow GOP to vote in the re-do, as Obama wanted -- would Obama now object, because some of the GOP are now voting for her instead of him? Yes, he probably would object; anything to run out the clock.


    in both states? (none / 0) (#72)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:45:52 PM EST
    I just posted an article with statement that she WAS not for a revote in Florida.  

    But it still goes to my assertion that BOTH of them are blocking options.  That is the problem.  There is no one option that favors both of them so any option will be blocked by one of them.

    But considering their conflict of interest in the matter, they shouldn't even have a place in deciding this.


    Being opposed to the idea of a FL caucus ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    ... to replace a previous primary contest cannot be equated to the claim that "she was not for a revote in Florida".

    You are advancing an illogical argument. If I decline your offer of a glass of wine, it does not mean that I'm not thirsty.


    And her surrogates were willing to pay (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:05 PM EST
    for the re-votes and even challenged Obama's wealthy donors to step up if they wanted.

    So, we had the will and the money for primaries only one thing was missing. SURPRISE! Obama's agreement. MIA, kinda how he votes . . .


    as quoted above (none / 0) (#99)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

    That seems to apply to caucus or primary.  She didn't want any redo in Florida at all.


    Seat as is, re-vote is Plan B (none / 0) (#126)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    Hillary's position has always been to seat both states as is, but if that's not possible, then do a re-vote.

    You obviously want to prove your point with (none / 0) (#92)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    false arguments.  So I will no longer reply after this.  But if this is your Idea of a constructive discussion take into consideration that the DNC rules say that 50% of delegates should have been stripped but the DNC opted for 100% so the problem is of their making.  Dean is the leader of the DNC he is responsible to look for a solution.  If you don't have all the facts about how this situation came to happen in Fl please research it and then comment on it.  Specially since you are so bent on defending Dean's role.

    This entire situation... (none / 0) (#104)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:55 PM EST
    ...is far too complex to blame on any one person or party.

    It seems to me that a LOT of people here want to put it all on Dean as though he were a convenient scapegoat.

    Everyone involved had a hand in it, and the fact that everyone STILL has a hand in it is the problem.  The candidates need to take their hands out of it and let the party (national and state) hash it out.

    That is my underlying claim.
    And I stick to it.


    I tend to agree with Dawn (in part) (none / 0) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    Although a touch over the top in her posts at times by TL standards, DawnG does impart a fair amount of wisdom in her MI/FL settlement approach.

    I always wondered why the candidates had a say in MI/FL revotes. They never should have been given a say at all. Likewise with the seating of delegates, the candidates should not have a voice there either.

    Where I disagree is with Dean. He is the one that keeps saying the candidates have to agree. Your argument saying the candidates shouldn't be involved goes directly against the approach of Dean so you may not want to hold him in such high regard.


    Well that is a spot... (none / 0) (#129)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:33:14 PM EST
    ...that I disagree with Dean.

    But even in my disagreement I can understand why he's trying to do it that way.

    If he didn't TRY to get the okay of the candidates, they can (and would) cry foul and refuse to accept the results.

    my question is, so what?  It's not for the candidates to dictate terms of an election.  They shouldn't be allowed to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.


    The day after... (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    ...it was released that the DNC was negotiating with MI and FL for a possible revote, the Clinton campaign made a statment indicating they would not accept any option that included a revote.

    I guess they've backed off that a little bit, now saying they will accept no option that includes a caucus, but Clinton's campaign has made it very clear that they are not interested in any solution that allows for a legitimate election. They want the original, illegitimate results (that they previously agreed would be uncounted) to be counted.

    Both sides have blocked options, whether you're willing to recognize it or not.


    Unsupported negative assertions .... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    .... like this:

    ... but Clinton's campaign has made it very clear that they are not interested in any solution that allows for a legitimate election.

    ... are worthless, and do not help you to advance your argument, whatever it is.

    The subject of revotes in MI and FL has already been discussed here at great length. If you did not read those threads at the time, just search the archives.


    I don't know where you live but a caucus in (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    Florida will not work.  So that was insulting to say that we should have a caucus.  So it wasn't any option they were opposed to just the caucus.  I would be too.

    I don't know if they were discussing caucus... (none / 0) (#98)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:39 PM EST
    ...in Florida.  It was discussed for Michigan.

    But Clinton wants Florida's original vote to count.  The two aren't identical situations and I'll admit it's not fair to lump them together as if they were.


    Please put a link if your going to state that. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:17:21 PM EST
    Okay (none / 0) (#63)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:38:05 PM EST

    Please note the following passage:

    Many Democrats want a revote in both states, since the Democratic National Committee disqualified all their delegates because the states' primaries were held too early in violation of party rules. Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified--but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."

    It implies that she wants the original votes to count. It also implies that caucuses are somehow less legitimate than primaries.  Gee I wonder why?

    Also please note the following passage:

    Further explaining her opposition to the caucus solution, Clinton said, "A lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."

    This meme has since been disproven by the video footage showing the florida state democrats ASKING for the earlier primary and only objecting in a transparent "Briar Rabbit" ploy.
    Here (now I know some of you are going to poo poo a daily kos link, but unless you're going to refute the actual substance of the story, I dont' want to hear about it.)

    So, she doesn't want any do-over in MI that involves a caucus (which is easier and cheaper to hold) and she doesn't want any "do-over" in Florida at all.  


    If you think Caucuses are fair to voters you (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    should be reading this blog more often because they are far from it...They disinfranchise voters to an alarming degree and in the future should never be acceptable anywhere.....

    unfortunately... (none / 0) (#79)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    ...that's for the individual states to decide.

    But trying to make an argument that caucuses aren't legitimate is not going to get Clinton nominated, because too many states have them.

    I can see the pluses and minuses to cacuses.  on the minus side, fewer people attend them because they are more involved than just putting a checkmark next to a name.  They are also not anonomys so there is an element of peer pressure involved as well.  On the plus side, they have instant runoff built into them so if a candidate doesn't garner a minimum of support (usually 15%), their supporters can go to someone else.

    If they had IRV in straight elections, I wouldn't hesitate to say that is the way it should be done.  But they don't.


    Weasel words and deliberate obtuseness (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:39 PM EST
    Weasel words:

    Some party officials are suggesting caucuses

    Was there ever an official proposal by a State Party that the Clinton campaign actually blocked? Cite that, not some hack journalist's unsourced story.

    Deliberate obtuseness:

    It implies that she wants the original votes to count. It also implies that caucuses are somehow less legitimate than primaries.  Gee I wonder why?

    OK, here's a response, even though I know you know the answer to your own question.

    (1) Yes, all the original votes should count, unless the States in question arrange for new primaries. Otherwise the voters in those States are being disenfranchised. Doing that will undermine the Democratic Party's goal of winning in the GE, regardless of who is the Party's nominee.

    (2) Yes, caucuses certainly are considerably less legitimate than primaries -- in general, but especially in this particular situation. Because:

    a) the original contests in both MI and FL were primaries, not caucuses;
    b) many fewer people have the opportunity to vote in caucuses, because of the need to be present at a particular location for an extended duration;
    c) because of the closeness of the race, there is a heightened focus on the popular vote totals, which caucuses obscure.

    So, wonder no more.


    They didn't have to propose it... (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:38 PM EST
    ...for it to be blocked.

    Clinton stood up and said she would not accept a caucus. Since it was already established they needed the candidates to agree, they're not going to persue an option that they know one campaign isn't going to go for.

    It was blocked pre-emtively.  But it's still blocking.


    HIllary has supported.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    Hillary has said all along that the results should be counted. She has rejected caucuse but never an inclusive re-vote (ie primary or mail-in).

    a caucus... (none / 0) (#69)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    ...,which in MI is only marginally a caucus since it allows people to drop off their votes instead of sitting around for hours discussing it, is cheaper and easier to hold.  It's also something that Michigan is equipped to do.  The problem with a primary election is that it is more expensive and, traditionally, the expense is born by the state, which is not going to be inclined to pay for a second primary.  The party can pay for a caucus.

    Also, the refusal to entertain the possibility of a caucus hinges on the premise that a caucus is somehow inferior or less legit than a primary.  Considering how many states hold caucuses to allocate delegates, it's a preposterous notion.

    I'm not saying this because I intrinsicly want Obama to come ahead on this.  I'd be content with either as the nom.  But Clinton is blocking a very do-able option.  And yes, Obama is blocking a primary vote through a refusal to agree (without actually disagreeing) to one.  But this just goes towards my assertion that both sides are blocking options.


    Wow I think you are very mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM EST
    about caucuses, but since I am ill and just don't have the stamina to argue, I suggest you read the threads on this blog about caucuses and why they disinfranchise voters..... It might be quite educational to you....It sure was to me.....

    Again, you are misinformed. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    It was OBAMA who blocked these "caucuses" (also known as "firehouse primaries").


    I'm from Michigan - we don't do caucuses and to ask people to hurry up and do them now without time for education is shady.(Also because they have proven this election cycle to not be reliable measures of "the people's will).

    The "state party insiders" who objected were Obama supporters.


    That is correct... (none / 0) (#30)
    by solon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    The candidates will never agree to this but this is a consequence of trying solve the problem of what to do with illegitimate elections half-way through a primary campaign. This is why parties settle the details of an election well beforehand.

    Since neither candidate will win the nomination through pledged delegates and only by the help of Super Delegates, then the problem with the original votes is not as problematic as it seems. If, over the course of the next ten primaries, the delegates count between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama is close, say under 50 by the end of the primary season, then the uncommitted Super Delegates will take this into consideration when they decide to endorse.


    what calculation could possibly bring about (none / 0) (#35)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    this gap?  post south carolina, obama will actually have a wider lead than today.  i see the house of clinton winning pa, but i do not see the huge delegate swing you account for.

    how is this possible?


    I am not (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by solon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:57 PM EST
    stating there will or will not be a delegate swing that will alter the election. While there may be contingencies that alter the last two months of the race, the point is that the original votes in Florida and Michigan, though flawed, possess meaning as they have the potential to alter the Super Delegates.

    Why is this person consistently (none / 0) (#157)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:45:36 AM EST
    allow to refer to Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign as the "house of Clinton"? This derogatory designation should not, IMO, be allowed in rational, civil, discourse.

    The details were... (none / 0) (#40)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    ...agreed to and settled way before hand, by all sides (in spite of what some might lead others to believe).  That is until the race became so close that the marginally losing side had to find some excuse, any excuse, to get those delegates counted so they could offset their opponent's gains that they had to throw a stink about it.

    That is the only reason why this is even an issue "half-way through".


    should we all (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:15:38 PM EST
    just forget about the 2 million voters then.  I don't think they ever agreed to it.  I thought you were on the voters side?

    I am. (none / 0) (#74)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:20 PM EST
    I want a re-do.  I don't care if it's a caucus or primary vote.

    But, I am saying it's disingenuous of Clinton to raise a stink over this when she agreed to it originally.  It was only AFTER the results came through, and after she needed those delegates to be seated, that she withdrew her agreement and insisted that they DO count.

    So yes, as it stands now, 2 million votes don't count.  And thousands more voters who stayed home because they knew the election wouldn't count, don't count either.  It's not just about the people who did vote, but about the ones who didn't that matter just as much.  That is why we need a revote.  And as long as the candidates have to sign off on it, there will be no revote.  Because there is no one option that will favor BOTH of them.

    I say cut them both out of the negotiations and let the state and national party make the decision together.


    Problem with a caucus (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    is that 2.3 million votes still won't count, just a fraction of them. Dean offered FL funding for 150 caucus sites and to print 120,000 caucus ballots. But 1.7 million people voted in the FL Dem primary. And 600,000 voted in the MI primary--no caucus ever, not even in 08, has approached that turnout.

    So we'd be saying, "Come back and revote, we'll count them this time! But only 10% of you are allowed to participate, sorry about that." Not a viable solution, IMO.


    that's not how a caucus works though. (none / 0) (#128)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:31:24 PM EST
    so I'm not sure how you can claim that is how a caucus would neccessarily be.

    I would be utterly shocked if anyone would try and pass off 120k ballots for a caucus.  It doesn't sound right.


    whether it sounds right or not (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    that was the proposal from the DNC.  You can find details in earlier posts on this site.  It was patently ridiculous in every regard.

    Not Quite True (none / 0) (#144)
    by HGillette on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:12:22 AM EST
    And 600,000 voted in the MI primary--no caucus ever, not even in 08, has approached that turnout.

    Estimates are that over 1 million Democrats turned out for the Texas caucus.


    Wow (none / 0) (#174)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    that's really cool. I hadn't seen any numbers close to that high, the best guess was @300,000 in the reports I saw in the TX papers. Maybe it's because they stopped counting at 40%? I hope they release some good numbers soon.

    "half-way through"? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM EST
    Um, Hillary said she would find a way for both states to count on Jan 25th, and perhaps earlier.

    How is that "half-way through"?


    excuse me..but as a Florida voter i had nothing to (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:18:18 AM EST
    say about this..and i not only voted but i was a dem poll watcher..who the heck are you or anyone including Dean to take my vote away and discard it..i don;t give a damn what the rules are..the first rule of elections is to count the dang votes..isn't that what we as the dem party have said over snd over and over again?

    who the hell was Dean to strip our votes when the very bill that changed the primary date was to count our votes with paper ballots and to get rid of the corrupt DRE voting machines that couldn't give a recount or be audited!..how dare anyone take my vote away or say ..well thats the rules ..who's dang rules..i have rules and they are i go to vote and i want my vote counted!

    One person one vote..or this is no dang democracy!

    you can kiss democracy away!



    do people here understand that in Fla as of July 1 (none / 0) (#170)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:21:07 AM EST
    On July 1 2008 our voting machines in 15 counties, large counties are outlawed..many of those counties have already dismantled the machines or gotten rid of them altogether, in preperation for  new voting machines that will be auditable and with Paper ballots/trails.

    Oh, and in my county we just had an election  2 weeks ago, and 1,100 (i believe it was somewhere around that number )absentee ballots dissapeared through the postal system!
    I never got my absentee ballot for this election, and i am a DEC member.

    here is just a bit of the message i got about it..

    now tell me is this the way you want our election decided , when 1.7+ million Dems went to vote Jan 29th...


    This e-mail is for all volunteers and guests residing in District ###( i edited) and to ALL of the DEC Precinct Captains and At-Large Members-

    The Supervisor of Elections has alerted me to a problem with 1100 local ballots that were sent out on Monday, March 10th for the special house district ### election.  The Clearwater postal service has a record receiving them, but no record of them being sent out.  In other words, 1100 ballots have gone missing.

    from a 2004 elected Dem Delegate , Florida


    Methinx.. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:03:15 PM EST

    1. The DNC punishment was overly harsh, did not fit the crime. Odd to begin with.

    An internal Party matter between national and state arms in theory - nothing to do with the candidates, other than being told what the determination is. Ditto the voters.

    2. The voters in those states were then unfortunately given "mixed messages".

    Record turnouts, especially in formally run primaries alongside the Republicans doing their thing, suggest most voters chose to vote "in good faith" and "just in case" it did end up being the only opportunity they were going to have during the entire season.

    3. When push finally came to shove, Dean's decision, included that the candidates had to have a say?

    Very odd. If its an internal Party dispute over Party rules around delegates, then the candidates should have little to do with it.

    Dean effectively passed the buck to the candidates.

    4. BUT - once the power was given to the candidates by the Party leadership - it was then Obama's campaign which has blocked and stalled.

    Very odd indeed. I agree with you, neither candidate should have been given veto vote powers over an internal Party dispute.

    Just my own view, but I perceive Hillary is trying to make the best of a bad situation, not just for herself, but also for the Party in those states in the GE. Obama is sitting on his hands, trying to run out the clock on Pennsylvania etc.


    I tend to agree.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    I tend to agree. Certainly Obama should not be able to in effect 'pocket veto' the whole re-vote by dragging his feet like Bush2000.

    "like Bush2000" (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:14:06 PM EST

    {runs screaming from the room}


    The cynic in me... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    thinks that's what they're hoping for down at HQ...a stalemate.

    It's a very common.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    ...political strategy to declare support for an option you know will never come to be because other parties will object to it.

    Clinton can afford to declare her support for a revote, but she knows there is no option that both candidates will agree with.  She can then stand back and say "oh well, I tried, we should count the original delegates."

    I don't think that's cynical.  It's unfortunately very typical.


    It's also possible that this is one way... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    that Dean can turn around and do the ole' "Not Me" routine.

    this is one hot potato... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:34 PM EST
    ...that no one wants to be stuck with.

    I will grant you that.  But all parties involved are still tossing it around rather than coming together to fix it.  


    I think someone forgot to pack (none / 0) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:01 PM EST
    the sour cream and bacon bits.

    Darn you Kredwyn! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:25:14 PM EST
    I'm on a diet!  no potato for me. :( (sniff)

    I love potatoes.  I've been known to bake potatoes, put them in the fridge to cool down, and just eat them like they were apples. MMmmmmmm....yummmy.


    I'm not sure if the candidates do have a say (none / 0) (#116)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:27 PM EST
    Speaking theoretically, if one of the legislatures was able to vote to do a revote in a manner that was legal according to DNC rules, a campaign that objected could complain, but unless there was a valid legal objection they'd be out of luck. At least that's what I understand.

    That's just speaking theoretically though. Of course a nominee will have supporters in the state legislature who he or she is able to influence. And more importantly, there may be laws or rules a revote would have to satisfy that may be difficult to meet. In that case, unless both campaigns were willing to wave legal objections they could make, it might be impossible to do the revote.

    My understanding is pretty superficial, so please don't take my word for any of this. But as I understand it, this has been an especially big problem in Michigan, due to the requirement that people who voted in the Republican primaries can't participate in the Democratic. In that case, depending on your point of view, Obama is either unwisely and undemocratically killing the process through raising unreasonable objections, or raising ones that while reasonable, are just too difficult to meet at this late date.

    Fundamentally, the problem is all of this should have been worked out in advance. It's nuts to try to come up with a new voting process, figure out the potential problems and legal implications at this late date; it should have been started months ago. At this point, it's not clear that it's possible, and the Florida legislature has indicated virtually unanimously it doesn't want to. So the method of how the votes would be counted and the delegates selected should have been determined well in advance. At this point, we're kind of trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together.

    And one could argue it actually was worked out in advance. One could argue that the Florida and Michigan legislatures decided the method they wished to use was to have an early primary, and they were content not to have the delegates counted. The potential impact they could have on the process through an early primary was worth the loss of actual delegates, which in the end wouldn't be likely make a difference (California has plenty of delegates, but in most primaries they have no impact as the results are determined by the time the primaries make it here). In practice at least, that's the decision they made. Of course the primaries stretched on longer than anyone imagined they would, the delegates really could make a crucial difference, so the states involved would like to have their delegates after all, and we'd prefer not to hurt our chances in the general election by disenfranchising two states we'll need then. But unmaking that original decision may involve breaking enough rules that we need both candidates to agree to wave them.

    Again, I'm trying to figure this all out myself, so don't take my word for anything.


    Yes..... (none / 0) (#132)
    by smb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:57 PM EST
    Candidates must have a say... (none / 0) (#162)
    by solon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    For free and fair elections, candidates, parties, and the people (through their representatives) have a right to agree to the terms of an election. Usually, in the US, this is not a problem as everything is agreed upon in advanced.  

    If you remove the veto power from the candidates, then, hypothetically, one candidate would work with political allies in a state to develop an "official election" plan that would work to exclude the supporters from another participating in the election. In Michigan, Senator Clinton preemptively rejected preliminary discussions of an out-right caucus; Senator Obama rejected the plan for a Firehouse Caucus. Both candidate have the right to do this because they believed that the new elections would harm the ability of the people to participate in elections.


    I think the answer to your question (none / 0) (#151)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:09:57 AM EST
    of why the campaigns would have to have a say in this is simpler than I originally thought. It can be summed up in one sentence: we're trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Consider this example. Suppose the voters in Iowa decided they wanted to do a revote. They decided they'd held their primary far too early, and as a result voted before all the information about Wright came out. They decided that it's just wasn't fair they voted without that information that so many other states had, and they want to do a revote, which would probably shift some delegates to Hillary.

    So their legislature votes to do a revote, which certainly doesn't violate the restrictions against early primaries, and they inform the DNC their going to reapportion their delegates according to the new results. No problem right? No reason why the campaigns would have to agree to any such change?

    Well of course there is! They want to change the rules in the middle of the game. The only conceivable way it could even be considered is if all of the candidates agreed it was fine. And of course any change that gave an advantage to one candidate or the other would never be agreed to by both.

    So that's what's happening here. We want to change the rules in the middle of the game. The citizens of Florida and Michigan through their elected representatives chose to have early primaries at the cost of having their delegates seated before the convention.

    This probably won't be a popular position here, where the voters are considered victims of this whole process, but in a representative democracy, citizens are considered to be responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make. I am personally responsible for the Iraq war, even though I opposed it. For example, I can't get out of paying taxes to support the costs of occupation just because I completely opposed it in the first place. In one sense, I'm a victim, but in a representative democracy, I am considered to be responsible for the decisions the government I help elect makes. It stinks. But it stinks less than dictatorship or monarchy.

    So, via their representatives, Florida and Michigan voters elected to have an early primary at the cost of having their delegates seated before the convention. Those states had plenty of chances to change their minds; the DNC had mechanisms in place for caucuses or other work arounds, and those states did not take advantage of them. And now we are where we are.

    And now most of us would like to change this. Florida and Michigan would like to change it, because unlike any previous primary in memory, the race has turned out to be so close that the delegates they appoint might have an effect on the outcome of the nomination, if they were allowed to participate. And we'd all like to change the rules, because no one wants to anger the voters of Florida and Michigan shortly before a crucial national election. But the time to push for a change was before the process began, because now we're trying to change the rules in midstream, and the only way to do that is to get all the parties involved to agree. And that's difficult to do. Clinton and Obama have been both consistently pursuing their own campaigns interests in all of this, which is what you'd expect them to do.

    So that's where we are. It's not a plot by Dean to give the election to one candidate or the other, it's just the outcome of the choices all of the parties have made has brought us to a point where it's very difficult to find a solution that can satisfy everybody.


    The rules initially stated that (none / 0) (#175)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    50% of the delegates would be forfeited for early primaries. The DNC chose to change that to 100% "in the middle of the game." I agree that the DNC, FL, and MI should have come up with a solution before this process began, but the real problem is them going nuclear on the two states, giving the first four states a total pass for going early, and dragging out the resolution for way too long. This isn't a candidate problem, it's a DNC problem, a lack of solid leadership.

    I hate that the RNC handled this better than our party. Hate it. They quietly took half the delegates from the three states that violated their party's rules [inclusing NH] and look competent, intelligent and fair in comparison. Yuck.


    I agree, (none / 0) (#177)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    a 50% penalty would have been better. I'd be interested if anyone had information on the committee that made that decision or what the rational for it was.

    Imagine if some of Obama's Early States... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    ...were not in the equation. For example, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Maryland are of similar combined size to Florida and Michigan. Imagine if the DNC crippled his campaign by not allowing those states. Would there be any doubt that Hillary would be the leader if he did not have that early, ill-gotten momentum? Then imagine the further outrage if Obama's states were NEVER counted.

    well I guess we'll never know. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:31:31 PM EST
    So I don't know what is to be gained with speculating about it.  We need to deal with the reality that is, not invent one that never happened as a way of casting aspersions on someone.

    'm sorry but.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    "casting aspersions on someone" is equal to about a hill of beans when compared to the votes of millions of citizens.

    the casting aspersions... (none / 0) (#118)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    ...is only part of it.  It's the "Creating alternate realities that don't exist" to cast aspersions that I object to.

    It's all well and good to say what MIGHT have happened IF such and such happened but it didn't.  And you have no way of knowing if it would go the way you think even if it did.

    The world rarely goes the way we think it should, but it always goes the way it inevitably must.

    We need to deal with the reality we have, not the reality we wish we had. (apologies for the rumsfeld reference)


    The only cognitive disconnect (none / 0) (#180)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    is between you and what is being said here. It is not about what candidate this benefits. It's about basic functions that are necessary for a democracy. One of those is the right to have votes counted. YOU don't get it. It's more than Hillary. It's more than Obama. It's what is basic to democracy.
       Scary that you don't or wont see that.

    please do tell me why the rules were broken by SC (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    and they were not sanctioned? and How about Nevada...and NH and Iowa...come ..please i am sure you have a way of explaining their rule breaking away!!

    or how about Obama running commericals in Fla against th epledge he took and being the only dem candidate to do so..in fact he spent 1.3 million bucks doing so...he spent more than 8 of the Republican candidates  who were allowed to campaign in Florida..so please do explain away those rules being broken and no sanctions on him..and do explain why no where in the rules did it say Obama or Edwards had to take their names off the ballots in MI but they chose to do so to manipulate votes in other states...but now he cries foul..and how many progressive sites that clearly support Obama ..like daily Kos ..told dems to cheat and go register as repubs and vote in their primaries  to vote for Romney..instead of voting for their candidate Obama..

    if you wnt to discuss rules..lets talk about all the rules and all the rule breKERS.



    When laws are used (none / 0) (#192)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    to disenfranchise voters democracy won't exist for long. The laws under dictators often only allow for votes for the dictators-- legal but not democratic.
      If no one is being disenfranchised here, why pretend that votes matter at all? Are the primaries just a charade at democracy. Again your cognitive disconnect is clear.
      Votes are unimportant? Hmm let's bring back Jim Crow laws, pole taxes, colored laws. . . yep that's the way to build democracy.
      Respect for laws that function to disenfranchise voters is a weak argument for building democracy. Isn't that what authoritarians do?

    Florida Delegates (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Jackie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:33:48 PM EST
    Have any, ANY of the democratic leadership said......"Yes, the voters of Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted"! NO! They worry about offending the candidates, the hell with us voters.

    Thousands of voters have been disenfranchised because Howard Dean (As he stated in an interview March 5th on National Public Radio)and the DNC wanted S.C. to vote before Florida so African Americans would be in a position to carry more weight in choosing a candidate.

    Should 11% of our population have that power? Is this democratic?

    Why should the candidates have a say in settling the Fla./Mich. fiasco? The Obama campaign has already proven they will do anything to win, there is no way Obama will agree to have Florida/Michigan votes counted.

    Dean and Brazile should apologize to voters in Florida/Mich. and admit....WE HAVE SCREWED THIS UP...and count the votes.

    We are 74 yrs. lifelong democrats, totally disgusted with dem. leadership. This primary has exposed the corrupted democratic party system of choosing a nominee and the careless attitude leadership has towards voters.

    I'm not at (none / 0) (#54)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    74, but, one of my cars will be in a year.

    Do you remember the 1935 (and similar) Packards?

    Fun cars.

    I hope you see this before the OT delete.


    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    The trouble is, of the DNC leaders who caused this mess, Brazile has now admitted she's for Obama and wants to slant the process toward him. Dean apparently wants the same thing. So without the candidates having an effective veto power, D, B, etc would be setting up some 'solution' very slanted indeed.

    Dean has been stubornly consistent. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by mm on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    This is why I thought it was so strange a few days ago when everyone seemed to be applauding him when he said essentially the same thing.  He very clearly said that he would deal with FL and MI after the nominee has been decided.  That's why there's this big push going on right now to get the SD's to commit to Obama.  There's a rush on now to make FL and MI irrelevant to the nomination process and remove the egg from Dean's face.

    Because removing the egg from Dean's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    face is way more important than enfranchising FLA and MI voters -- who, BTW, did not violate any "roolz."

    How can you "enfranchise" people when you are only willing to count their votes after they no longer count?


    Maybe Dean doesn't intend to be quoted as if... (none / 0) (#71)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    as if he were saying "We'll seat the delegates AND COUNT THEIR VOTES FOR THE NOMINATION"

    when what he really means as "We'll seat them after they no longer count."

    But to most people "seat them" MEANS "count them." So such headlines are deceptive.

    So is Dean doing this on purpose -- deceptively making the public think the problem has just been solved?


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by mm on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:28:26 AM EST
    I'm afraid what we're witnessing right now is just elaborate Kabuki Theater staged by Chairman Dean and the DNC.

    It's interesting to note that the language used by Dean and Obama when discussing this is almost identical.


    We are committed to making sure that we do everything in our power to seat a delegation from Florida," Dean said. "We believe we will seat a delegation from Florida."

    But the party chairman said it was critical that Obama and Clinton were "comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out."

    Dishonest misdirection.  There's no other description.  The question is will these two states have any meaningful role in the nomination process.  Everyday that passes with FL and MI out hurts Clinton's chances going forward.

    March 14, 2008

    "Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

    Playing out the scenario the way Dean is pushing it means that there is only one possible outcome.  I hope everyone recognizes this.


    answer to your question.. (none / 0) (#142)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    yes indeed he is trying to fool the people, but he has not fooled floridians and i am sure the same goes for voters from Michigan, in fact one such couple from Michigan was at my pool today in Fla and they are as mad as we in Fla are!

    Dean will lose this election for us..and all the might he has will not remove the egg from his face..it is his doing and donna brazile..and Obama.

    that is the story..

    The fix was in by Dean, Donna Brazile, and Obama..

    and i will never vote again..why bother..first the repigs steal our elections from 2000-2006 and now the dems..so who cares anymore..they never count our damn votes in Fla..but they won't get another dime of my money again..ever ..not one dem candidate..of and i gave a huge amount in 2004 and 2006..i will be asking the DNC for my money back!..as many dems in Fla are now preparing to do.


    I don't think it has anything to do... (none / 0) (#112)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    ...with egg or Dean's face.

    A prolonged primary has some very dangerous risks for the democrats.  It allows republicans time and opportunity to consolodate support around McCain while Dems still stand divided between Clinton and Obama.  

    There is a slight benefit in that the republicans have 2 targets to divide their attention on instead of one, but if it goes to convention it will allow the eventual nominee far less time to counter the republican juggernaught that will surely follow.

    There is a HELL of a lot more at stake than Dean's image, and I think most everyone understands that.


    damage limitation (none / 0) (#121)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:18:16 PM EST
    Imo most of the damage could be prevented by Dean et al getting Obama and Hillary to agree to

    1. a spending ceiling per week
    2. no personal mention of each other

    Then we'd  get twice the air time McCain does, and he could worry about being tag-teamed.

    uh huh. (none / 0) (#124)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    Why don't we just ask him to get the candidates to agree to wear bunny suits while campaigning.

    You're about as likely to get that to happen as your lovely numbered options.

    As long as there is a primary, the candidates are going to campaign against each other as much as they do against McCain.  No one could get them to agree to stop.


    NOW is anyone sorry (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    that Howard wasn't our nominee?

    I have rarely been to any meeting or convention of Democrats that didn't focus on bylaws or credentials and either put everyone to sleep or send a sizeable chunk out to the parking lot as a rump caucus.

    This campaign & Dem. Party leadership, however, takes the cake...by quite a large margin (and boy, that's saying something).

    well... (none / 0) (#115)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM EST
    ...you can't say it's been boring. (LOL)

    True, (none / 0) (#160)
    by Rainsong on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:50:28 AM EST

    We are living in very interesting times :)

    But on the bright side, more Americans than ever before have become informed about the primary system. Millions of Americans participated in a primary or caucus for the first time, not just the Party faithful die-hards who always do it.
    And millions got terribly confused even in New Yorks primary ballot because the primary ballot is different a GE ballot. Millions more have learned the word "superdelegate", and looked it up on google.

    I have an old college friend in Indiana who is sooooo excited, almost wetting herself, because the candidates are in town. Wow, that hasn't happened in decades. (but she's going for the Hill). So no definitely not boring :)

    And we learned that not just the DNC has "Roolz", but most of the 50 states have even more  own "Roolz".

    Texas, with its twice on the same day, but on the second vote, you have to do it two more times later on - and even then, they have State super-dels who attend the state convention, who can -- by voting on their conscience -- outnumber and re-weight, the caucus delegate allocation for the state.

    And, I'm still laughing about Nevada's "Las Vegas style" caucus roolz.

    The irony is, Nevada's caucus delegates count and are perfectly valid, allocated by a cut of the cards in the casino --
    but Florida's formal primary can't count, because it was the wrong date.

    And they call it democracy....  


    It would be nice if our party (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Virginian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    was committed to coming up with a solution rather than wondering about how this will play with the media...or worrying about Obama's feelings...

    The VOTERS are what matters...to heck with the media...they will excoriate us in August for this, and probably in November if we lose, who cares if they call us flip floppers in April or May...

    And to heck with Obama claiming foul...all the candidates were handicapped the same, Obama wasn't the only "victim" here, and Hillary didn't have any "advantage" in FL (and arguably Obama handicapped HIMSELF in MI)...FL should count...MI needs a compromise...Obama could show some leadership and be the one to figure it out, opposed to being the one to obstruct...

    Although, when in context this is particularly the issue with Obama...he does not step up to leadership roles, he wants it all to be given to him...Ill Senate "successes", present votes and "wrong" votes, European relations subcommittee, Rev. Wright, etc. etc... Obama just isn't a leader, he is a loafer...

    I added my name (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:32:28 PM EST
    I'm having such a hard time with this.  I just don't think I can vote in the general election with this crap going down.  Somebody needs to figure this out now and people need to have their voices heard.  It has been long military years people, I can't even really think hard about that part of things without hurting myself.  Who wants to do a tour in Iraq?  Who wants to be married to someone doing tours in Iraq?  We make it and we do it by being stripped bare naked of everything other than our most dearest principles that we live life by......accountability to things much larger than ourselves.  Some of our leaders chose to break Iraq but now that it is broken someone must be accountable and that daily accountability is tended to at the moment by very small in importance people wearing camo.  I thought we were serving a democracy here, but if people don't get to vote and be counted and if the people aren't calling the shots here at the end of the day I don't really know what I'm doing here or what my husband is doing here either.  What has our dedication stood for or meant if nobody else around us can be bothered to live by our most basic and dearest principles as well?

    I'm curious how military wives feel (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    about the constant drumbeat that Clinton didn't accomplish anything on her own and that her eight years as a senior White House advisor plus First Lady duties shouldn't count. My mom was a military wife for 23+ years,and she definitely contributed a good chunk of value to my dad's career. Military spouses and families serve our country with the same dedication the active service members have, they just don't get paid for it.

    Many career fields are two-fer (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by 1950democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:04:41 AM EST
    I hadn't thought of military wives being so involved. Certainly it is true in much of the private sector. In a Mom and Pop operation, Pop's name may be on the sign and the papers, but it is often Mom in the back room who is the brains while Pop is out front shaking hands.

    It's true that a soldier (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    loses some ability to preform when they have a family and they don't have strong spouse to hold the fort down when they are deployed. We really are a team and in this together. Some families have never been through a deployment and the first one will test a marriage and some don't make it.  After that first deployment, the second and third can test spouses to the breaking point where some have decided to not be married to deploying soldiers and it's really hard on the soldier when this happens.  Lots of guilt to go around for everyone when it happens, the stress is huge during a war time.  I have to say spouses here cuz we are very good friends with a female officer who had a husband divorce her when he discovered she had volunteered for a second Iraq tour.  He was a civilian and she is a very dedicated soldier who couldn't stand the thought of leaving the troops there without her efforts and they didn't have any children yet.  Hillary has a quality to her and her words that to me tell the tale of being married to a president during Somalia and Bosnia.  She has a certain maturity about her when it comes to military matters.  I have heard her voice on issues sitting on the armed services committee and she has earned my respect in her service there because I live armed services committee decisions and she really knows what she's doing there and what the real world is about.  In my opinion she learned something and she learned it rather quickly if she learned it all in her Senate career.  I know a lot about helicopters and I don't even want to know about helicopters ;)

    There seems to be an overabundance (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    of short-sightedness that is mucking up the whole works.

    I think the truth is that - in a phrase that has been all too common in the Bush administration - no one could have anticipated that the primary season would get this far without a presumptive nominee; the DNC in its infinite wisdom was only looking to stop more and more states from moving their primaries up and likely figured this draconian delegate-stripping would do it.  They weren't thinking AT ALL about disenfranchising what turned out to be almost 2 million voters.  They weren't contemplating the backlash from angry voters who had a right to have their votes count.

    And now they are perpetuating the problem by dumping this in the laps of the campaigns, for crying out loud.  Did the DNC consult all however-many-candidates there were back when they were making this decision?  

    Somehow, I don't think so, but now they fear being blamed for the whole mess, so they are hoping to shift it all over to Clinton and Obama - so if Florida and Michigan never get counted, the DNC can lamely say they really, really tried, but, they just couldn't get the candidates to agree on what to do.

    As my father used to say, Jesus Christ on a crutch.  I don't know if there is some kind of weird virus that infects Democrats in so-called leadership positions, but when you look at what we've got "leading" us - Reid, Pelosi and Dean - it's enough to make a person weep.

    Since it seems unlikely that there will ever be a meeting of the "minds" on this, the right thing to do would be for Howard Dean to suck it up and say the following:

    "Today, the DNC is announcing that effective immediately, the delegations from Michigan and Florida will be seated, as follows:

      1.  Florida's delegation will be seated and delegates awarded in accordance with the January vote.

      2.  Michigan's delegation will be seated by awarding delegates to those candidates who received the requisite percentage of the vote to make them eligible.  The DNC is aware that candidates made a strategic decision to remove their names from the ballot, and efforts were undertaken to solicit citizens to vote ubcommitted.  Since there is no reasonable way to determine the intentions of individual voters, the uncommitted delegates will be seated as uncommitted, and will be free to align with the candidate of their choice.

      3.  In hindsight, the DNC erred in imposing a draconian punishment on the Florida and Michigan delegations.  Going forward, the committee will be reviewing the sequence of events in the hope of avoiding this kind of problem in the future.

      4.  Finally, given that I, as the chairman of the DNC, am ultimately responsible for what has transpired, I hereby resign my position, effective immediately."

    Stop the madness!

    karma (none / 0) (#156)
    by 1950democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:09:13 AM EST
    I think it would be very fitting to seat the Uncommitted slate as, d'oh, uncommitted. :-)

    Looks like the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    learned from the Bush School of PR management.

    Step 1:  Make the headline sound really good!

    Example:  "The FL Delegates will be seated!"

    Step 2:  Put the reality that makes the headline completely misleading into very, very small print.

    "Clear Skies, Healthy Forest, The Delegates Will Be Seated (in a chair across the street).

    What is really sad to me .. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:47:51 AM EST
    Here in Fla i belong to the oldest Democratic womens club in the nation.
    We have women in their 90+'s
    When we had the 65th anniversary a couple years ago, we had the books that were preserved from when the club began, and the board emembers and the entire board was all Men..because women were not allowed to organize a democratic club without being set up by men.

    I am much younger than some of our wonderful members, but it pains me to see them have their votes taken again.

    When we had our 65th anniversary one of our main speakers was not only a woman, but an African American woman , who ran for president..Carol Mosely Braun.

    We act like this is "first" historical election.

    Aren't all elections Historical, when young people vote for the first time  or people who have never had a vote in a democracy before ..had a vote..

    But what has made this country what it is , is the right to vote. That right that was fought for by all who came before us.
    That vote that saw the sacrifice of so many , both young and old.

    Yes today I am sad. And many times mad..but mostly sad.

    They can take my vote away, but i will never forgive those who do...it is easy for others to give my vote away and to voice their opinion,  but they will never know how it feels inside my gut and my heart ..or those who have paid the ultimate sacrafice for that vote ,and how they feel losing their vote once again.

    There are not enough tears for how I feel.

    Disenfranchisement is a word to many of us..but to have it happen to you, is felt deep inside  ..like you no longer have a country..

    It's like everyone else is invited to the party , but you are kept outside, only to get a glimpse inside,  and you know you  no longer belong.

    excuse me , as i stated above i was an Edwards (none / 0) (#176)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    Supporter and volunteer who travled for Edwards to Iowa and SC, i was a co-captain for a large caucus in Iowa for Edwards with an attorney from San Fran., and I was a 2004 Delegate for Florida.

    You can let your vote be pissed away all you want, but I want me vote to count, I want my neighbors votes to count and I believe in one person one vote. I believe a strong democracy depends on our votes counting.
    I believe very strongly in that, I believe my vote is my most prized  right.
    I believe so much in my vote and that of those who have served this country and those who have not..that i was willing years ago to do something about my vote and your vote being stolen with these corrupt voting machines, that i got off my rear end and did something about it, and educated myself about the machines. And Dug my hand into my pocket and put my money where my mouth was  to fight for audits and pay for them when the state and county would not.

    My husband and i put up the money for an Audit after the 2006 election of our county voting machines..did you care enough to do anything to make sure votes were counted?

    Well I did , I trained people in 2003 and 2004 to work on getting these voting machines auditable or removed from service in my county, because votes were swapping..did you care ?

    I did.

    My husband and son had their votes not counted because the county said their signatures did not match..they were their signatures on absentee ballots, but could anything be done to stop this practice? no..

    and many in my county from the dem party voted absentee because they did not trust the Sequoia voting machines.

    I have a home in another state and i was asked to be in court for 3 candidates that lost their votes by 11 , 18 and 20 votes respectfully in a very large county ..and 75 votes swapped and went to voting machines 40 minutes away by car..and no one could answer how it hbappened,the machines Sequoia were nit supposed to be hooked up to anything that could teansmit votes..so how did it happen?????????????
    i was asked to inspect those machines by the candidates, and check the insides of the machines by the candidates when the judge ordered the wherehouse open and the machines inspected and new tallys run off the machines..did you care, i guess you didn't , but i do...and no there was no way to audit those machines either.

    I am happy for you that you don't care enough about your vote to be disenfranchised.

    I wonder did you ever fight for your vote to count, i bet not..but i have.

    I was one of 5 people who tested our voting machines in 2004 after the 2004 pres election and the machine i had selected radomly out of the wherehouse swapped votes badly and was all filmed and the newspaper reporters all stood behind me and watched it happen and yet the next day on the front page of the large Fla paper the reporter reported the test went just swimmingly!..oh and we had verifiers watching what we voted into the machines..and when my machine was swapping votes..first time it took 3 times to vote Kerry, the second time it swapped it took 5 times to vote kerry, the third time it happened it took 9 times to vote Kerry...the third time " the verifier" did the random votes..oh and it only happened on Kerry votes.

    And yes i do cry a river..i cry for lost democracy that you don't seem too interested in, but i do..enough to fight for the votes of those who do care and even those who don't.

    There is an old saying, you never know what you have lost until it is gone..well I certainly know my vote is gone..and I watched as people didn't care enough to do anything about it, and just shrugged their shoulders..and i was told by the state and national Democratic party to be wuiet about the machines that were stealing our votes..yes they did tell myself and others to be quiet..until 18,000 votes dissapeared in 2006 in Sarasota.

     I also know people and have worked with people who have sat outside wherehouses watching to make sure voting machines were not compromised and people willing to put up the money to pay for audits and people who worked day and night to count all votes, and make sure they were counted legally and to their fullest.

    So you can be cavelier, that is your right, but it is my right to make darn sure each and every persons vote is counted, and no one will tell me my vote doesn't matter.

    Oh and PS: I was a crew member of one of the airlines involved on 9/11 ,I took off out of Newark ahead of UAL Flight 93..as #1 flight attendant on my flight and my airline....my co-workers died that day..they have no voice or vote ..but i will continue to work to make sure everyone else has a voice, so we are never put in that postition again in this nation, and so no one else loses Co-workers or their sons and daughters and husbands and wives, or mommy's and daddy's again.

    Oh and two of my neighbors in NJ lost their sons that day as well. My neighbors think their vote is important!
    I do too.



    oh and i am not a supporter of either candidate (none / 0) (#178)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:54:07 AM EST
    now , that is not the point, I am so sorry you do not understand that..the point is to count the votes of the 1.7+ million people who thought their vote was important enough to go vote on Jan 29th 2008.
    The point is that a democracy depends on people believing their vote is important enough to be angry when your vote is stolen or not counted.

    People all over the world look up to our democracy because of the vote we take for granted.
    And they put their lives at risk to try to emulate us and get their votes to count.

    I am glad you can care so little, I am glad you live in a time and place that you think nothing can happen to you or your loved ones, that your vote means so little to you!!.. I just don't share your apathy for my vote..as I do care, I care alot!


    But another aspect of a representative democracy (none / 0) (#189)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    is that the citizens of that democracy are responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make. That's the only thing that makes it possible.

    The citizens of Michigan and Florida chose, through their elected representatives to hold early primaries at the cost of having delegates seated before the convention. They had the opportunity to arrange some sort of alternative before the fact. If the citizens objected, they should have protested in the streets when their government made that decision; they should have made it unmistakable clear that if their representatives wanted to continue being in power past the next election, they had better respond to the will of the voters.

    Now it's just too late to change things. The states made their choices, the process has begun. No other state is asking for special consideration, to be able to move around or redo their primary because they made an initial decision that events since then have caused them to regret. Why should everyone have to scramble to form sort of solution  to this problem they did not cause?

    This position will not be popular here. I've been very slow in coming to it. But the citizens of Michigan and Florida are not victims. They collectively made decisions through their representatives that are causing an outcome they don't like. Arguing otherwise is arguing against a principal that makes representative democracy possible: citizens are responsible for the decisions of their elected government.

    I wrote a longer post on this here.


    Feel your passion, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:01:05 AM EST
    share your outrage. I too was an Edwards supporter that came in time to support Hillary Clinton. Tepidly as I support ANY politician. I just think she's a very smart, hard-working, pragmatist and that's what we need at this difficult time.

    I quit believing in starry-eyed visionaries after watching my guy, George McGovern, get his butt whipped by a piece of crap like Nixon. (And McGovern was far more qualified than Obama by a long shot.)

    Suggesting that Florida have a caucus, when they have never been a caucus state is ludicrous and dishonest. How in the world does anyone call themselves a progressive when they are willing to tell nearly 2 million voters that their votes don't count?

    You'll come back later and caucus. Except for those of you that can't take time off work, or can't get/afford a baby-sitter, are handicapped and aren't able to attend or are elderly or too frail to have that stamina for a caucus. Cause we don't care about you folks anymore.

    Obama supporters can keep on rationalizing the disenfranchising of these voters and anger a large number of voters or they can agree to act like Democrats and let the people speak.

    Again and again and over and over it is pointed out that this issue is NOT about the damned candidates and who it benefits and who it does not. It's about the voters and their right to have their votes counted and count.

    This issue has been bungled beyond belief.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    was deleted for including profanity.

    a couple of points: (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    1. the DNC can change the rules any time they want, they're not cast in bronze. if they so choose, they have every right to allow the FL & MI delegations to be counted now, and seated as is, with "uncommitted" being given to sen. obama. the candidates can scream all they want, to no avail. dean knows this, but that would require he actually make a decision, something he seems constitutionally incapable of.

    2. sen. obama, should he be the dem. nominee, has less than a snow ball's chance in hell of defeating sen. mccain, all of his "new age politician" nonsense notwithstanding. he knows it, the DNC knows it, sen. clinton knows it and sen. mccain knows it.

    so, by all means, force sen. obama down our throats as the dem. nominee, then everyone run and get the early tickets for the inauguration of president mccain next january.

    Michigan too (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    Petition the Florida delegates to not show up in Denver if the vote isn't counted before Puerto Rico.

    I say sooner but I'm trying to be reasonable.

    I mean showing up after being disenfranchised only condones what happened and allows Dean to put some PR spin on it.

    Love it (none / 0) (#2)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:16:14 PM EST
    48 Stars and 13 Bars... I'll be going to one of those tonight.

    Clinton's statement seems, uh, (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST

    Clinton wrote me a special email about this today (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
    wherein she said there must be democracy.

    millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren't being heard. The delegates they elected won't be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August -- and that's just not fair to those voters.

    (she gets very passionate in our correspondences...)


    It is quite remarkable how many (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    e-mails my puny contribution has generated:  Hill, Bill, Chelsea; the whole gang.

    heh - haven't seen Terry for awhile tho' n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:07:39 PM EST
    And Patti Solis Doyle (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
    didn't even say good-bye.  And I thought we were so close.

    Terry was just the other day (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:38 PM EST
    with a very nice thank you.

    Do the HRC contributers (none / 0) (#47)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:18:47 PM EST
    get emails from the high level staff?

    I, as a BO supporter, see emails from BO insiders much more than "known" individuals.  That has always struck me as odd, because I'm certain most people don't know these insiders.

    Also, do you get a lot of email from the HRC campaign?  I don't get much from the BO campaign, which I like.


    I get one every day (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:05 PM EST
    at least.  Obama doesn't need your money as badly at this point, is my guess. You'll be hearing from him in September!

    she said I was special! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:41:20 PM EST
    You can easily opt out on emails, but I like to keep in touch.

    I like that she thanks us (none / 0) (#101)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    for supporting her after every primary, win or lose. And the photo albums of each state's campaign are a really nice touch, very warm and friendly.

    BTD (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    I don't completely agree with your analysis. You assume that there will be a nominee before the convention. The nominee very possibly won't be determined until the delegates actually vote, and I suspect there will be no nominee on the first ballot if Florida and Michigan aren't settled as there may be many SD's that abstain.

    Even though Dean said SD's should decide by July 1, there is no need at all for anyone to decide who they are voting for before they cast their vote at the convention.

    If Clinton wins 3 of the next 4 there will be no reason for her to drop out. If she keeps battling the race continues all the way until August and for now there is not one legitimate reason why she should end her campaign.

    if the super delegates declare before denver (none / 0) (#24)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    for obama, then the house of clinton will need to stretch the imagination to its limit to stay in.

    this is where we are headed with or without michigan and florida.

    it is true that obama cannot get the magic number through pledged delegates.  but what is overlooked, is that he can get damn close even if the remaining contest play out as expected.

    post puerto rico, the supers will make their choice known.  if clinton has any chance, they must begin to turn the tide of drip drop day to day converts to obama.


    Close only counts in woo-woo... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    Using some nitpickable figures to make my point clear.

    Close only counts in woo-woo... and NOTHING counts till Denver.

    If Obama went into the convention with 4,000 delegates/endorsers, and got arrested and hauled off to jail with Rezko -- they could ALL vote for Gravel or Nader, according to the rules. 'Pledges' really mean little or nothing; all delegates are free to vote their own judgement at any time, really.

    If you want to pretend pledges matter, still -- close doesn't count. If a candidate doesn't have the whole 2,025 going in, still it's going to take some SDs to put him over. If he doesn't have 2,025, it doesn't matter HOW big his lead is. He could go in with 2,000 or 2,024  and all the SDs could still swing it to Hillary.

    So this business about her 'overtaking' his lead in delegates doesn't matter at all. It's just a selling point, a woo-woo intimidation factor

    Obama's camp is pushing 'delegate lead' and 'number of states' as important, because that's where he's leading. Earlier they were pushing 'popular vote' because they thought he would lead there.

    If he were leading in 'electoral votes of swing states', that's what he'd push (but that's what HIllary has, iirc).

    Some SD's are getting pressure from several different directions. They've got their choice of fig-leaves, really. Popular vote of all 50 states, popular vote of all Democrats, popular and/or delegate vote from primaries, their own constituents, etc etc. And after PA and KY and maybe a few more, Hillary may have the full popular vote of Obama's whole 48 states and crossovers, and all the ships at sea.


    PS to site owner (none / 0) (#102)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:00 PM EST
    Woops, I hope I'm not talking too rough. I've just refugeed over from some very rough places....

    ie, (none / 0) (#106)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:54 PM EST
    Which is to say, in my humble soft opinion, they're running fig leaves up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes.

    citizen nineteen fifty, (none / 0) (#120)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    could you give one example of where the house of clinton is in the lead?

    obama is not pulling his front runner status out of thin air.  if you are winning, there is more than one way to spin it, but the winning part is not spin, the "how" i will grant you.

    the difficulty for the house of clinton is that they are now fighting two fronts, obama on one side and a perception of no path to victory on the other.  this is not obama's making.  these are the political dynamics of being in the delegate hole they are in.

    withstanding a major swing in supers, the writing is on the wall.


    With less than 80%, Supers can decide for EITHER (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by 1950democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:59:43 AM EST
    And who is pushing this 'no path to victory defined as delegate lead'? Obama -- and the media.

    Assuming that FL/MI won't do it, neither candidate has a path without the Supers. Pledged delegates are too closely divided. It is going to take some Super votes to break that effective tie.

    Look at it this way. To win without needing any Supers, you need 80% of the pledged delegates. (The Supers make up about 20% of all the 4,000+ delegates.) If you don't have that many pledged delegates, then the whole thing is up for grabs according to who gets the most Supers' votes.

    Obama's path seems to be to persuade enough Supers to vote according to a lead in pledged delegates, however narrow (or whatever he might be leading in  by that time).

    Clinton's path to victory is to show enough Supers that she is the best candidate. Or to stay in till reality shows them: by relative showing in the polls as time goes on; by Obama losing the upcoming elections, doing worse and worse in the polls, having more crazy uncles come out, dissing his grandmothers, going to jail with Rezko, bowling 37....

    I've already mentioned ways that Clinton is  or may soon be leading: popular vote of Democrats, primary votes, popular vote of 50 states, electoral votes of swing states, etc etc. By current projections she will soon be leading even in popular vote of 48 states including Ind, GOP, and "Dems for a Day."

    For some very recent number crunching, see cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/02/usnews
    - join - /whispers/main3991108.shtml
    Defending My Projection: Clinton Can Win The Popular Vote - By Michael Barone
    and a previous article by Barone which it refers to.

    (I hope this is an okay way to do links.)


    the house of obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:20:21 AM EST
    isn't covering itself in glory here either.

    I wrote this, not BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:11 PM EST
    and I believe we'll have a nominee sometime before the convention.  The primaries end in June, the superdelegates will probably make their intentions known in the weeks after that.  No need for them to rush, but the Dems do want the the convention to be a rallying event.  Unless it's incredibly close, I think we'll know weeks before the convention.

    this is not only reasonable, it makes (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    sense to let all the votes go off.  at this moment, i doubt florida and michigan will factor in to the super calculus.

    in the perfect world, obama and clinton would resolve this themselves together.  the optimism is laughable i know.


    Sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:43 PM EST
    Guess it's force of habit. When I see MI/FL  I automatically think BTD is on the prowl again. I hope you are right that the nominee is settled in advance, but to do that I believe they will have to settle the MI/FL debacles in advance. At the snail's pace with which Dean is moving forward on that front I'm not sure it will happen.

    I said it wasn't his ego (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    So maybe that doesn't go for me.

    Also.  If your comment dissappears it's cause i understand swearing is a no no here.

    Happens to everyone.

    BS works.

    oh no. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    You're too busy grading everyone on some arbitrary "Obama/Clinton" scale to conceive of the possibility that the head of the DNC is just trying to find a solution to an extremely prickly situation surrounded by extremely fickle and conflicted parties.  Oh no, it's so much more sensible to you that he's trying to game the system to favor one candidate over another.  

    Oh please, enlighten me what horribly condemning bit of commentary has Howard Dean made that would lead you to believe he's some inside agent for the Obama campaign?  I would really love to hear about it.


    I deleted two of your comments (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    one here and one on another thread because they included profanity. Also, can you please tone down the anger...this is a civil site. Disagreement is fine but insulting other commenters isn't.

    I know. I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#119)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    Still new.  getting a feel for the place.

    Mea culpa.


    although... (none / 0) (#122)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:18:56 PM EST
    ...I will say some of the stuff I'm reading really is...well...freaking ridiculous.

    I love a good civil argument as much as the next person.  It gives me a chance to challenge my own understanding of a situation and the conclusions I've made based on that understanding. I especially love it when someone can cast light on a point of view I hadn't recognized before.  But it's really hard to make a logical argument when the person responding is just throwing around snide comments that have no basis in logic.

    It's like someone bringing a kazoo to a symphony.  Drives me nuts.  

    But I'll try and be better in the future.


    He wouldn't make any commentary (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    To reveal his agenda.

    so no evidence... (none / 0) (#123)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    ...is evidence.

    Is that what you're saying?

    Do you really expect others to just go for that?


    Others already have (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:53 PM EST
    And it's going to get worse if something stupid happens like seating MI and FL after a nominee is chosen.

    I don't think what Dean says (none / 0) (#183)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    is important as what Dean does. And I think it is fair to say what Dean has done has resulted in a pattern that has favored Obama. Your question looks like a misdirect.

    there is no answer (none / 0) (#21)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    because you are correct.  This should be about the voters.  The candidates will never solve it before the convention because they have different interests.  The only thing that could change it at this point would be people power.  Where the people in FL and MI that voted go to their state capitals and demand their votes be counted.  Anything short of that, and it will be hard to get the DNC to move.  So there is no answer.

    Personally I'm beginning to think it's too late (none / 0) (#22)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:49:58 PM EST
    for the Democrats in Fl and MI but then what do I know.

    This (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    is what I'd liek to say to Howie, Donna, Nancy et al.

    "I'm sorry.  We're moving apart from each other.  It's over.  We're through.  Don't call me."

    Oh yeah also "It's YOU , not ME."


    by Publicus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:30:36 PM EST
    If they get their delegation seated with half votes, they should be happy.  But, of course, they aren't nearly as upset as Clintonites contrive them to be.

    Not all of them (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    But enough to impact close elections.

    It depends what you mean by "Democrat" (none / 0) (#70)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:30 PM EST
    The people who actually pushed through the election date change in Florida were Republicans. The worst that can be said of the Democratic leaders was that they didn't fight hard enough to prevent the change. We don't actually know if they could have stopped it.

    The people of Florida who call themselves Democrats, who contribute to the party, canvass for the party, and vote for the party, did not have any say in the matter. We are punishing them for something over which they had no control. We are taking their votes from them because their leaders did not object strenuously enough when Republicans changed the election date.

    Some of these people are quite upset. Some of them will not vote Democratic in November. Given that Florida is generally a difficult state to win, that might damage our chances of winning Florida, and that might damage our chances of winning the general election.

    Therefore, not counting those votes is not only morally wrong, it is reckless.


    I Don't Understand the Logic (none / 0) (#146)
    by HGillette on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:25:18 AM EST
    The people who actually pushed through the election date change in Florida were Republicans. The worst that can be said of the Democratic leaders was that they didn't fight hard enough to prevent the change. We don't actually know if they could have stopped it.

    The people of Florida who call themselves Democrats, who contribute to the party, canvass for the party, and vote for the party, did not have any say in the matter. We are punishing them for something over which they had no control. We are taking their votes from them because their leaders did not object strenuously enough when Republicans changed the election date.

    Some of these people are quite upset. Some of them will not vote Democratic in November.

    So, the Republicans are responsible for disenfranchising the Florida Democrats, so they are going to respond by voting Republican in November? That'll show them!


    Actually (none / 0) (#184)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    It would be better to say "Dean" is responsible for the draconian punishment-- not Republicans. The Republican legislature only gave him the "opportunity" to do his magic.

    This does make me laugh. n/t (none / 0) (#187)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan are close swing states (none / 0) (#75)
    by zyx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:14 PM EST
    not too many Dem voters in those states have to be unhappy to cause McCain to move into the WH next year.

    Just keep looking at those polls that show Obama's total numbers.  The fact that a kind of a lot of voters in Texas and a LOT of voters in Illinois and a lot of voters, oh, even in Georgia are kind of hot for Obama doesn't really matter--unless you can convince strategic numbers of them to move to strategic states for the fall months.


    No, not Florida Democrats (none / 0) (#78)
    by FLDem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:26 PM EST
    It was the Fla. Dem Leaders who broke the rules, not the voters.  Thus, the DNC should seat the pledged delegates based on the 1/29 primary votes, which would allow the FL Dem voters to be heard, but bar the Florida's superdelegates from voting at the convention, which would punish the FL Dem Leaders.  Of course, this would never happen in the real world, but it would be fairer than any of the other proposals I've heard.

    Yes, if... (none / 0) (#113)
    by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
    I agree in principle, that the DNC needs to find some means of 'punishment' that doesn't impact the voters or the candidates. Letting the delegates vote for nominee (in accord with their  voters) but keeping the state leaders out of the wheeling and dealing would make sense in future cases. But this time, it wasn't the fault of the state leaders either, but deliberate mischief by the state GOP -- so, no punishment at all, this time, I'd say.

    So did (none / 0) (#159)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:37 AM EST
    South Carolina, Nevada and Iowa. That doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    And Hillary Clinton supporters, or in your derogatory terms "Clintonites" believe that people have a right to have their votes counted. And upset voters aren't "contrived". You would know how upset some voters in those states are if you bothered to read their comments posted here. But you would rather post your condescending opinion about what they should be "happy" about.

    And no arbitrary "roolz" make any damn difference.
    This is about the voters not the candidates. But that's been stated so many times here that it shouldn't even be necessary to say it any more.


    you are correct but Dean and dems don't seem to (none / 0) (#173)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST

    SC and Nevada Moved up their dates, and the Dem party and DNC accomodated them , and never threatened to strip their delegates, gee i wonder why????????

    What a joke..and to think SC still has Diebold voting machines, they didn't do what Citizens of Florida did with their own time and dime, like fighting to rid the state of the corrupt DRE voting machines..no siree...what was done to Florida was a full frontal stealing and manipulation by Dean and the powers behind him to STEAL THE VOTE AWAY FROM FLORIDA..because he knew it would Florida would not vote as he wished we would and would give Hillary a lead.

    This was begun Last may..May 2007 when dean began pushing Florida to have a caucus instead of a primary.(.a closed Democrats only primary).

    Many of us could not understand then why Dean was pushing the FDP to have a statewide caucus ..over our primary system..now we see it very clearly!!

    This is how the DNC planned to steal our primary..and the nomination..this was pushed on Fla dems last May..so Dean obviously knew what he was doing then..the Fix was in Long before this primary season opened!

    And Donna Brazile was part of the FIX!

    If you don't want to believe that..well i have swamp land here in Fla for you..alligators included!!


    The nominee decides who attends? (none / 0) (#62)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:37:12 PM EST
    The convention will be held in order to choose a nominee who already has to be chosen in order to decide who gets to attend the convention and select him.

    The game is being rigged for Obama. The way the caucuses were counted, the way Florida and Michigan were dismissed. The establishment has chosen the candidate who is running an "anti-establishment" campaign.

    The candidate for "change" is being elected with the same back-door negotiations that have been in place since the nation began.

    Orwell is turning over in his grave.

    Rules and Bylaws committee (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:02 PM EST
    Hillary refers to this committee today because sometime this month they are going to hear a challenge brought by a FL Dem named Ausman to get at least the Superdelegates from FL seated, because he says they are not subject to the same rules as the pledged delegates.  He also has another appeal before that committee for the pledged delegates on some other grounds.  Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic had a good explanation this morning.


    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:35 PM EST
    I'll go check it out. For future reference, links must be in html or they skew the site. Use the link button at the top of your comment box. Thanks again.

    Anytime! (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    Ambinder helped me make sense of the Dean statements where it sounds like he is saying the same thing again and again.  Actually he mostly is, but in different contexts.

    I'll do the links right net time.  Thanks for the tip.


    thank you for that link.. (none / 0) (#147)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:25:37 AM EST
    I will send it to my Fla internet groups!!

    thanks again!!


    McCain is our guy (none / 0) (#86)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:51 PM EST
    if the DNC refuses to allow the voters in Florida or Michigan to have their say. I can't believe that he Democratic Party will not stand up for democratic values, i.e. letting voters have a say in an election. I can see it now, there will be a backlash if this were to happened

    Dean wants to avoid broker convention (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:33 PM EST
    I say let it happen.  This bit of getting all the supers to come out early so there is no fighting at the convention is his way of not having to face the music at the convention because of his stupid ruling. You made the stupid ruling now you live with it and face the consequences.  Maybe things have to get so bad that a broker convention is the only way the party well wake up and say "You know we need to make some serious changes so this never happens again" That is if there a party left for next time.  I had my heart set in voting in the GE this year but now I have serious doubt. I think I  will not vote period in the GE if Mi and Fl are prevented from playing a role in determining who the nominee will be. Since the candidates have so much say so on MI and FL I blame Obama for stopping any re vote in those states.  Last time I look the United States it consisted of 50 states not 48.  Obama said he wanted to be president of the UNITED States. Words Mr. Obama just words?

    Is anybody listening? (none / 0) (#148)
    by magnetics on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:31:20 AM EST
    Sheesh!  I am waiting for some grown-ups to show up at the Democratic Central Committee, or whatever it's called.

    It's said Hillary wouldn't clamor for revotes if she stood to lose 'em; I disagree, believing she's smart enough to know that without full inclusion of FL and MI in the nomination, it won't be worth having.

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:28:55 AM EST
    Just like she'll get out there and bust her behind for the party if he should get the nom. Just like what she's been doing for the past 35plus years.

    let's see Obama step up to the plate with the same passion.


    Florida Voters Are Indeed Mad (none / 0) (#165)
    by Terry M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    I can't speak for Tampa, but I assure you that the Democrats in the part of Florida where I live are FURIOUS.  The question for us now is what to do if the DNC continues its stupid ways and goes along with Obama's foot-draggig on Florida and Michigan so as to lock Hillary out.  Shall we write-in Hillary in the GE?  Vote McCain?  Sit the election out?  

    I plan to vote for McCain as a protest.  I have given up my DNC membership.  I have written and telephoned the DNC repeatedly to lodge my complaints.  If my primary vote does not matter to Dean, Brazile, Obama, Pelosi, et al., then they should not assume they will get it in the GE.

    And as for the fault of the Fla. Democratic Party - anyone who is familiar with Florida politics knows that Fla. Dems have NO SAY in Tallahassee.  They haven't since Gov. Chiles died.  Bill Nelson couldn't get a taxi in Tallahassee, let alone a meeting with Gov. Crist, Marco Rubio (Fla. House), Ken Pruitt (Fla. Senate), and the other R's who run Fla. gov't.  

    After what happened in 2000 with Gore, it was very important to Fla. Dems to get a safe voting system - that's what we've been fighting for.  The R's gave us a paper trail for the crappy touchscreen voting machines (which can be hacked, as was proved by Leon County's Super. of Elections) when the primary date was moved.

    Any protest regarding moving the primary date would have been pointless - by not actively protesting we secured an important safeguard for democracy - a legitimate way to count votes.  Who knew that our efforts to secure a safe voting system would be undone by our own party, which took the vote away completely.

    It is Orwellian.  Florida will go red in the GE, and Dean has only himself to blame.  You're doing a heck of a job Deanie!

    And it could be (none / 0) (#186)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    said that you are no democrat if you disrespect the voice of over 2 million voters. See name calling just won't cut it.

    dear Jeralyn (none / 0) (#171)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    I think Florida and Michigan voters should be angry.  However, if we look at this through reductio ad absurdum, maybe Florida and Michigan voters should NEVER ever (ever!) vote again. Or become Republicans.

    Wouldn't that teach Dean a lesson he would never forget?

    And I know some people have raised this issue. Your blog is the most user friendly of any, but I couldn't find the posts.

    By the way, I hope my posts are respectful because I like this blog. I have learned to see Hillary's side of things. I have not been convinced on all matters. But I have been on re-running Michigan and Florida Primaries, because the discourse is warm and not fiery here.

    and so has Florida..in 2004 we voted in March! (none / 0) (#179)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    Long after Kerry was chosen by other states.

    We do not believe as voters that we are more equal than others..we simply want our votes to be counted as we voted them.

    Comments Closing, New Thread (none / 0) (#191)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    is here.

    To all those who keep blaming the voters (none / 0) (#195)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:29:44 PM EST
    of Fl and MI just hold that thought when both states go Republican this Nov.  Then just celebrate the rules and how voters are responsible for those we elect.  Under those circumstances I guess we are all WAR CRIMINALS because of what out Country is doing in Iraq.  Heck let's all of us be tried and sentenced we elected Bush.  Or did we?  Look if you don't want to understand the circumstances of what happened in Fl then that's you business but please quit being so sanctimonious about it and remember that Obama's supporters were among those Democrats that voted for that bill.  They were voting for a paper trail.  The Democrats tried to amend the bill so that the primary part would be a separate bill but failed.  As far as Mr Obama this is not the first time he is on the side of disenfranchisement, remember Chicago in 1996.