home

Saturday Protests Planned Over DNC Refusal To Seat FL Delegation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The FL/MI issue will not go away:

Other Florida Democrats -- led by Hillary Clinton supporters -- are turning to public protests to keep the pressure on the national party. Rallies are planned Saturday in seven Florida cities, including Miami and Fort Lauderdale, to demand that the national party count Florida's delegates. Hundreds of activists are also expected to ride buses to Washington to rally Wednesday.

"This has to do with our civil rights," said Millie Herrera, a potential Clinton convention delegate and the president of the Hispanic Democratic Caucus of Florida. "No one has the right to invalidate our votes."

The Creative Class of the Democratic Party wants this issue to go away. It will not.

(By Big Tent Democrat)

< US Cargo Ship Fires On Iranian Boat In Persian Gulf | House Dem Leadership Supports Obama With Ignorance >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Protests Planned Over DNC Refusal To Seat FL Delegation | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Mille Herrera... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    Is obviously no lawyer.

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    but you want to make the lawyer's argument in this political dispute? Be my guest.

    Parent
    I think the legal argument (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    pales in comparison to the PR argument....

    Parent
    Ummm, no thanks (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Of course not. (none / 0) (#36)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    I never said she shouldn't be listened to. Just that she obviously has a poor grasp of the legal situation.

    Parent
    DNC rules are NOT laws. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    They are rules imposed by a group of self-important politicians. THEY ARE NOT LAWS!!

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    So when someone starts going on about civil rights in regards to primaries, you know they're either heavy on rhetoric or low on facts.

    Parent
    Votes and voters, however, matter (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    Interparty rules are one thing.

    Stripping millions of people of their right to participate in the democratic process to choose a leader is huge.

    The voters didn't break any rules.

    Parent

    A Right? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    No one has a particular right to participate in a party's primary process that is comparable to the right to vote in a general election. A party can establish it's own rules. Those rules were violated in Florida and Michigan. For example, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party established rules that do not permit those registered Independent to vote in their state's primary. If Independents had been permitted to vote, Obama probably would have won. But did you hear the Obama campaign whine about that? Did they complain that Pennsylvania's Independents were denied the right to participate? No. They didn't whine. They just did the best they could within the established rules. The Clintons, however, winning is so paramount that they demonstrate no respect for the established rules or even their own credibility. Hillary Clinton has so little personal integrity that she has no problem publicly stating that an election won't count and then later turning on a dime to insist that someone's rights have been violated if it doesn't count. I lost respect for her when she lost respect for her own word.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    Thanks for the giggles.

    By the Rulz of the Democratic Party, all Dean & Co. had to do was strip FL and MI of 50% of their delegates and have all the popular votes count.

    This mess was totally unnecessary.

    Parent

    Popular Votes Count? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    The popular vote is nothing more than a talking point in the primary process. The only thing that counts are delegates. Making that point is none other than the voice of the Clinton campaign the day after Super Tuesday:

    "...we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee." Howard Wolfson, 2/6/08

    But with Clinton facing an insurmountable lead among delegates, the Clinton campaign is desperately grasping at any conceivable metric to claim victory -- even popular votes from an election that was declared invalid before the ballots were even cast.

    Parent

    Unless (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    he wins the required delegate count, then delegate count is nothing more than a talking point.

    Parent
    Republicans did that (none / 0) (#141)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    Even though they were fully responsible for the Florida mess and according to one source, for the Michigan mess, as well.

    IIRC, Republicans also punished NH and IA by stripping them of half their delegates.  

    In the process, they were better leaders, and managed to make NH and IA less relevant too.  

    But hey Democrats put idiots like Donna Brazile in charge, and the guy who proposed IN the meeting to up the punishment to full stripping of delegates and pass it with a voice vote.

    You want the American people to trust clowns like this to run the country in a time of war??


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#114)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    we heard Obama whine about everything else, including because someone dared asked him a substantive question while he ate waffles.

    Give me a break.

    Parent

    Psssst (none / 0) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    They were also violated elsewhere. You can't punish one subset and not the other and still argue that rules are rules. If the votes weren't going to count they were better off telling the others to stay where they were rather than moving theirs up in response to Florida and Michigan.

    Parent
    I disagree. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    Yes -- it would not be a right if there were many parties, but for all practical purposes, there are only two. In many, if not most, parts of the country there is only one party in power.

    Therefore, the idea of viewing these two parties as their own private organization that can make their own rules is wrong. Because of this, I think both party's primary's should be implemented and ruled by the government.

    Parent

    funny (none / 0) (#144)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    that those who argue that there is no inherent value and right to voting in the primaries, then turn around, and threaten to leave the party if the superdelegates overturn the pluratity of pleged delegates.

    Don't make my head spin, please.

    If there are no right and wrong, just party rules, Obama supporters should just accept what the rules decide at the end.  

    Not resolving FL and MI will cost democrats the November election.  Imagine, the Michigan and Florida delegation taking the stage with John McCain in GOP convention.  Good Luck working against that image.  

    Parent

    winning (none / 0) (#168)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    is always paramount

    "ain't tiddlywinks"

    if you think you are the best why not be in it to win

    sheesh

    Parent

    From a PR perspective (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    That the DNC reserves a legal right to invalidate votes is still a non-starter.

    Parent
    She may be no lawyer (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    But she's got a vote in November that Obama should be fighting for.

    Parent
    At this point (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    If it comes to a floor battle in the convention, does anybody believe for a second that any of FL's delegates will vote for Obama?

    Good point. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    But his nomination strategy does not include pledged delegates, only popular vote, so it does not matter.

    Oh, wait...[head explodes]

    Parent

    Or Hillary (none / 0) (#17)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    I don't think either dem has a shot in FLA.  Not after this mess.

    Parent
    I saw that recent polls... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    give HRC and McCain an even chance in FL.

    Obama currently loses to McCain by double digits.

    If we go with HRC, we have a chance at FL.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    But McCain's strategy is just to sit back, relax (attack Obama here and there), and wait until we have a nominee.  He isn't really campaigning yet and the 527's don't know who they're going after.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    but remember, Obama lost FL in the primary too.

    I just don't think it's a demographically friendly place for him, whereas HRC has a shot at peeling off McCain's voters there.

    Besides which, she is making political hay over making sure their votes count. I think that would help her a lot in the GE.

    IMHO of course.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:32:49 AM EST
    Obama loses Florida.  No way he wins.  I'm just saying that, given FLA's record of voting shenanigans, the fact that it's very McCain friendly, has many powerful repubs...I don't see Clinton's path to victory.  

    Parent
    White working-class voters. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    How's that? :-)

    That's why she's doing well against McCain and Obama isn't, in FL.

    As for the voting shenanigans, I agree absolutely. That's one thing the Dems are hoping to help prevent by removing the paperless e-voting machines.

    I agree that FL would be a tough win for HRC. But at least it would be in play.

    Parent

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    going to lose FL no matter what he did on this issue.  It's older.  It's Jewish.

    And they ain't gonna vote for Obama.

    One analyst said, and I agree, that bloc has been waiting for an excuse to jump ship.

    He handed it to them.

    Did you hear the Rep. governor on this?

    Oh my......what a silver-haired foxy guy.  I pictured women of a certain age swooning over him.

    He made Dean sound like a child molester slinking around Washington in a trench coat stealing votes from his beloved little gray-haired gals.

    Obama is dead in FL.

    Even if he compromised at this point.  Dead.

    Parent

    You mean the Republican Governor (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    whose party is really to blame for moving up the primary in the first place, is now complaining that the voters are disenfranchised?

    Please. This is just what he hoped the national party would be idiotic enough to do. He is doing a Snoopy dance when the cameras are off him.

    The Republicans have no consciences and no shame. They are like three-year-olds trying to get away with whatever they can, and only crying when they get caught.

    Parent

    I heard the guy (none / 0) (#134)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    and he definitely was cute in that older guy cute way.

    He could sell snow to Alaska.

    Parent

    Florida Dems went right along with them. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    The Florida Democratic Party is at fault for not making an effort to submit a compliant delegate selection plan until the primaries were well underway and the DNC is at fault for the ridiculous sanction imposed.

    Parent
    S FL is Jewish, Latino and GLBT (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mark Woods on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    and a lot of gays are not happy with Mr. 'my gay professor was nice because he didn't proselytize -- comment to the Advocate' Obama.

    Altogether, there's a lot of support for Hillary in FL, especially with the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot, so expect liberals to come out big time to defeat the 'hate bill' and while their at it, vote Democrat.

    But there's a lot of seething anger among folks in Miami against Obama for suppressing our votes, and I can't tell you how many of my friends and neighbors in South Beach told me they had asked for money back from the DNC.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    Clinton didn't suffer the fallout from the DNC disenfranchisement, especially since she fought hard for a revote in both FL and MI.  We have a solid chance of winning FL with her.  With Obama, there's no chance at all.  I fear with Obama as nominee, the ruthless tactics by the likes of Brazile will hurt Democrats as a whole in that state.

    Many local Democrats are livid with the national party.  And those who are not aware of what the DNC has done will be made aware by the GOP.

    Parent

    That is why (none / 0) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    the superdelegates have not "minded" Dean and Pelosi.

    They are not going to be pushed into an early decision.

    You are so right about the anger toward the DNC.

    This is virgin territory for me.  I've never followed a race so closely, but I'm guessing that this isn't an unusual love-hate relationship.

    Parent

    I'll say they are not 'minding' (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    Especially not the Florida and Michigan supers.

    From DNCer Jon Ausman: "DNC Chair Howard Dean has asked all the superdelegates to declare their preferences as soon as possible. After Howard Dean announces his preference, I will think about making up my mind and announce mine.

    "My choice will be based on the following three criteria: one, which candidate is most likely to get 270 electoral votes and win the Presidency; two, which candidate will help us pick up US Senate seats; and, three, which candidate will help us pick up US Representative seats in the House."

    Check out the link, it a very interesting read on poll numbers and such from FLorida. It will scare you into contacting the DNC yourself.

    LINK

    Parent

    Excellent link! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    Thanks for posting.

    Looks like most Democrats want the delegates to be seated and the votes to count, whether they support Hillary or Obama. Shocking that Democrats believe in democracy, eh?

    Parent

    I already (none / 0) (#104)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    announced, and I meant it.  I'm officially Independent.

    I did that when Dean announced that he was pushing the super-delegates to decide.

    I view this about like when I turned 40 and bought a Miata.  LOL*

    I've been a Straight Dem. all of my life.  I'm mad as heck that being a good Dem. hasn't been rewarded.  (yeah....I know.....bit of a martyr here.)

    But it felt really good to say I'm Independent, and I'm sticking to that story.

    My son, a millenium?  He voted for Hillary and he just gently says, "You really going to trash that lifelong record?)

    I swear.....if McCain gives me a reason to vote for him, I would.

    I also can tell you he has yet to do so.

    He's way too conservative for me.

    But I'm open!

    Isn't that pathetic?  To be open to McCain?

    I found myself agreeing with Rush L. the other day.  LOL*

    Up is down in this election, for sure.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#118)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    Unless Ausman gets his way with his appeal, he doesn't get a vote - the MI and FL supers don't get to vote either.

    Parent
    Brazile (none / 0) (#65)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    Isn't ruthless.  She's silly and sad.

    Parent
    Read My Lips (none / 0) (#151)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    We don't care!

    The Florida and MI popular vote was verified by the states.

    The popular vote, therefore, counts.

    Hillary and her supporters will not pay too much attention to the false argument that you can't consider the popular vote.

    Baloney.

    Parent

    The Popular Vote (none / 0) (#160)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST
    Last night the Angels scored 7 runs and the Red Sox scored only 5. 99.99999% of baseball fans would agree that the Angels won.

    However, a spinmeister on the Clinton campaign staff might see it differently. You see, if you look at the box score more closely you'll notice that the Red Sox got 10 hits and the Angels only got 9. So the Clinton campaign holds a conference call with reporters claiming the Red Sox actually won because they got more hits, which demonstrates they are the better team.

    Substitute "delegates" for "runs" and "popular vote" for "hits" and you can see how the Clinton campaign is trying to desperately change the metric of success.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#169)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    the game isn't over

    neither side has won
    , neither side has earned the victory

    the umps have to decide


    Parent

    How can democrats win in november (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    without michigan?? not to mention florida

    They can't, but Obama supporters have already said (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by doyenne49 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
    they don't care. This is about nominating Obama, not winning the GE. They are fools.

    Parent
    Links? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    Please link to Obama supporters saying they don't care about the GE.  That would be quite a story.

    Parent
    I have heard Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    and media shills saying over and over since PA...even David Gergen on CNN...that there are worse things than losing the whitehouse in November and that AA and young, first time voters leaving the party or taking their marbles and staying home is one of those things.

    That seems like losing in the GE is less important to some than winning the GE. Doesn't it? Even if no one has said it directly from Obama's campaign that is the impression that is out there.

    Parent

    Curious (none / 0) (#58)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    because exit polls in 3 states now do not support that fear.

    I guess exit polls are bogus?

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#75)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    You're linking to DK?  I thought that site was just a bunch of loonies.  I'll need better than DK links and "I've heard" statements to believe that Obama's supporters don't care about winning the GE.

    Parent
    Try this... (none / 0) (#46)
    by outsider on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/13312/2818/820/502597

    And BTD writing on that post:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/24/173044/838


    Parent

    Not exactly what you're looking for... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marco21 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    but interesting post from DK.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/24/173044/838

    Parent

    Look At Second To The Last Post on Page Titled (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    "The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid" by BTD.

    Parent
    BTD blogged on the TINS diary about this (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    Just backtrack and you can read BTD's post, the diary he commented on, and so on.

    Do your own catching up.

    Parent

    There was a post (none / 0) (#177)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    up on KOS to this effect a day or so back.

    The post said, in effect, that Obama should be supported for the nomination even if he's guaranteed to lose the GE.

    Parent

    They can't. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    But Obama thinks they can.

    It's a little too risky for my taste. Maybe in eight years, after HRC has straightened up the country, he can try again.

    Parent

    If the dem. party told me my vote didn't count (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    in the primary then they shouldn't even bother asking me for it in november.

    i think a lot of people feel that way

    Parent

    And I don't blame them. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    I can't help it, I'm voting Dem. But if Obama gets the nomination without Florida and Michigan, I'm leaving the Party after the election, and never coming back. I may become an activist for the Independent or Working Families Party instead of the Democratic Party.

    Chickens do come home to roost, you know.

    Parent

    Ditto (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mark Woods on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    Me, too, but I plan burn my DNC membership card and then to buy a goat farm in Canada (no kidding).

    Parent
    She is doing (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    a nice job of keeping this on the radar. The delegate situation in Michigan continues to be an interesting story. From the TPM link this AM, Clinton could end up with 70% of the pledged delegates. The political professionals are having an impact. While no more politics the old way is a lovely thought there is the reality of human nature.

    (snort) Politics the Old Way (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    Is what got us in this mess.

    The punishment of FL & MI was decided in a classic backroom deal.

    Parent

    You can have it in (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lahdee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    the back room or you can have it in the front room, but you are going to have it.

    Parent
    Who is destroying party unity these days? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    Oh, the DNC.

    More specifically... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    Donna Brazile

    Parent
    I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    if Florida and Michigan are counted. If not, I will abstain from voting in the GE. It's not that I have an inflated pride issue, this is actually a protest of the Democratic Party. If we let them get away with not counting all 50 states, what will our party stand for if "let every vote count" is just an afterthought?
    Once the nominee is chosen (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    they will be counted.  What is your time frame for counting them?  Once the nom is official, they will be able to give all of their attention to FL and MI.  It may not be until the convention that they will be seated, but it will be a great reason to celebrate, the seating of FL and MI woohoo.  The media will not be able to talk about how well the dems handled the situation.  I can see the faces of those watching in the streets at the convention with baited breath.  The balloons will let lose and confetti will fall, the cheering will be deafening.

    Parent
    that's such (none / 0) (#170)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    a stupid idea

    counting them after the nominee is chosen DOESN"T MEAN SQUAT

    like hell count them after the nominee is chosen

    are u friggin kidding me?

    Parent

    Obama and the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    have made a fundraising deal.  If I didn't believe they were in the tank for Obama before, I surely do now!

    Somehow I don't think they're going to be paying much attention to the FL protest.  

    My head just exploded. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    I've never heard of such a thing.  Never.

    Parent
    They say they (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    were in meetings to offer the deal to Clinton as well but no deal has been struck yet. If that is the case then they should strike no deal with Obama and keep it out of the press.

    This looks like an endorsement and it is highly unusual, predjudicitial (sp?) and really p*sses me off.

    I am a Florida voter and if this is how they feel about me then they can kiss me goodbye in the GE.

    Parent

    It's all about the ducats. (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:31:59 AM EST
    Strangely, the DNC has not been making a lot of money lately. Wonder why?

    Instead of trying to resolve the situation and make money fairly, they're tapping into Obama's giant cash register. They're desperate and they don't even realize that their actions are only going to make it look more like their thumbs are on the scale for Obama.

    Parent

    Obama and the DNC (none / 0) (#40)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    = OTP.  theirloveissopure!

    Parent
    Don't freak out too much... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    read the full story.

    They offered the same deal to HRC too. She doesn't have the money to take them up on it yet but hasn't said no.

    McCain made a similar deal with the RNC in March of this year.

    Parent

    The DNC (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    will be taking Obama's money, from what I understand. All they see are $$$ signs.

    Parent
    this (none / 0) (#171)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    is friggin infuriating

    makes me so angry

    what the hell is happening to this party

    is this puppy love with Obama, where all reason has left their heads?  

    Parent

    "Sources say" (none / 0) (#50)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    Maybe it's so, but I'd like to hear the Clinton camp's take on this.

    Parent
    Yeah. (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    Regardless the DNC striking a deal like that with Obama at this time is bogus.  He can raise money in a flash.  This just lays the ground for further claims of his nomination's illegitimacy and further complaints that the DNC is operating in a smoke-filled room.

    Parent
    McCain is the republican nominee (none / 0) (#54)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    His deal was made after he became the nominee.

    We have no nominee yet and it is inapproprite, to say the least, of the DNC to anounce a deal with one candidate and not the other. Either make sure you do it with both or do it with neither.

    Parent

    I'm not surprised (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    Dean got applause from Dean when Clinton backers met with them.

    The top FL Dem walked out.  He said he'd already expressed his feelings privately.  No need for drama.

    The DNC is backing Obama, and I've already written to say I'm now officially an Independent.

    Pelosi is out stumping for Obama, making sure she kills any hopes of a unity ticket to force the issue and win the hearts of Obama supporters.  Maybe they'll forgive her now for the impeachment deal.

    Are we rumbling yet?  :)

    Parent

    Uh...isn't this a good thing? (none / 0) (#52)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    He's basically trying to extend the benefits of his fundraising machine to Democratic races everywhere, so we can rack up downticket wins...even if you don't think Obama is the best nominee, you have to agree that trying to help Democrats who don't have their media exposure and fundraising potential is exactly the kind of thing all high-profile Democrats should be doing.

    Keep perspective. Everything Obama does is not evil.

    Parent

    Why not extend them to revotes in FL and MI (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    Looks funny to me I must say.

    It smells.

    Parent

    Pardon (none / 0) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    me.  But Hillary found the money to back FL and MI revotes.

    She's not a slouch at fundraising.

    Parent

    Which is why the DNC is talking to her too. (none / 0) (#126)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    They just want money. They'll happily take Hillary's.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#172)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    I'm not a high minded Democrat anymore

    I'm going to register independent the day Obama gets the nomination

    then ?I'm not beholden to anyone

    they can go to hell

    Parent

    Um . . . (none / 0) (#143)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    Did you read the article?  The DNC is working on a similar arrangement with the Clinton campaign.  Just because we're having an extended primary doesn't mean the Party infrastructure doesn't need to prepare for the general.

    Parent
    Ummm... (none / 0) (#155)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    It might have been more appropriate had the DNC waited till there's a nominee or until they reached an agreement with the Hillary campaign before hopping into bed with Obama (but then again, they've been in bed with him all along).

    Parent
    I don't recall. Do we know who announced it? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    Quite possibly the DNC's intent was to announce deals with both campaigns together but the Obama campaign leaked it.

    The DNC cannot afford to wait for a nominee any longer.  It needs to be working with both campaigns with an eye towards the general.

    Parent

    GO FL AND MI! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST
    Obama should have taken the revote deal offered.  :)

    So the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    doesn't want to alienate black voters, but doesn't mind angering the rest of us who support Hillary?

    Do I have that right?

    We're not part (none / 0) (#106)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    of the New Democratic Coalition of Unity and Ponies.

    So yes, you are exactly right.

    Amazing, eh?

    Parent

    Amazing since I read one blogger (none / 0) (#119)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    claimed that we're tired of the "move to the middle" strategy.  

    Someone better tell Obama.  :-)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    In the old days it was called "mau-mauing."

    Parent
    Isn't is interesting that Obama is willing (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    to deprive the Florida and Michigan voters of their civil rights (to help him win the nomination) while at the same time, decrying racism in order to gain momentum....What a joke...

    Changing the rules after the fact?? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by zebedee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    One of the myths that seems to be propagating is that HRC wanted the Fla votes to count AFTER she won the states. This is untrue, she adopted her position in Jan before the vote on 29th

    Plus, HRC never said she didn't want result not... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    ...to count. She speculated that they probably wouldn't be counted and she agreed not to campaign there, but she never said the results shouldn't count. This is an important point, b/c Obama and Edwards took their name off of Michigan, but not Florida. Why? Because Florida came after IA, NH, NV and SC and wouldn't be an effective campaign ploy like taking Michigan off, which came between NH and NV.

    Parent
    Do you think the FL democrats. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    are willing to go to the wall on this -- that is, refuse to participate in November?

    On t he margins? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Of course. But I think it is clear Obama has written off Florida in November.

    Parent
    And Michigan? BO really blew it (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    in the delegate allotment there in recent days.

    If he's going to blow off both FL and MI this way, let's just hand Cindy McCain the yardstick to start measuring for new drapes in the Oval Office.

    Parent

    Here's a link (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    an article by Gene Lyons I thought was interesting. He touches on the FL issue and electability too.
    http://www.nwarktimes.com/adg/Editorial/223629/


    Parent
    I doubt it. (none / 0) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM EST
    It may be ultimately be unattainable but I doubt either candidate is going to write of the largest swing state of all.  Further, I'd say that no candidate who can't compete in Florida is likely to be viable nationally.

    But my question really is will the Florida Democratic Committee lay down the marker -- count our votes or don't expect to see us in November?  Not as a "some people say they won't Dem" thing, but as an official policy.

    Parent

    Well, Obama is non-competitive in FL (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM EST
    so. . .

    Parent
    I can't believe. . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    that Obama won't be at least competitive in Florida  -- for some hazy definition of "competitive" (perhaps within 5 percent).  I know a recent poll showed otherwise, but I don't believe things will finish up that way.  Absent, that is, a coordinated effort by Florida to throw the election.

    Something similar happened here in New York, by the way, in 2001.  The Bronx Democratic Machine essentially threw the election to Bloomberg (after Green took the nomination from Ferrer), hoping for another chance against an unpopular Republican dilettante four years later.  It didn't work out so well for them.

    Parent

    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    Obama's "new electoral map" strategy explained.

    He doesn't think he needs FL. If he is the nominee, he won't even try to win the state.

    Parent

    Florida (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    Florida doesn't need a coordinated effort to have Obama lose. The difference is that the people of Florida have been denied their vote, we aren't just looking at some party in-fighting amongst the party leaders that needs to be explained to the people. Each Dem in Florida, especially those of us who voted, has been personally denied a chance to participate in the process.

    Parent
    I don't think they'll (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    throw the election. I just think that the demographics make it impossible for him to win.

    Parent
    Ditto (none / 0) (#91)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    here.  Voters vote.

    Parent
    Demographics (none / 0) (#92)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    and anger. Florida voters are full of anger right now...across the board and all directed at Obama and the DNC.

    Parent
    Obama has already done so (none / 0) (#28)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    for FL.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    The FDP (Florida Democratic Party) has been very loyal to the DNC during this despite the treatment they have received. Even after the delegates were removed, the FDP hosted a fundraiser for the DNC and Dean, even if Thurman didn't attend. I wouldn't expect to see any official policy telling people not to vote in November.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    with you.  His expanding state omits FL.

    Parent
    If I lived in Florida and were a Dem (none / 0) (#8)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    I'd be pretty PO'd by my state being constantly used as an electoral punching bag by the Republicans. They were the ones that moved up the primary. They put it in a must-pass legislation about e-voting machines.

    Now the Democrats are getting in on the act. Why? To elect Barack Obama? Senseless, short-sighted and suicidal.

    If I were a Florida Dem, I might just decide enough is enough in November and tell the Democratic Party to stick it where the sun don't shine.

    Parent

    Downticket effect on state Dems in FL (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    must be disastrous.  Or will be soon.

    Obama's impact on the Dems is disastrous, period.  Losing youth vote now in PA, the so-called hope of the party, blah blah blah.

    Parent

    No, we will go to the polls.. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    and vote Democratic, except for Obama. I plan to do that. Vote the straight Dem undercard, leaving the Presidential vote blank.

    Parent
    I thought so, too (none / 0) (#86)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    I thought I'd do that, too.  But, if the MI delegates aren't seated, I think I won't vote at all.  Or maybe vote Green Party.  I don't know.  But no Dem deserves my vote in Nov. if they didn't want it in Jan.

    I won't ever vote for Obama at this point.

    Parent

    And how many friends (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    and relatives of Michiganders and Floridians across the country will protest in solidarity (remember that word?)...

    To many it's an issue of fundamental fairness.

    Parent

    Write her in (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    Suggestion:  She won't win, but wouldn't it be a joke if in (at least some) races, the news would have to report that she got at least a percentage or 2 in the race.  If you're going to protest - at least protest where the DNC might (though I doubt it) notice.

    Parent
    And the stay at home (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    The stay at home will actually be a protest vote to the DNC and Democratic party. Yes, there is a bigger pie in the sky and people are suppose to just go along for the sake of the party, but this time, I think people want to say, No more. If there is a fight on the convention floor, so be it. At least it would make it interesting and if you lose a fight, you lose it. If you are told who will be it and have a brokered convention, then people feel their voice was not heard. Thus, the protest vote. There is a choice.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    We're seeing the "back-room" deals now.

    It's not going to play.

    Parent

    after (none / 0) (#173)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:07:53 PM EST
    Obama's humiliating loss in PA, you better not expect to count PA in the Democratic column either.

    If it's Hillary she will win the state.

    If it's Obama, forget it.  She kicked his arse here in PA except in 5 counties.  We're talkin' 75-25 in large areas of the state, and even 63-47 in my Philly suburban Bucks county, home of the elite liberals, a county that will continue to trend Dem until Obama gets the nomination.

    They guy is totally unelectable.  It will be Dukakis all over again.  Cripes - he's tied with McCain in Mass!!!

    That's like sayin' a Republican might not win Utah.  

    Un-friggin-believeable

    Parent

    I am a FL Dem and that just (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    about sums up the attitude here perfectly. Why give our votes to someone who only wants them when it is convenient for him? Even the black community down here is getting mad about it. They have fought too long and too hard for their vote to have a black man discard it as if it means nothing. People don't get that part of Obama's strategy. He is disenfranchising black people who see their vote as a sign of accomplishment in civil rights. Down here they had to pay poll taxes, take literacy tests, etc. in the living memory of many of the current voters. For a black man to discount their votes for political expediency is a clear signal that Obama has no clue about civil rights and the long fight it took to get this far. That is what is going to count against him, not only in FL but in other states.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#120)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    A favorite blog of mine is an AA site that has the attitude that Obama will make them irrelevant.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#125)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    Even the black community down here is getting mad about it. They have fought too long and too hard for their vote to have a black man discard it as if it means nothing.

    I didn't even consider that.  That's gotta hurt.

    Parent

    Obama hasn't thought of it either, (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    but he has NO history in the civil rights movement, or any connection to it, so why would he consider that angle? The younger AAs won't take that view, until their parents and grandparents explain it to them. Then they will be angry and feel betrayed. And rightly so.

    Parent
    According to polls (none / 0) (#19)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:14:56 AM EST
    Yes this will have some Dems staying home or like me, not voting in the Presidential race (too many stupid amendment issues that must be voted against not to vote at all). Although probably a smaller amount than the polls indicate, but still enough to possibly be a factor.

    Parent
    FL will (none / 0) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    go to McCain, of course, if Obama survives the nomination.

    Parent
    Ausman Appeal (none / 0) (#29)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    Did you see that the Ausman is saying he expects a hearing on his appeal in about 6 weeks. That would put it after all the voting is done. I suppose they hope it will be all over by then and in their minds will no longer matter.

    Haven't Howard Dean and Donna Brazile Committed (none / 0) (#56)
    by nativenycer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    ...criminal acts? These "rules" must be illegal, no?

    DNC Primary Process (none / 0) (#69)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    The nominating process should be changed. There should be some winner take all delegates in at least the 10 most populated states.

    It's hard to imagine that the people who are PAID to create this process didn't see this coming. That's why they included superdelegates to vote for any candidate they WISH, for ANY reason they wish.

    But the spin you hear on TV is that they should follow the elected delegates and that was never the intention.

    Winner take all... (none / 0) (#73)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    Makes a mockery of the Democratic process. I realize we employ it in the EC, but that doesn't make it any better.

    If we really had a winner take-all system, only 3 or 4 states would matter at all. Ugh. No thanks.

    Parent

    If we had a national primary day (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    none of this would be happening.

    Simplest solution going forward, IMHO.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:10:50 PM EST
    against the Nat'l Primary Day.  

    So many things change over time....can you imagine if he was nominated and then we found out things like Wright, Ayers, clinggate, etc?

    oh baby

    Parent

    How does winner take all (none / 0) (#84)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    make a mockery of the process? True democracy is popular vote winner WINS, not the electoral college

    Two people can't share an elected office like they share delegates...

    Parent

    Because candidates will only cater... (none / 0) (#88)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    To the very largest states and cities. There will be no reason to go anywhere else. Especially in a primary election, where there are often 6-7 candidates.

    You'll see people 'winning' the nomination with 30% of the vote....all coming from a handful of population centers. Joy.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#95)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    All votes count the same no matter where they come from, rural or urban.

    Parent
    But all voters are not as difficult to reach. (none / 0) (#109)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    It's hard to reach voters in rural areas. They don't have the media saturation that urban voters do, and they're just plain farther apart.

    So assume you're a candidate with 10 million to spend. Are you going to dump that into the two largest cities in the state, or are you going to start driving to farms that are 40 miles apart? Remember, as long as you have 1 more vote than your opponent, you get every single vote in the state.

    Parent

    Forget winner takes all (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    what we need to do is scrap the delegates and have states vote in blocs, or all at once. I am personally in favor of a national primary day.

    Parent
    Winner take all - not (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    A winner take all situation is not good because then the candidates would only campaign in the big cities. They would have no reason to court the white working class or the rural voters.

    Parent
    Unlessq (none / 0) (#110)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    Unless it's Clinton v. Obama, where she's whomping his butt in the rural areas.  Just sayin'.

    Parent
    Not Necessarily (none / 0) (#153)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    It could be winner take all on a Congressional district basis -- not a statewide basis -- which would address your concern.

    Parent
    Obama's probable Florida strategy (none / 0) (#71)
    by zebedee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    Here's my guess. Obama has no problem Florida delegates being seated and voting at the convention  AS LONG AS it doesn't change the outcome  (Tom Daschle said as much). So the plan is: wait until the point at which (they hope) Hillary can't win with Fla (and MI if that also doesn't stop a BO nomination) counting and then magnanimously accept the Fla/MI result, hoping that (since they can be seated and vote at convention) the delegations and the voters of Fla/MI are appeased. Problem resolved.

    If OTOH HRC gets too close in pledged delegates, they fight furiously to stop these states counting in any way (delegates, throretical popular vote etc)

    Probably Right (none / 0) (#142)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    This sounds about right to me. I think it is both a smart and defensible strategy.

    If I were Howard Dean,  I'd do it like this: On June 4, I would recommend to the DNC that Florida and Michigan be given full delegations in Denver with the delegates apportioned to each candidate equal to that candidate's percentage share of pledged delegates at the end of all the voting. That way those two states delegations would reflect -- but not alter -- the final outcome. That would be the fairest approach possible to the candidates, the delegates and the voters.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#145)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    How is seating the delegates not based on our votes, but on delegates won elsewhere under numerous systems the "fairest approach possible" to the voters? Oh thats right, it helps Obama so it must be fair.

    Don't try to fool the people with such a blatant attempt. It is better to not seat them then it is to dishonestly seat them and lie to the people that they had any sort of say in the election. You play them for fools with that approach.

    Parent

    Answer This: (none / 0) (#150)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    How is it fair to the voters of Florida and Michigan to seat delegates based upon elections that were declared invalid before a single ballot was cast? Analysis based upon 2008 turn out rates has indicated  that an additional 2 million people would have voted in Florida and Michigan if residents had not been told that the results wouldn't count. As a result, there is nothing inherently fair about using the flawed results from two elections that were declared invalid prior to voting. The approach I suggested is much more fair to all involved. If Clinton finishes the voting on June 3 with a majority of pledged delegates overall, she will get a majority of the pledged delegates from both Florida and Michigan. How can that be unfair?

    Parent
    Count votes as is, not as you want (none / 0) (#154)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    Invalid? No they were told no delegates. Invalid isn't the same thing.

    But let's be clear, at the same time people here in Florida were being told the votes would count. Now you and I may disagree over whether that should matter, but make no mistake that mixed messages were being sent (Dean was party to that).

    That analysis about how many more Floridians would have voted is full of fail. Florida had a 42.30% turnout. Median closed primary states had a 41.75% turnout. That flawed analysis would have put Florida at a 68.89% turnout. Anyone who thinks that is seriously deluding themselves. Because NO state has come anywhere near that turnout. You should examine the facts involved in that analysis before you repeat it.

    Its unfair, because its not how people voted. People voted fairly per the circumstances they had no part in creating. And according to polls, they thought their vote mattered. This isn't or rather shouldn't be about Clinton or Obama. Its about the voters. Their votes should be counted as they voted. They shouldn't be bargained or partitioned out. Either how they vote or not at all.

    Parent

    Two Points (none / 0) (#157)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    First, I acknowledge that I haven't looked at the details of the analysis I mentioned. I would point out, however, that it was for Florida and Michigan combined -- not just Florida.

    Second, it IS about Clinton and Obama -- not just the voters. Neither candidate campaigned in Florida and Clinton won by a large margin. But in almost every state this year, Clinton started the campaign with a large lead in the polls. By the end of the campaign, as voters got to know both candidates better, her numbers dropped significantly while his rose correspondingly. I'm sure the Clinton campaign would have preferred a primary election process that relied entirely on early polls with no actual campaigning to introduce the candidates to the voters. But that's not how a true democracy works. To validate a result based on an election in which all candidates agreed not to campaign would be a stain on our democracy.

    Parent

    I'm aware of that (none / 0) (#163)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    I know the analysis was for Florida and Michigan combined. And per their Florida number alone (which they gave) it would have been a 68.89% turnout in a state which had a 74% turnout for the general in 2004. Never. Going. To. Happen.

    Obama and Clinton voluntarily decided not to campaign. No one forced them. They chose. If it was a stupid move, it was their stupid move. And once again, should not impact the voters or alter the validity of the election. Since neither campaigned in South Dakota, should we invalidate their results too? How many appearances and tv commercials did they make in Alaska? When they choose not to campaign, it doesn't change the validity of the election.

    A stain on the democracy? For counting votes? Because the candidate didn't WANT to compete? I don't think so. The only stain on democracy is the hypocrisy of so many Dems willing to throw away voters and their votes because it benefits their candidate while failing to admit that's their reason.

    Parent

    This would be a travesty (none / 0) (#149)
    by zebedee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    This would be a travesty that anyone would see through. It's the same as ignoring them completely. The whole point of voting is that it should somehow affect the outcome.

    Parent
    This is almost laughable (none / 0) (#162)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:13:31 PM EST
    "seat the delegates as long as it does not alter the outcome"

    Why? Oh yeah, because their candidate lost.

    Parent

    Fla doesn't count (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    Neither Clinton nor her campaign protested when Florida was stripped of its status in August 2007. Only now after the primary and with things so close [and her behind] she wants to count it.
    All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in Florida. It is understandable why the Obama campaign does not want it to count.
    I say blame the Florida legislature for moving the primary up. Or blame them for not getting it together and having a revote.


    And don't blame Obama (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    for blocking the revotes? Pfft, sorry.

    Parent
    I've repeatedly asked this (none / 0) (#159)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    and never received an answer citing facts (except as to MI where I concede there is a least an argument to be made that Obama blocked a revote).

    What is your evidence that Obama blocked a Florida revote?  

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#79)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    now we know what it takes to get the Democratic "base" into the streets.  It's not Iraq, GitMo, habeas, torture, US attorney firings, NSA wiretaps, FBI letters, Katrina, GOP corruption or other actual assaults on Americans actual civil liberties, enshrined in the US Constitution.  Amazing.  Rally away.

    You think having a vote isn't a basic right? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    I know, I know, it's a party nomination process. But no reasonable person could say that this process has been fair to voters in FL or MI.

    Parent
    fair and civil rights (none / 0) (#100)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    are 2 different things.  

    Parent
    Your pedantry (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    outweighs your concern for the rights of voters. Congratulations.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#112)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    i'm just saying that there have been real violations of civil rights and not many people have bothered to get up from their computers and do much of anything about it.  But, the Democratic Party takes issue with FL and MI and it's to the streets we go.  

    Where were the marches in August 2007 when the penalty was announced?  Didn't matter then, it was all going to be made good on the back side by HRC when she inevitably won the Democratic Party nomination.  

    Parent

    Don't you think (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hookfan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    that what Bush has done, is a huge factor in why Florida and Michigan have become such a large issue? I don't think they are separate issues. When the Democratic Party acts like Republicans it's bad for all.

    Parent
    No, I don't see the connection (none / 0) (#135)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    If you can show me a connection, I'm willing to listen.  But as I see it, FL and MI happened because everyone wanted to be First and the powers that be decided that only certain states can be first.  No problem, until . . .

    FL and MI are now big issues because neither BO and HRC are clear winnings and HRC (more than BO because he took his name off in MI so can't really lay claim to any votes) needs those votes to be able to claim that she is ahead in some count (I've lost track of whether its delegates or popular vote or both at the moment).  Before Super Tuesday she was content to just make nice after the fact.  Now that doesn't work so good so we have what we have.  

    Parent

    I was referencing more historically (none / 0) (#178)
    by hookfan on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:25:43 AM EST
    Remember 2000? Same state, same voters. Voter disenfranchisement is the issue and connection. Both states would be big issues,imo, due to the exposure of the flawed process in the primary that is anything but representative democracy. Disallowing voter impact from whole states due to an arbitrary application of rules smacks of what happened from the supreme court in 2000 and appears to highlight the hypocrisy of the Democratic Leadership.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#179)
    by hookfan on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:30:49 AM EST
    if the Democratic party doesn't want representative democracy in play in the primary, why go through the ritual pretense of voting at all? Either voting matters or it doesn't.

    Parent
    Uh, (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    the difference is that now the disenfranchisement ACTUALLY MATTERS. because it could potentially make a difference in who wins.

    Duh.

    Parent

    uh, yeah, (none / 0) (#131)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    but most everything else I rattled off the top of my head also ACTUALLY MATTER too, likely more so that which one of these 2 gets the Democratic nomination for President (where not being allowed to vote is actually disenfranchisement).  

    Parent
    You're basically making (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    an irrelevant attack against people who have a right to be angry.

    It's stupid.

    Parent

    no, i'm commenting on (none / 0) (#139)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    what appears to actually get Democrats angry enough to go marching.  I'm not attacking anyone.  What stokes your passion is your own business.  I'm just pointing out something that jarred me when I read the post.  Disagreements and comments are not always attacks.

    Parent
    Not good enough (none / 0) (#140)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    You don't have any real disagreement with these people on the issue they care about--so far as I can tell--you're just putting them down over another issue entirely: that they aren't upset about the issues that concern you.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#146)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    it's not good enough for you.  but, if i don't have any disagreements that you can see, i'm at a loss to determine how you can believe i'm attacking people.

    as a good (reformed) Catholic, i merely expect any emotion one may feel when i point out what i see to be  the irony of marching over this as opposed to say one of the issues I rattled off would make one stop and think, for only a second, and then move on with your day.

    Parent

    You attacking them (none / 0) (#148)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    in an irrelevant way for not feeling as you feel. In other words, you have no substantive disagreement, you just want to discredit them.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#152)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    I'm not attacking.  I'm pointing out that this is what gets the supposed Democratic base motivated enough to march in the streets as opposed to everything else that's been going on over the past 7 1/2 years.  I personally found it interesting, and, in the spirit of blogging, pointed out what I found interesting.  I did not expect everyone to agree with me, but, as I said before, what stokes  a passion is everyone's own business.  

    Just don't assume I'm attacking when I'm not. I'm just commenting and, apparently, the comment has struck a nerve such that you believe I'm attacking you or some other people.  A comment that disagrees is not an attack, it's just a comment that disagrees.  

    Every moment of every day is not a fight, a battle, a war.  

    Parent

    There have been plenty of protests (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    of all of those issues. In fact, millions of us marched against the invasion of Iraq.

    Your disdain is ignorant.

    Parent

    One out of how many ain't bad (none / 0) (#108)
    by po on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    I suppose.  Though I seriously doubt millions marched in the US over Iraq, and my quick Googling didn't turn up any evidence that your number is correct.  Wish it were, but don't think it is.  Perhaps Europe, but not the US.  

    Disdain -- indeed; ignorant -- not.

    Parent

    Um, you're wrong (none / 0) (#147)
    by vicndabx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    here's one link.  I was here in NYC when it happened.  I remember marches happened all over the country.  And please, don't quibble about the numbers.  The fact is a large number of folks marched.

    Parent
    you know what? (none / 0) (#175)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    this just illustrates that you do not mess with people's votes in this country

    alot of protestable things do not get people's ire up like this

    this is most personal

    Parent

    Excellent I'm so proud of us.. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    count me in.

    Creative Class (none / 0) (#105)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    So, I make my living working for a web retailer.  And I really don't like being considered the next bad person that must be defeated. Is there not room in the Big Tent for me?

    Silly uncreative untermenschen! (none / 0) (#164)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    Clinging to the franchise!

    What's wrong with them?

    Why do they hate the unity pony?

    au contraire (none / 0) (#176)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    we get plenty worked up about issues, and our candidate understands the issues

    and our candidate did vote for the war - at the same time about 90% of the country wanted the war

    and you know what?  Barack himself said he does not know how he would have voted had he heard what the others heard

    So Mr. Hindsight is 20-20 acts like he has the best jucgement - however, he can't get up and leave the church when Wright preaches hate, he throws parties for Tony Rezko, hangs out with ex-Weathermen, and calls small town Americans clingy over religion and guns.  Boy does he have good judgement.

    The Issues (none / 0) (#180)
    by glennmcgahee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    I know the issues that Hillary cares about. I know that our votes in Florida are being discarded and ignored when the pundits and media talks about who is ahead and pledged delegates. Florida will back Hillary Clinton for President. Her issues are our issues. The Republicans have been negligent down here and people are in shock with housing foreclosures, layoffs, food prices, the cost of living is soaring and the budget cuts that are being enacted by our state legislature is going to bring a world of hurt, not to mention what its going to do to our services from police to firemen, and especially our public school system which is being siphoned off to pay for vouchers and No Child Left Behind brought to us by Jeb Bush. This should be a Democratic landslide here. Now, because of the DNC, if Obama becomes the nominee because we've been disenfranchised by our own party, alot of the voters will be staying home in November. The down-ticket candidates will suffer. America will suffer too because John McCain will be elected President.

    Saturday Protests Planned Over DNC Refusal To Seat FL Delegation | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment