Edwards Endorsement Should Lead To Full Seating Of FL/MI

One good thing to come from John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama is that there is absolutely no reason at all now to now seat the full Florida and Michigan delegations. Edwards will now throw his delegates to Obama. In Florida that would mean a 105-80 split in favor of Hillary Clinton. In Michigan that would mean a 73-60 split in favor of Clinton. The total gain for Clinton would 33 delegates, down from 48 delegates.

Barack Obama needs to take the bull by the horns here, tell Donna Brazile that winning in November matters more than her silly turf wars in the DNC, and regain the high ground in Florida and Michigan.

Do it now Barack. For your sake and the sake of the Party.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Edwards Ups the Ante In Kentucky: Thread Four | Why Did John Edwards Endorse Obama Today? Thread V >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He can recommend, but does he own (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    his delegates to the point where he can dictate how they vote?

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#16)
    by NotThatStupid on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    I don't think a candidate owns his delegates in the manner envisioned here. He can recommend, but if Edwards officially drops out, I think the delegates he has won become free agents.

    I'm willing to be corrected, but I think that's how it works.


    I'm talking practicalities (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    Not legal technicalities.

    He Can ask (none / 0) (#34)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:27:55 PM EST
    but they are free to vote how they wish.

    Yep (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:04:03 PM EST
    I believe he can pretty much assure Obama they will go for him.

    Even if they didn't (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    They would have to break huge for Clinton to give Obama any reason to reject this deal. I think it's obvious that they will not.

    If you can, send Hillary $$ (none / 0) (#64)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    This is the best way to answer this endorsement!!

    If the reason for the DNC to exist (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    is to let Donna Brazile play God with the franchise, then I say let it die. We'll figure out something else.

    Much better than my response (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    The DNC needs to do a serious (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:13 PM EST
    think on how they run their primary. I'd love to see a Regional schedule with just 4 voting days in total.

    Why do political parties exist? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    Due respect, this is nonsense. Sheer nonsense.

    If you call the way FL.MI was handled running a party then let's make sure you NEVER are in charge. As we should make sure Donna Brazile is not in charge.

    Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    Donna Brazile's fiefdom rulz are nonsense. you are spewing nonsense. Brazile violated the DNC rules in her punishments.

    Stop the Bs. Now. Or be gone.


    I agree (none / 0) (#81)
    by thea2b on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:02:25 AM EST
    I think there should be a national primary then a runoff in Nov with the 2 candidates that got the most votes. But of course then the schills on the hill would not have all that cash to play with and each election their jobs may be in jeopardy.

    If the DNC completely disenfranchises two states (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Evie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    because of this, they will lose these states now and in future elections.

    If they do not uphold democratic principles and the right to vote, then they should stop existing, because they are no longer "Democratic."

    No, they'll go GOP because that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    is the party that showed them some minimal respect.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    I am an adult. And as an adult, I realize that a party that loses touch with the basic tenets of right and wrong, that uses the right to vote as a reward or punishment rather than a right, and that punishes people who had nothing to do with the "crime" does not represent the values they espouse.

    This country was founded on the principal that without a voice, without a vote, that people are not represented. And without that representation they must resist. You may say that a political party is not a government and I agree. It makes it worse however. Because an arbitrary schedule over which I have no say is not a noble principal upon which my vote or anyone's vote should be sacrificed.

    Punishment should always fit the crime and be directed at those who commit the crime. Anything else is an injustice. And any political party that forgets that, needs to be reminded in the most forceful and unequivocal terms.


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    the difference between principal and principle even if my writing doesn't show it. :D

    NH & South Carolina violated the rules, too. (none / 0) (#73)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST

    But they didn't get penalized.  It seems as though teh DNC just wants to punish FL and MI, or that Brazile & Co are SO pro-Obama and have been since before voting even started that they wanted to see this happen.  Brazile even thought Obama would win NH.  He didn't.  So she and JJJr. race-baited Hillary's "tears" ("she didn't cry for Katrina victims").

    Edwards delegates can go (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    wherever they want. They don't have to follow to Obama. Some might choose Hillary.

    Obama must agree to seat the delegates as is per the votes that were taken. Obama doesn't get Edwards' delegates automatically.

    Oh sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    I know that. But they will go the way Edwards asks them to.

    That is why Obama should accept the FL/MI delegations now.


    Accepting MI & FL Now (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    will do nothing to improve Obama's image in Michigan, Florida or anywhere else; it's easy to accepting seating of delegates once you believe you have the count in the bag with the strong possibility of the addition of Edwards' delegates.  It will be seen as an empty gesture, too little too late.  

    You're Obama isn't liked in FL (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mark Woods on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:43 AM EST
    and I've read posts from fellow FL who plan to show up with bullhorns to heckle him when he arrives in our so-called 'battleground' state to set us straight on pony love -- it ain't gonna fly in Miami, that's sure.

    Mainly because he betrayed our vote for his personal gain, but also because the value system of Latinos and the Jewish community is offended by his disrespect for Hillary, perceived to be a senior 'matron', i.e., someone not to be openly insulted.

    Abraham Lavender at FIU has done research on the Cuban youth shift to the left, away from Republicans, and Obama did nothing to energize this sector.

    I called House Dem Leader Rep. Dan Gelber to let him know his endorsement of Barack doesn't reflect me or my Miami Beach neighbors (305-531-7831). Gelber's running for Senate I hear and might be sensitive to pressure . . .


    On Morning Joe today (none / 0) (#83)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    Chuck Todd was giving his view of the Dem race, and indicated he thought MI & FL would definitely be "punished" in some way; Pat Buchanan made clear he thinks that punishing these states, even if punishment is milder than 100% no delegate seating, is a whopping political mistake.

    That's What I Was Thinking (none / 0) (#80)
    by flashman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    If this is the old, "We'll seat them as long as they don't affect the outcome", then forgetaboutit.  The whole idea is pretty condescenting to those voters, IMO.

    Not true (none / 0) (#67)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    Sorry,  Edwards supporters have a mind of their own BTD.  To suggest that they will blindly follow him is an insult!

    Respect for Democracy should seat FL/MI I do not care what any politician or pundit says.


    Anyone's delegate from any state (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:07:14 PM EST
    can vote for whomever they want. I think this is just a question of who chooses the slate. I think Edwards could tell his people in Michigan to put Obama delegates on his slate. Or he could just ask his supporters to vote for Obama, which they likely then would.

    Edwards wasn't on the MI ballot (none / 0) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    either, so I hope there isn't an additional split of delegates. It's bad enough at 59/69.

    YES (none / 0) (#51)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    I totally agree.  Many Edwards supporters do NOT agree with his endorsement and will not want Obama to blanketly get the undecideds in WI.  

    Why is Obama spending time in MI?  I smell a re-vote...  Why does he and Edwards know before Clinton?

    Stinks to me...


    Obama won't do it because (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    of the popular vote. He doesn't understand that the supers will consider it anyway.

    Where did the idea of Edwards as an elder statemen and one of the "great leaders of the democratic party" come from?

    I was wondering that too (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:59 PM EST
    i like Edwards fine, but I've never considered him a great leader of the party.

    Unity does not Equal Victory (none / 0) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    Why do so many Democrats presume that "unity" will bring victory in the general election?  In 2004 we had unity behind Kerry very early on, but the unity did not change the results.

    I wonder if any Michiganders (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:18:27 PM EST
    thought, as I did, that it somehow was . . . tasteless . . . to have to see tonight in Michigan the two guys that took their name off the ballot there and helped to precipitate this mess?

    It sure struck me as bad form, somehow.  Both said they would not campaign there, they would not even run there, and then they put the endorsement event there to gang up on and shut down the candidate who did run in Michigan and has fought for their votes.

    But the bad form, the lack of class of the Obama campaign has been constant.  I would have thought that Edwards was smarter, though.  I live and learn -- and what I've learned about the Dems after all these decades of supporting them, I do not like at all.

    I have found such freedom in declaring myself an Independent.  It's so much less stressful to discuss the Dems in the third person.

    If there was a "Theme" for this primary (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    it would not be Unity based on the behavior of the candidate who claims that particular blessing is firmly attached to his soul.

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:35:56 PM EST
    To be honest, in reviewing media coverage of Obama's visit to MI today, I sensed a certain degree of hostility from the local media towards Obama.  Maybe it's because of the way he's handled the delegate issue, or maybe it's because of the way he's done a Sista Souljah number on Detroit in his stump speech throughout this primary.

    I don't think Edwards is linked to the whole primary debacle in the eyes of most Michiganders, so I think the endorsement taking place in MI is a non-factor.


    What has he sd. about Detroit? (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:44:54 PM EST
    He says (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    to paraphrase, that when he wanted to say that American automakers have blown it by building wasteful gas guzzlers, he had the political courage to say it in Detroit.  No one applauded (actually false), but it's an example of him telling people not what they want to hear, but what they need to know.

    Here is a good article from today's Detroit Free Press on the subject.


    This is priceless: (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said today's visit would be the first of several to Michigan, calling the state a key battleground. He said he didn't expect voters to be upset over Obama's comments.

    Yet he drives (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:39:14 PM EST

    a gas guzzler himself.  He is SUCH a hypocrite from Hell.

    Obama sd. he sprung the (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    Edwards endorsement in MI so they wouldn't feel neglected.

    That is rubbing salt in the wound! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    Talk about "soviet style"!

    Pure Pandering (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:42 PM EST
    & it will be seen as just that.

    Interesting (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:50:39 AM EST
    that he did it in Grand Rapids - the reddest area of the state.  Didn't have the nerve to come back to the Detroit area and do the announcement.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    the whole thing struck me as a big mockery; to the MI voters but also to the WV voters. They just went
    41% for Clinton; why couldn't someone like Edwrads wait 3 weeks? What difference would have made?
    I don't quite understand his rationale. If Edwards
    had the thinking of the party elite (Dean, Brazile, pelosi et al.) about the unity shtick that means he was pro-Obama all along; so why do it now and not ealrier?
    The idea that he is doing it now to dispel the notion Obama can't get blue colar workers only emphasizes the fact that Obama, by himself, indeed cannot get blue colar workers. Edwards endorsement today actually made Obama look incredibly weak.
    A very weak candidate; he seem to be needing all the  help from the part bosses to overcome the fact he cannot close the deal with "the people" when in real primaries. Obama has built his advantage in caucuses and the part seems to be in a big fantasy that will be the dyanamic come November.
    Obama and Edwards' show today was kid of pitiful and made both but especially Obama weak.

    Edwards endorsement would have been menaingful when Obama was coming out a strong performance but today was really pathetic.


    You too? (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:39:09 AM EST
    I find it strangely liberating. I no longer feel obligated to vote for people that I don't like and don't respect simply because there is a "D" behind their name.

    I was disappointed in John Edwards endorsing Obama at this time but not surprised. He is a poltician after all. But I do think it tacky to do so in a state where the two of them took their names off the ballot to pander to another state. Perhaps they think no one will notice?

    Seeing it as political move to counteract the bad publicity of Hillary Clinton stomping Obama flat in WV makes the endorsement mean less. But then I never pay much attention to endorsements anyway. I can make up my mind on my own thank you very much.


    It would be a strong (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    signal to the voters of FL and MI that their votes do indeed matter. If Edwards' backing of Obama is the catalyst that resolves the delegates issue for two crucial general election states then maybe endorsements aren't as meaningless as we all know they are.

    Look Barack a bus with Donna's name on it!

    Wow, that is one person (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    I would drive the bus over myself.

    Brilliant (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    MI and FL got virtually no attention for their primaries, they got no money from the candidates appearing there, they got no influence over the process whatsoever.

    But somehow, if we seat the delegates now, every state will want to end up just like MI and FL.  Every state will want to have a primary where none of the candidates campaign, no media shows up to cover the election, and no visitors spend a dime in their state.  I can't agree with you on this one.

    No robo calls and glossy junk mail? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST

    What about other States (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:12:04 PM EST
    4 other states violated the rules and got a free pass.  This has never been about states violating the rules.  

    50% is best hope (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by thea2b on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:19:42 AM EST
    I think the best hope for MI/Fl seating is a 50% reduction in delegates. They did break the rules, there has to be the "appearance" of some sort of wrist slapping. If anyone has an issue with that they just aren't being logical. It is stupid of the Democratic party to even be in this position to begin with as both states should have scheduled their primaries as they were supposed to and Hillary might actually have a chance at this point. As it stands now this race is over despite the WV vote, despite any results in upcoming primaries. I know I will probably get flamed for this but I am speaking in reality terms. And anyone who would vote for john mccain is not a dem to begin with. It will be the same fools who continue to vote against their best interests because they "would like to have a beer with that guy" That got us W and all his corporate pals raping the US public for all they can. And now we watch these leeches suck the last sips out of the straw in the milkshake of public funds before the criminals in the white house walk away to their multi million dollar homes and fat swiss bank accounts.

    They will be seated (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:09 PM EST
    As soon as this is over, and it will be soon, they will be seated.

    Obama currently has 1884 total delegates and needs 2025, a difference of 142.

    There are 235 elected delegates left and if Clinton and Obama split them he'll need just 25 more super delegates.

    As soon as the winning delegates are lined up Florida and Michigan will be seated.

    2209 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    184 more than you showed.

    Then there is no reason to seat them (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    They need to be seated while they count, or FL and MI will have been completely disenfranchised.

    They don't count (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:44:55 PM EST
    It is too late.  IMO Will anyone be surprised if they decide on May 31? I won't.  If they delay? I won't.  If they go 50/50? I won't.  If they sit as voted? I won't.  If they are cut in half? nope.  I can see no scenario in which the voters have a reason to celebrate.  They have been held in limbo for so long, it is anti-climatic.

    Some people will be satisfied with the decision, some won't, the media will say it doesn't matter.  Edwards already said it will be decided in a way that doesn't change the race.  My guess is Edwards knows this for a fact and has seen the candidates superdee lists and the end result.


    Stupid attitude (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    This is about winning in November. After the fact is the slap in the face. Seat them now.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:49 PM EST

    Wasn't there a state where he asked (none / 0) (#12)
    by MichaelGale on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:33 PM EST
    the delegates to stay with him but they went with Obama?

    Something in Iowa (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    But really, what's the difference? They can either go to Clinton or Obama.

    Didn't MI and FL already choose their delegates? (none / 0) (#20)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    I thought I read that they had.

    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    but I'm willing to bet that Obama won't do it. The news would be full of how Hillary won both MI and FL and it would put her way ahead in the popular vote.

    Of course. That's the entire point (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:40:27 AM EST
    of the frantic push to do it now. Gotta do it now, while it can still help Hillary.

    I agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:07:45 PM EST
    I hope they hammer this out by May 31st, seat the delegations as Armando suggests and let everyone start focusing on McCain and retaking the White House.

    I am so sick of this issue (none / 0) (#26)
    by katiebird on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    I can't believe we still have to think about it.

    We'll deservedly lose this election if it isn't settled. Now is too late but it's our best option.

    You think total removal of (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    delegates, which was not imposed on other states that moved their primaries, is a fair penalty for this violation of the rules?

    How do you come up with 60? I thought the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    uncommitted got less than that. Am I thinking voting percentage?

    BTD, I do have a question (none / 0) (#52)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    what has the Edwards endorsement to do with the MI and Fl seating problem? I am truly missing something here.

    Why should this lead to the full seating of Fl and Mi now? What is it about the Edwards endorsement that should make this happen?

    Also, how did the powers that be figure MI 73:60 in favor for Hillary? Do all the uncommitted go to Obama then?

    I think it makes it easier to swallow (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:12 PM EST
    as not effecting the race.

    Your kidding me BTD (none / 0) (#66)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST
    All of this trying to get FLA/MI seated and would only net 33 delegates. What has been the hold up here with Obama. Do you think Obama will now give his not for them to be seated since he will make of for it in Edwards delegates. Makes one want to write Hillary Clinton across their ballot.

    If Obama and Edwards tagteam again and together (none / 0) (#71)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:00:38 PM EST
    go after Hillary's votes now to affect the race ...
    swallowing for the millions of Hillary voters would be almost impossible I think.

    Also, I do not believe that all the Edwards delegates will follow his orders and go for Obama. Times and opinions change. They may want to vote for Hillary now if the reactions to the E. endorsement by some of her supporters is any indication.

    my two cents


    Big Tent, I wanted to answer Jeralyn's question.. (none / 0) (#65)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:42:04 PM EST
    as to why Edwards endorsed Obama so late.
    I will be as blunt as I can with out apology.
    1.  Edwards did the "Breck Girl" thing (which most political-types do) and decided to give his endorsement so late in the game in order to get something from Obama (a cabinet position or V.P).

    2.  Edwards got something in return for his endorsement.  Obama gave him something to mask his massive loss in WV.  Obama wanted to take the wind out of Hillary's sails.

    Also, Florida and Michigan must now be seated in a way that favors the candidate that won those states, that is Hillary Clinton.

    About #1 (none / 0) (#68)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:46:35 PM EST
    Edwards decided to wait until he thought there was a "presumed" nominee to endorse.  That way he would be safe.  He bet on the leading horse just as they are about to cross the finish line.  There is nothing principled about that.

    That's what makes it such a joke. (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:54:10 PM EST
    A day before WV there was no presumed nominee, but a day after Hillary wins by 41%, Obama is it??

    About #1 (none / 0) (#70)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    I think he told Larry King on the 14 he wasn't ready to endorse anyone yet. What changed this mnan's mind. Maybe man to man talk, I need you buddy I just got whipped bad last night and you can save me like Oprah in California.

    what does one have to do with the other? (none / 0) (#76)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:56:30 AM EST
    the answer is "nothing."

    the real problem is that, (none / 0) (#82)
    by cpinva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    Barack Obama needs to take the bull by the horns here, tell Donna Brazile that winning in November matters more than her silly turf wars in the DNC, and regain the high ground in Florida and Michigan.

    come nov. should he be the dem. nominee, he'll still be barack obama. nothing can change that.