Are Dems Determined To Lose FL and MI In The Fall?

This is a telling story:

The Associated Press interviewed a third of the [DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee] members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.

(Emphasis supplied.) The blithe lack of concern for November 2008 is revealing. Who cares about winning Florida and Michigan in the Fall? Apparently not the DNC. Let's hope Barack Obama does care.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Pew Poll: Media Should Not Declare the Race Over | How Not to Make Friends For November >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clueless (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    The states have already been punished!  Absolutely brain-dead.

    Gosh, yeah, if the delegates are reinstated, in four years EVERYONE will want to have a primary where the candidates don't show up and the media doesn't pay any attention.  The line will be around the block!

    God, if getting delegates at the end of the day were the only thing that mattered to the states, as opposed to attention, influence and money, they wouldn't have had any reason to move the primaries up!

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    This is idiotic.

    One of the interesting things I found in this rather grim analysis by Howard Dean's former pollster about how Obama can get to 270 (hint - it ain't easy) was that the very first must win state he lists is Michigan.  Good job, Democrats!  Good job, Obama campaign.

    For an even grimmer analysis, see here.  Most frightening part, the apparent admission of an Obama staffer that they have no plan for how to win the GE.  I think their handling of MI/FL proves that.


    McGovern was going to change the map too. (none / 0) (#35)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    He was going to win the plain states, then he lost SD.

    Thanks for the links; the best (none / 0) (#103)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    definition of some of the voting demographic blocs was this, IMO:

    the so-called "Creative Class," a numerically insignificant, though noisy, fraction of the population



    100% agree (none / 0) (#107)
    by adcatlett on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:14:29 PM EST
    We have the supers in place in case neither candidate gets the magical number.  The supers for FL and MI have promised who they support but the number of supported supers are 0 in politico's analysis as well as realclearpolitics.com.  


    you have to expand down.  If the supers were counted right now, Hillary is ahead of Obama.


    Don't you see? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    The FLA and MI state parties are disobedient children.  The DNC must maintain its authority as the parent. Even though FLA and MI have already suffered adverse consequences for the change in primary dates -- a change that at least in FLA the state party could not prevent -- FLA and MI must stay in their DNC imposed "time out," even if the consequences are that the voters in those states putting themselves in "time out" in November.

    Because maintaining their parental authority to punish so as to maintain "credibility" in 2012 is way more important than maximizing the Democrats' chances of taking the White House this frakkin' year.  If a Democrat is elected in 2008, the 2012 primaries will likely be pro forma in any event, and it won't matter which primary takes place when.  

    So congratulations Howard and Donna! You've figured out yet another way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


    And Who Is Going to Punish The Disobedient (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    DNC'ers?  Truly, this is a classic pot calling the kettle black.

    I am going to punish them (none / 0) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    I am not going to give them any money this year.

    I Am With You On That....NO MORE MONEY TO (none / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    THE DNC....pass it on.

    Nice to see some people with principles!!


    They've got Obama's money (none / 0) (#95)
    by LCaution on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    They don't care about your money.  Obama has already made a deal with them.  The guy who pays the bills gets the votes.

    He can't pay for all the down-ticket (none / 0) (#97)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:53:29 PM EST

    The Golden Rule (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    He who has the gold makes the rules.

    it willb be interesting to see (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    who exactly in the end will be "made an example of"

    The outrage has spread past FL & MI voters (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by katiebird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    I honestly think the Democratic Party will not recover if they continue to exclude FL & MI through the summer and IF that exclusion is responsible for Hillary's loss - watch out.

    This issue should have been settled months ago (probably with your compromise which would have given weight to both the original AND re - votes) Frankly, unless Hillary wins the nomination it's probably all ready too late for the Democratic Party.  

    How can they possibly convince Hillary supporters that the treatment of Florida and Michigan voters didn't determine the outcome of the nomination process?  Especially since they don't seem to care.

    They have already done the damage. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    The DNC should have made it clear that regardless of the delegates the votes count and should have been including in the popular vote.  By withholding those votes they fed a false presumption of Obama's popularity to the public through the media.  Howard Dean lacks any credibility.

    I'm not from either, (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by eleanora on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    and the MI/FL issue makes me furious, not with Obama, but with the Democratic Party that I've supported all my life. Obama is just a candidate trying to game the system in his favor, but Dean et al are supposed to be the refs, not advocates for one or the other. No one can be totally impartial, but I expect them to work for the Democratic voters and not just make excuses for disenfranchising them.

    And you're right, it's probably too late already. The DNC should have assessed the 50% penalty in January, preferably to all the states that went early, and quietly moved on like the Republicans did. Letting this turn into a giant mess to favor one candidate is both incompetent and unconscionable. They couldn't have amputated me more neatly from my party if they'd have used an ax.


    I just wrote to Alice Germond at the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Mark Woods on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:46:10 AM EST
    about her comments in the article: AliceGermond@dnc.org

    I told her I'm from FL and I'm mad as Hell and I am not going to take it anymore, of something like that.

    Think she'll listen?


    Her comments in that article (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by eleanora on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    made me see red. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other."

    GIVE one candidate more votes? The voters did that themselves, that's nothing to do with the DNC.  They seem to want to pretend that 2.3 million people didn't turn out to vote in two legal elections. Didn't we scream about the Republicans doing that in 2000? Please let us know if she answers you; I'd like to hear her excuse that trash.


    If The DNC Seats FL & MI With a 50/50 Split, (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    it will be worse IMO than not seating them at all. Either way the voters will be entirely disenfranchised but I think the anger will be much greater not only in those states but across the nation.

    Doubt she'll listen. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    I emailed Garry Shays, DNC RBC member from California on some comments he made erroneously stating the DNC asked all the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. I never heard back from him.

    This is such a train wreck (none / 0) (#108)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    I'm from Michigan and happy to see we have support from outside the state. Believe me it's heartwarming.

    But I also blame Obama who refused to go along with a re-vote even after he said he would support any plan authorized by the DNC.

    He'll never have my support. FINI.


    I am new here (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Carl2680 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    and I would like to post a comment regarding Michigan and Florida. First those two states are already lost in the fall. The Obama people strategy is to go to the states like NM,CO and others, but the reality is the election in the fall is already lost plain and simple. In order to become president you need to carry  big states in electoral count like Michigan, Ohio, Florida and PA. Obama will not win none of those states, so how in hell they think that they will win the  white house. One again half of the democratic party choose the most unelectable candidate for president. The only two red states that might be a toss up are Virginia and Colorado.

    McCain will win Virginia. (none / 0) (#28)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
     It's not even debatable.  

    and SC, GA and AL. (none / 0) (#99)
    by cpinva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    McCain will win Virginia

    those aren't debatable either.

    when all this started, i just thought the DNC was being incredibly stupid. i've concluded that they're actually fools.


    Hillary could put Florida (none / 0) (#109)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    in play.  I believe there have been polls to that effect.  Yea, I know, polls, but still . . . I wouldn't just write it off in the GE if she's the nominee.

    The dumbest statement yet to date (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    "...the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years."

    Um, ok - why not do something, oh, I don't know - proactive in the next 4 years and revamp the system so it doesn't happen again?

    Come to think of it (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    We're assuming this is about FL and MI.  Maybe these people are making an argument for punishing New Hampshire!  Heh, yeah right.

    The Only Ones Being Punished Will Be (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    the democratic party as they watch the presidency be taken away from them one more time!  Whatever happened to punishing those other two states that moved their primaries?

    I found this on another blog, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    and thought of you. It's your next bumpersticker..hehehe.

    For those of you who don't do links, the bumpersticker says

    "Making History by Repeating It."

    We should make a bunch of them on our computers(blank bumperstickers available at most computer stores)and go out and put them next to each and every Obama bumpersticker we see. Heh.


    I know, right? (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    Who owns the country?

    The people or the party?


    This (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    has been coming for some time.

    Michigan has been trying since before 2000 to get the primary schedule changed and justifiably so.

    I don't believe that there should be any set order for holding primaries. IMO there really isn't a justifiable case for setting an order.

    The McGovern Commission made the delegate selection process so cumbersome that it drove the states to primaries and caucuses.

    The New Hampshire first primary was suitable pre-McGovern but is now an anachronism that magnifies post-McGovern problems.

    The whole system makes us susceptable to low quality candidates and has further corrupted politics by drastically increasing the amount of money needed to run for the highest office.


    I think (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Carl2680 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    THe obamamiacs at the Hupp post should be get ready for President Mccain. The media is keeping everything quiet because they know that the old man will put California in play.

    Well, you know if the states (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    must be punnished for their atrocity, so must the DNC for theirs.  They are actively and willfully destroying the Democratic party.  What if the country didn't have a Democratic Party at all? This is where they're going.

    Doing this to FL/MI is atrocious.  They  may not always have a candidate who can win "Colorado" (LOL!)

    Florida and Michigan are roadmaps (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    for the GOP to permanently hobble any Democratic nominee.  The only thing that all GOP controlled legislatures in the various states have to do is approve a date for the Democratic primaries to violate the DNC sanctioned dates.  Then the DNC will choose to ENFORCE THE RULES and PUNISH THE VOTERS by ignoring the votes.



    So we voters outsmart both of them, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    DNC AND GOP, and go write in Hillary. Talk about a peaceful revolution..LOL To find out how.. go here.

    Ignore both parties machinations and vote in the person WE, THE VOTERS think should be running the country. Let's show them what "vox populi" really means. It's not polls, it's not caucuses, it's the power of millions of single voters coming together to say the same thing. VERY LOUDLY. Even if they are politically deaf, the wind from the roar will blow them right off the platform.


    And it will blow McCain (none / 0) (#55)
    by independent voter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    right into the WH. SO if that's your goal, good plan.

    If the people who poll for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    in the GE write her in, she will win in a landslide. The other votes will be divided between Obama and McCain. Look at the numbers. She can win the GE. Obama can't. She can win with everyone who wants to vote for her writing her in. Of course, you will probably vote for Obama, so why worry about it? Unless you are expecting him to win.

    I do not believe you are serious. (none / 0) (#96)
    by independent voter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    The polls do NOT back you up on this. If she cannot win the primary how in the world is she going to win the general election when she is not even a candidate? And there will be people in Michigan that vote for Barack Obama whether you like it or not.
    This is silly, I can't believe I am even responding.

    Write-ins don't count in most states (none / 0) (#113)
    by andrys on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM EST
    In some cases they count if the candidate approves the filing of a write-in candidacy, and Clinton wouldn't do that

    Exactly (none / 0) (#117)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:42:34 AM EST
    if that's your goal, good plan.

    Amazingly enough, that is the wish of many TL posters.  "Hillary is the one and only candidate who will stand up and fight for what I believe in, so if she isn't given the nomination we will vote for someone who represents everything she's against."

    I don't get it.  It took me a while to switch from Clinton to Obama, but never did I entertain voting for McCain if my candidate lost the nomination.  I think too many people are emotionally vested in Clinton's candidacy and need to take a deep breath and consider what rewarding the Republicans with another four years means.


    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    let's be honest:
    For some reason the party WANTS to lose in Nov. They want to nominate the least viable candidate we've had in 20 years against a strong GOP opponent.

    There's no electoral math that will make Nov. blue without MI and FL.

    Maybe they do not want to have to clean up again (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    Maybe the thought is, let the GOP clean up this mess of Iraq and the economy. GW is leaving way more than his Dad every did. McCain vows to get Osama. Why can't we get him now? I don't have a clue what their goal is but I don't like it. I want to V-8 Slap their heads. Bop Bop Bop. Let me say that the DNC has a real problem and will need new blood there. Interesting, remember, only 1/3 said they need to be punished. Must be Donna's group. Lose 2 states because the Obama group wants them punished. First of all, Iowa wants to be first? Make them have a real primary vote and eliminate the caucus vote. And voting rules, so with 2/3 saying no punishment, then none should be there and end of story.

    The positive (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    I see out of an Obama electoral loss is that heads will roll. Dean will be gone. Pelosi should be gone. Reid is certainly ineffectual but I don't know if he had a huge part in this whole mess or not. Kerry and Kennedy both need to have power wrenched out of their hands. Perhaps the good people of MA will get a primary opponent to kerry and Kennedy will retire.

    K&K (none / 0) (#110)
    by teachermom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    This Massachusetts voter will certainly never vote for either of them again. I wrote to both of them telling them how angry I am about their endorsements. Kennedy wrote back saying "Thank you for sharing your opinion about Iraq"! Then I got an email from him thanking me for my concern about health care... Nothing from Kerry. Now that the semester is over I will have time to call their offices. It's going to be pretty lonely in the  voting booth. My congressman endorsed O too. And with Duval Patrick as governor...

    Maybe we need a new party.


    DNC (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    The DNC believes that this election is theirs. They can not imagine losing it because they figure the Bush hatred is strong (they've blocked out 2004). This allowed them to take their earlier draconian actions and will continue to give them free reign to act without regard to the people. They've brainwashed themselves into believing that the people will fall in line because there is no alternative. The victory of Childers is just going to reinforce this belief for them.

    The things I've read have said they think they'll be seating the Florida delegation with 1/2 vote each. Especially since the Edwards endorsement shrinks Clinton's delegate lead.

    With the Edwards endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    they can easily seat both delegations in their entirety. Unless, of course, Obama's certain victory actually isn't.

    They (none / 0) (#17)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    could have done that all along. Obama was never in danger of losing the pledged delegate lead. I don't think they'll do it though. I think they are going for the 1/2 vote in order to have the 50% reduction.

    Keep in mind, the appeal that was filed doesn't ask for all the delegates to be seated. It's asking for the 50% penalty in the rules to be applied. And the supers would get their full vote.


    Michigan's (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    delegates have already been selected.  Forty percent are Uncommitted, no Edwards factor involved. That is no automatic Edwards factor.

    If I were an Edwards delegate from a state that preceded his withdrawal I'd vote my conscience.  Probably never be sent to a national convention again but doing the right thing is worth the price.


    What??? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    The victory of Childers is just going to reinforce this belief for them.

    He only won by completely disowning Obama, completely and categorically. Ran ads saying he didn't know him, had never met him, and didn't ask for his endorsement.

    So how does that prove that Obama is a viable candidate for the GE?? What, he is going to go out and say that he doesn't know himself, never met himself and didn't ask for his own endorsement??

    Knock, knock, anybody home?? Noooooooo...


    You're (none / 0) (#63)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    arguing reality, but I'm arguing their perception.

    Their perception is that a Dem won a Repub seat that they didn't think a Dem had a chance of winning. So to them, that reinforces their belief that this election is about people wanting Dems instead of Repubs.

    Last summer Dean was saying that the punishment on Florida wouldn't matter in the general because the people would care about Iraq, the economy, etc. They have a belief that they are almost guaranteed a victory this fall no matter who is the candidate because they think the people will blame all the problems on the Repubs. So in their minds, the Dems don't need to reach out to anyone or do anything because people do not want to vote for the Repubs.

    Childers plays into that belief.


    Except for one little detail.. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    no matter how disgusted they were with the GOP, they were still prepared to vote for them over an-Obama endorsed Democrat. Only by divorcing himself from Obama did Childers manage to win the seat. So how does their "perception" deal with that unavoidable fact? Their candidate is poison to the under-card Democrats in working class districts.  Ooops!!

    Denial is strong. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    Who knows. Maybe they think that because it is a strong Repub seat that Childers would have had to distance himself from any Dem nominee. Maybe they think that the people in that area are exceptionally conservative and that part doesn't relate to the rest of the country. Maybe they are just flat out ignoring that part.

    Any fact is avoidable, if you want to see your personal reality bad enough. And they really do.


    That Thought Pattern Is A Complete Replay Of 04 n/ (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#84)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    How many times do they need to repeat it to learn the lesson?

    Why is it wrong to move up your primary? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Saul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    So people want to vote earlier.  How does that hurt anything.  I can see if something drastic happened or would have happend and that is why the DNC ruled as it did, but since nothing terrible happened doesn't that show how wrong and silly the ruling by the DNC was?

    My answer to all this is the following.

    Everyone goes to a primary method. No Caucuses

    No Super Delegates

    All the primaries will be held on one day.  That day should be in late May.  That way all the candidates will have from Dec to May to campaign.  

    This way no one has an advantage and every candidates gets an even playing field. Then it's over.  If no one gets the number of delegates required  then whoever gets the most popular vote is the winner.

    Because (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    We must always bow down to Iowa and New Hampshire. (no offense to the PEOPLE in those states!)  :)

    Why weren't SC and Virginia penalized ? (none / 0) (#114)
    by andrys on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM EST
    Also the stated reason (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    at the committee hearing last August was because the DNC wanted South Carolina and Nevada to go early to give those voters more influence.

    This whole process was micromanaged and gerrymandered to an extent I never dreamed possible.


    Why the double standard though? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Saul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM EST
    Weren't two other states told to obey this silly rule and nothing happened to them?  Who were they?

    Does any one have the official warning link where DNC is officially notifying the particular states by name and is there also an official link where the DNC is actually imposing the penalty and does  name the states that violated their sill rule?


    South Carolina, (none / 0) (#72)
    by kayla on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    New Hampshire and Iowa.  See here and here.

    Hillary was actually in the middle of mentioning that these states in her recent interview with Wolf Blitzer but he cut her off as soon as she said, "and other states..."

    I don't understand why they didn't punish these states as well and why more people aren't making a fuss over this.


    I believe NH was one of them (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    They cut ahead of IA, so IA moved up.  Neither of them got punished.

    I Don't Think obama Will Really Care As He (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    is riding the "free pass express" and believes he is entitled to everything, including the votes of the disenfranchised.

    Ha! (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    is riding the "free pass express" and believes he is entitled to everything, including the votes of the disenfranchised.

    I LOVE the "free pass express"!  

    We need T-shirts and buttons!


    They would be great, wouldn't they? It really (none / 0) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    makes me ill to think how much obama has gotten away with during this campaign.  Not to mention, how he has managed to pull the wool over so many's eyes.

    Look at it this way.. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    The Free Pass Express and the Straight Talk Express will crash head on into each other in the GE. Meanwhile, Hillary, propelled by millions of write-in votes, will soar high above the train wreck, rising ever rising. She will land gently on the White House lawn, ready for the inauguration.

    Sounds like a plan to me!!


    Sounds Like A Great Plan... (none / 0) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    They don't care about punishing the (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by sancho on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    states at this point, if they ever did. They want to make sure Obama has the clearest path to the nomination. If seating the states enhanced Obama's delegate total, they would have been anecdotally seated by now and included on the running tallies of secured delegates. Apparently, the DNC thinks either the Dem candidate is a lock in the fall or they'd rather lose than have Hillary be the nominee or both. "Punishing the states" is the phrase they use instead of "in the tank for Obama."

    bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    >>>They don't care about punishing the states at this point, if they ever did. They want to make sure Obama has the clearest path to the nomination.

    Will the "punishment" imposed by the Rules committee be any different than it would have been 2 months ago? ha!
    No! They're only concerned with running out the clock for Barack.
    Great PR campaign you're running there, Brazile- dissing Democratic voters for tricks enacted by the FL Republican legislature.


    Obama must be the nominee - that's the bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by LCaution on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    You're absolutely right.  All they care about is that Obama will be the nominee.


    1. Power calculations.  If a Republican wins in the Fall, the DNC can continue to tap into Dem. anger for money.  Dem. "leaders" like Pelosi and Reid will retain their power and have an excuse for being ineffective (to put it mildly). And if Obama wins, they figure that he will be a much easier President to manipulate than Hillary because he doesn't care about policy details (think Reagan)and she does.  So with Obama in the White House, the Dem. leadership will have more effective power than with Hillary in the White House.

    2. Dean, Brazile & others see the DNC as their personal property.  Heck, I assume it's a cushy job for Dean. Brazile wants Obama, no matter what.  Dean 's ego can't permit him "to give in"

    3. Now: money.  The DNC needs it, Obama has it. And they are afraid that if they go for Hillary, Obama's supporters will withdraw their financial support.

    Short 3 word explanantion:  Money and Power.

    "Let's hope Barack Obama does care" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by talex on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    Right Armando. You, I, and everyone else knows that Obama will only care about seating FL and MI only AFTER he has enough delegates where their delegate won't matter.

    He hasn't spoken out yet in a fair manner has he?

    I Sincerely Believe That obama Only Cares (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    about all things obama.  Damn...if he had been born about four years earlier, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

    He better start caring (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    and this is just the beginning of the troubles the GOP and 527's are going to throw at him.

    obama Will Really Be Crying Victim Now... (none / 0) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:18:56 AM EST
    wonder how playing the race card will pan out forhim?  Repubs play to win and are vicious.  He will be begging for Hillary to come back and pick on him. :)

    If that video No Quarter was touting hits the msm, it is curtains for obama.


    MI and FL (none / 0) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    If Obama graciously seats them after it doesn't matter, MI and FL should tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

    He's coming here to FL to get our money (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    this weekend, after being in MI this week.  I hope people don't give in.  Let him get money from his ballyhooed internet operation.

    I'm sure though that people paid their $1000 per plate fees for dinenr with The One.


    This weekend? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    I didn't think it was this weekend, but end of next week. I think his fundraisers in Florida are scheduled after May 20 (the rumored day of his victory announcement).

    I got a notice from a local Sen. Obama supporter (none / 0) (#98)
    by FLVoter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    Sen. Obama will be in Hollywood Florida on May 22 and in Orlando on May 21.

    Those are the dates I've seen (none / 0) (#111)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    Yep those are his scheduled fundraisers. He's supposed to schedule some campaigning between the fundraisers. But no announcements on those that I've seen yet.

    Yeah i just loved it (none / 0) (#37)
    by talex on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    when he told people in Michigan that he "felt 'guilty' about not campaigning" in Michigan!

    I think he misspoke again. What he meant to say is that he "felt 'Stupid' about not campaigning" in Michigan!


    What He Meant Was He Didn't Think MI (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    worthy of campaigning in.

    I Wouldn't Pay 10 Cents To Eat With obama... (none / 0) (#78)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    Hell, I wouldn't even consider dining with him.

    Fine, You want to punish them? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by chancellor on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    How about a fine? That's what the Repubs do. Seems to work for them. But to punish the voters? Absolute madness.

    Maybe they just figure (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    that Obama isn't going to win, anyway, so why bother?

    Cokie thinks so too

    Coke and Steve (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    are going to get branded as racists for saying that Obama's ethnicity could be an advantage.  Just ask Gerry Ferraro....

    A better response from the DNC would have been, (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
     "The issue of early primary dates is water over the dam with respect to this election season, and there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to lose, by enforcing a punishment that upon reflection, was far in excess of the rules that were already in place.  This does not mean, however, that we can table the discussion or examination of the primary calendar going forward - that is where our attention must be focused so that this does not happen again.  As American citizens and as Democrats, it is important that the right of the voters to be heard, to have their votes counted, and to be fully represented in the nominating process, be our highest priority, and it will be with that goal in mind that we address the rules and the procedures moving forward."

    But, that's too much like actually admitting they screwed up, so I'm guessing it won't happen.

    Now, if Hillary Clinton said it, she would be trashed as pandering for votes.  The one who really needs to say it is Obama - it might represent the first glimmer of leadership ability, but I don't think it will come from him, either.

    I just don't get why all of this has to be so difficult.

    Because (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    You live and exist in reality, not in Obama-world.

    The answer is yes (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by stefystef on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    the Democratic Party wants to lose FL and MI.

    Will they lose them in the Fall.  Almost definitely FL, because it wasn't the Democratic voters fault that the Republican state congress changed the rules.

    MI is another story.  It may go Democratic, but I think that there are enough people pissed off in MI to make things difficult for Obama.

    So for what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Grandmother on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    Last weekend I was at a social event in which a Democratic female representative in my area (I live in the state of MO) who is running for a statewide office was present. In the course of the conversation I asked her what the heck was up with the DNC and Florida and Michigan.  Here is the party line (and I'm paraphrasing):  Democrats have been accused of being undisciplined.  All of the states were given notice that they would be punished if they moved their primaries.  They were told they could join Super Tuesday but they couldn't leapfrog ahead.  And that the DNC was going to "show" states that they were enforcing their "rules."  I inquired (politely) as to why Nevada, S. Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa were not punished.  The answer was something to the effect of "diversity."

    I told her that I thought the DNC was making a big mistake, that she knew that BO could not win Mo (despite Claire) and that it could very well hurt the downticket candidates such as herself.  She shrugged and said something about party rules.  

    I'm so disgusted with the Democratic Party and their short sighted behavior.  If they want Barack Obama for their candidate they can have him but no one said I had to go along with it or stay in the party to watch it go down in flames.

    Now They Care About Discipline (none / 0) (#87)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    Where is this discipline when the Bush Dogs cross over and undercut them in the House and Senate?  When that happens we get lectured about how we have to be politically realistic and this is the caucus we have.  Funny how that they can forgive and understand their colleagues, but not voters.

    In 4 years (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Manuel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    there needs to be better rules including regional primaries with random or rotating schedules and no caucuses.  A review of delegate allocation is also in order.  A repeat of the stupidity with FL and MI needs to be avoided with fundamental reform not silly punishment.

    that won't happen if Obama is (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    nominated and wins in Nov.  Why should he change a process he has learned to game so well?  Maybe if he loses they will get a clue and fix this.

    litigatormon, You Will Confused Them (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    by using logics and facts.

    I have a bad habit of doing that (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    But I think the DNC is bound and determined to be confused no matter what.

    Just Received This If You Want To Sign Up (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    From Hillary Clinton...sign on today.

    Millions of voters in Florida and Michigan are depending on you to help make sure they have a voice in this race. Will you stand up for them today?

    Thanks to your efforts, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people who have already spoken out, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting May 31 to make a decision about whether or not the votes in Michigan and Florida will count.

    Now I need you to urge the DNC to make the right decision on May 31. I need you to remind them that in the Democratic Party, we count every vote.

    Tell the Democratic National Committee to count the votes of Florida and Michigan.

    On May 31, the DNC has a chance to make it clear that the people of Florida and Michigan have a voice in our party. The decision is especially critical given the important role these states will play in November.

    And your voice could make the difference for the millions of people who went to the polls in those two states to make their choice for president.

    Stand with me today and tell the DNC to count the votes in Florida and Michigan.

    I have consistently said that every vote must count. It is such an important principle in our party. I really appreciate you standing up for the values we share.

    Thank you,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    P.S. Forward this message on to your friends, and urge them to join you!

    So spank the states (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    Make them go to their rooms without dinner. Take away their internet privileges. But stop punishing innocent voter's who had no say in this fiasco.

    Maybe that's the problem... the DNC has stopped seeing Democrats as voter's and started seeing only "delegates" and "states". We are not people, we are "voting blocs". They don't need to worry about individual votes, they simply try to appease a particular bloc in order to win the election.

    I don't know why we're surprised (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    that a political party that first came to power with heavy-handed machine-style patronage would revert to that mechanism as soon as it was able.

    Florida (none / 0) (#23)
    by This from a broad on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    I live in Florida.  Obama has stated repeatedly that voters in Florida should not have a say in who the nominee is.  I would like him to win in November, but speaking pragmatically, I don't think he can do it without Florida.  It was a great strategy to win the primary, but short sighted for the general election.

    Folks in Florida are mad as hell (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by stefystef on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    and they aren't going to be used again by the politicians.

    I see a BIG backlash coming.


    Punish The GOP (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    For the setup, trap, or plain poor judgement. THey are the ones responsible for the initiative.

    The best way to punish them is let the voters have their say and vote the GOP into oblivion.

    This is like the movie Groundhog Day (none / 0) (#45)
    by mm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    MI and FL are not going to count until after the nominee has been chosen.  The Obama campaign, the DNC and the MSM have been making that abundantly clear for quite some time now.

    Yet every other day it seems we're surprised to learn that they really mean it.  Every other day people act like the issue is in doubt.

    Wake up people.  Really.  MI and FL are only going to be ornaments added to Obama's victory train.  They will have no role in affecting the outcome.

    People say the same thing at Orange (none / 0) (#50)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    And I'm convinced that a significant portion of Obama's followers would rather lose in devotion to some dubious principle rather than win outright. My only doubt is whether the candidate is among them.

    Democrats (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    look extremely silly in this whole media made scandal.  

    Obama looks silly defending himself against an attack that wasn't directed at him.

    The MSM looks silly claiming this was an attack against him.

    Biden looks like...well Biden...spouting off at the mouth.

    Hillary looks silly defending Obama against an attack the president has said wasn't at Obama but against a general concept.  Does she agree with that concept now?

    Dems should learn that by over reacting personally to statements made about a general point a view that in the non biased observers eyes they embrace that veiw when they react with such furvor.  The casual observer can only now think that Bush is against negotiating with terrorists and Obama, Biden the MSM and now Hillary are for negotiating with them.

    Nevermind the fact that he was in Isreal talking to Isreali's about Iran.  What should he have said?

    Democrats will never learn when it comes to foriegn policy.

    McCain 1 Obama 0

    ooops (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    wrong post.  how did that happen?

    Slight Correction (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    Hillary did not reference Obama in her statement. She made it a generic statement about slamming Democrats. See yesterday TL post on her statement.

    It is over: (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:01:35 PM EST

    Warning:  this link is to Huffington Post.

    Mission Accomplished! (none / 0) (#89)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    I'm with Anglachel on this one:

    What is up with the Obama campaign?

    Given the ostensible "insurmountable" lead that he has, given all the advantages of money, delegates, money, party leadership backing, money, fawning press coverage, money and legions of adoring fans, why are they staying so relentlessly nagative not just on Hillary, but on her entire base of support? Why the obsession with forcing her out and declaring the contest over, done, finis, kaput, no more?

    Because they know it isn't.

    At this point in the campaign, if his win was truly in the bag, Obama should be making a wholehearted effort to try to win over his opponent's supporters, yet the exact opposite is happening. The win in West Virginia is dismissed as simply racists voting against Obama. Bloggers loudlly trumpet how they don't need no stinkin' working class. Nothing is being offered to answer the substantive complaints about his policies or campaign style. Instead, we get Edwards whoring himself for a donations list, flatly lying that Obama's policies have anything to do with even the shadow of what he himself campaigned on. Or we get Obama mouthing off to a female reporter who tried to ask about a bread and butter issue, uncaring of how he appeared to millions of people in his arrogance.

    Fear is in the air.

    The problem for Obama is that his actions don't match his words.  


    Link (none / 0) (#90)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    I entirely agree. I also think it is (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    time for Clinton supporters to stop discussing how angry they are at Obama's calling a female reporter "sweetie," and all the other slights we've discussed over and over.  Clinton is the best candidate the Dems. have available for this GE against this GOP opponent.  Why?  That's what we should be discussing and proclaiming.  Enough of the victim mentality.  If Hillary Clinton and her family can accomplish this, we should also.  End of speech.

    How could a 50% punishment hurt our chances? (none / 0) (#88)
    by zzyzx on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    If that approach is used, it would be the same exact punishment that the Republicans enacted.  How could that be used against us?

    At this point (none / 0) (#92)
    by Regency on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    It's like a second  punishment. The first one was %100 now they want to reduce the sentence, but it's a slap in the face now.

    We're gonna get whooped in Nov if we have the wrong nominee. That's just the up and down of it.


    What Democratic Party? (none / 0) (#94)
    by gandy007 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    "the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years"

    If they don't do the fair thing, it won't matter. There won't be much of a party left in four years.

    The most logical solution... (none / 0) (#112)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:25:07 PM EST
    ...is to simply apply the "standard" penalty, seat the delegations as voted, but award each of them half a vote.  Not sure about the MI and FL supers, though--guess it would make sense to halve their votes too.

    MI and FL will be seated (none / 0) (#115)
    by melro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    I'm from Michigan. And I'm sooo happy to have found this website of discerning voters. Everyone here seems to have paid attention to the Obama bubble from day one. I don't know if everyone knows what really happened to MI and FL so here is the info I got from Senator Levin:

    Back in 2005 the DNC set-up a commission to review our nominating process because Iowa and New Hampshire are no longer representative of our diverse population. The DNC looked to push NH back to a third place status instead of its usual second. On August 19, 2006, the DNC presented this calendar: at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008,  at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19, at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

    The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries afterward beginning February 5, 2008.

    Michigan agreed to honor this new calendar as long as New Hampshire or any other state didn't violate the order. New Hampshire has a stronghold on their number two position and is unwilling to relinquish it, so many states were wary that NH would follow through. And bingo, on August 9, 2007, NH's Secy. of State along with the approval of NH Democrats announced its primary date to be January 19th, edging Nevada out of that position to maintain NH's number two spot. The DNC did absolutely nothing about it.

    All bets were off and Florida then announced its primary before February 5th. The DNC immediately threatened to strip their delegates. This is pretty lopsided justice. Michigan's Democratic leadership then decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary. Sen. Levin and Debbie Dingell sent a letter to the DNC on September 4, 2007 of our intent to do so and why. So the DNC knew our intent and why ahead of time.

    What's interesting is NH has the audacity to insist that candidates pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary. Clinton didn't cave on that warning, was smart enough to always include her name on all ballots, unlike Obama who didn't bother to put his name on the ballot in MI, but did so on FL ballots, (is that an indecisive flip-flop?) and who I think is getting way too many delegates here in MI as a compromise HC -69, and BO - 59.

    Who cared enough about voters in this instance, regardless of what appears to be unfair party rules? Didn't Obama realize what happened here? It looks like Hillary understood.  Senator Levin understood. It looks like Obama was more concerned about his image, the DNC, and his outcome in NH, which Hillary won, instead of voters here. What kind of savvy politician would leave their name off one state ballot? I've watched this guy from the start and he's a good man, but way too green. If the Kennedy crowd hadn't snatched him up, along with Oprah for a good grooming, he'd be in the dust today. Read Levin's letter:


    RE MI and FL will be seated (none / 0) (#116)
    by melro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    Sorry I forgot to add to my post above that Howard Dean knows perfectly well what happened and I've caught more than 3 websites where he made the comment MI and FL delegates will be seated at the convention. I still don't know if the 69-59 pro Hillary count has been finalized in MI. All I do know is that the popular vote will have to stand as is and even our Gov. Granholm said Hillary will win the popular vote come convention time.