Florida and Michigan Don't Count

[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

Dear Stumped,

I find it odd that in the controversy over the Democratic delegations from Michigan and Florida, the Republican governor of Florida is trying to tell the Democratic National Committee how to conduct its business. Isn't the proper etiquette for him just to stay out of it?

-- Alexander Robinson

Dear Alexander,

I have a spirited 3-year-old boy. The other day I told him that if he really wanted to have a big cookie in the middle of the afternoon, he wouldn't be able to have dessert after dinner. Sebastian opted for the cookie, but then still threw a tantrum after dinner, acting as if his human rights were being violated when I told him we'd have to abide by his earlier choice.

Leading politicos from Florida and Michigan are acting a lot like Sebastian these days. And I'm with you that it is especially cheeky for Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, to demand that the Democrats seat his state's delegates, chosen in an election that violated party rules (because it was held too early). It almost adds credence to conspiracy theories about Republican efforts to do anything to ensure they will face Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, in November.

Talk of Michigan and Florida voters being disenfranchised is ludicrous. On Sunday, Crist said Floridians "exercised their precious right" and that the party needs to "honor that vote." In an earlier joint statement issued with Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm (another Clinton supporter), Crist went even further with his sanctimonious nonsense: "The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy.... It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective conventions."

Before we summon international election monitors, let's review the facts: In 2007, Michigan and Florida, in direct violation of party rules, scheduled their votes with the full knowledge that the Democratic Party would not recognize their results. In the context of most nominating contests, which are decided after only a handful of states vote, Michigan and Florida figured that it was better to stage an early "beauty contest" than to hold an election once the race was all but decided. The Democratic candidates did not campaign in either state, and only Clinton was on the Michigan ballot, which makes it all the more unconscionable for her campaign to be calling for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated.

The Democratic Party is free to resolve this supposed mess however it sees fit, of course. But it's unfair to change the rules of the game once the game is underway. Howard Dean, the DNC chairman, should hold firm. Scheduling new votes in Michigan and Florida (state officials, and even governors of other states, have the gall to demand the DNC to foot the bill!) is obviously better than recognizing the results of an uncontested, illegitimate contest -- but it still would set a terrible precedent. It would signal to states that they can disregard party rules (hold a Thanksgiving primary!) with impunity if it turns out to be an exciting election.

Besides -- especially this year -- it's not as if the Democrats need to worry about enthusiasm. The notion that Florida or Michigan Democrats are going to turn against their party in November if their delegations aren't seated in Denver strikes me as a myopic insider view. After eight years of George Bush, Democrats in Detroit and Ft. Lauderdale will be more than motivated enough to turn out in November, regardless of whether their state delegates were allowed to vote at the party's convention in Denver.

Dear Stumped,

If I were the Republican nominee for president, I would have trouble recognizing my name. I have read so many blogs were I am addressed as McWar, McSame, McInsane, McMemoryLoss, McOld, McStake, McFool, McBush.... The list is endless and has my head spinning.

What should John McCain do? Should he change his name?

Thanks and best regards,

Marge Naslund

Dear Marge,

Yes, McCain's last name lends itself to a lot of McNonsense, and I think McBush will prevail among liberal bloggers eager to bind the Republican nominee to the unpopular incumbent ("John W. McCain" is another variation on this theme). But this may not be the best year to be playing games with candidates' names, given sensitivities about Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein).

Come to think of it, it's never a good time to play games with candidates' names, given that we are no longer in junior high.

By Andres Martinez |  March 11, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: How to Attack Barack Obama | Next: A Do-Over for Florida and Michigan

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Richard, your comments are absurd. Obama did not disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, the Florida and Michigan high exalted party puppets did that all on their own.

I hope you are smart enough to see that the rules were obvious and clear right from the start and Hillary herself said in the beginning of the race that she was ok with the votes not counting. Hell in MI she ran against herself and no one else!

Now that she's in a hole she can't climb out of, she's using FL and MI as her last lifeline.

If you seriously plan to vote for John McCain over this nonsense, that's your right as a citizen. You can vote for whomever you wish, but it's a pretty silly way to make a stand for Hillary.

Posted by: Randy | May 8, 2008 1:38 PM

The right to vote and for the vote to be counted is the most sacred American right. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their life in wars to defend that right. No party rule or technicality should have the right to deny that right from millions of voters. It's a mockery of everything America stands for. I'm a Democrat and have always voted that way. But if Florida and Michigan votes are not fairly counted, McCain has my vote come November. I don't care what the Democratic Party has to do to fix it - mail in, revote, etc. All I know is they made this mess and they need to fix it instead of pointing fingers and citing a bunch of tired party rules that nobody cares about. If Democrats have the audacity to trample on our most fundamental American right, I urge more fellow Democrats to do what I plan to do and launch a protest vote for McCain in November. The party issues are important, but no issue is more important than the fundamental right to vote and for that vote to be counted. Let's hold the DNC accountable and show the leadership this kind of "banana republic" politics will not be tolerated. If Obama is really serious about bringing America together - he should start with not disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan. If he can't support such an effort, then his critics are correct. There is no substance behind his words. He is just a windbag full of empty political rhetoric.

Posted by: Richard | May 8, 2008 12:03 AM

Counting the votes is absurd at this point. I am from florida, and like most reasonably well informed people knew that florida delegates wouldn't count. So I didn't vote. Should people who were tuned in enough to know that Florida had been stripped of it's delegates be disenfranchised? Most people seemed pretty unaware of it when the polls opened, or were vaguely aware of some controversy but went to vote anyway assuming it would count.

If you make a set of rules, and than change them, the game becomes unfair.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 2:34 PM

The delegates from Michigan and Florida
should be seated as superdelegates. They
will know how the people in their states
want them to vote.

Posted by: larrysaturn | March 26, 2008 8:28 PM

Once the elections are over I think it will be time to clean one more house. The DNC needs wiped clean and rebuilt with less bumbling fools who will put the party ahead of individual candidates.

Posted by: Paul Kruger | March 22, 2008 12:40 PM

The Democrats could solve the Florida / Michigan issue simply by following DNC rules. DNC rules state that if a state violates the rules regarding timing or proportional representation, they will lose 50% of their pledged delegates, and 100% of their superdelegates.

The DNC Rules Committee used an elastic powers clause (i.e., have ability to impose rules and sanctions as needed) to strip both states of 100% of pledged delegates. While the DNC may technically be allowed to do this, it unfairly contradicts the officially defined sanction, and could cause Floridians and Michiganders to vote Republican or stay home on Election Day.

Just follow the DNC rules as written, and give Florida and Michigan pledged delegates a half-vote each, like the RNC did. It will eliminate the need for expensive re-election, and the accusations of disenfranchisement and changing the rules.

Posted by: David Wainwright | March 17, 2008 11:59 PM

I wonder how the Florida Democratic Party was able to hold the primary.
Who paid for it?
I don't know why the party doesn't have a national primary and settle it with one vote on one day. That's how the presidency is decided. In fact both parties should do it that way.
What's the point of all this state by state dramatization? Time to blow more smoke?
It's a shame it came out this way and I don't know, despite all the journalists who must be dedicated to this issue, what kind of distemper exists between these 2 states' Democratic Parties and the national Party.
It reminds me of all the cures for the voting madness. After all the work it's still the same. Why is that? Who's the crook?
Obviously, Obama doesn't want Florida seated because he lost it. The same with Michigan where his campaign campaigned to make people vote undecided.
He bought air time in Florida and should have to stand the pain of having lost there.

Posted by: Eddie Bryan | March 16, 2008 4:06 AM

FL and MI Dems deserve the elected officials they elected. Had they insisted not to do the primary super-early, they would not have come to the chaos today. Everything has a consequence and this one has been damaging.

Posted by: dummy | March 14, 2008 11:40 PM

Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated in the convention, period. No "ifs" and "buts". If my prediction is not proven true, I bet that the democratic party will loose the November elections. McCain is not Bush, a lot of people will accept him, if the democrats can't put their house in order. It is not enough to have the name democrat, you have to practice the concept of democracy. FL and MI are test cases of the democratic party's faith in the people. If they can't trust the people, they forfeit their trust too. Millions of voters didn't go to vote in the primaries to waist their time. If you failed to anticipate that these votes will eventually count, you failed to recognize the people power. The delegates will be seated one way or the other in the same proportion as the actual primary results. Otherwise, I suspect that there will be a spectacle in the convention, which no one wants. If I were Obama, I will push for a new primary because without a do-over, the old results will hold.

Posted by: Nathan | March 13, 2008 6:20 PM

My solution for Florida and Michigan:

Premise:
1.the democratic leaders in Florida and Michigan, especially Michigan, knowingly broke the rules and should be punished, and they should not be rewarded with the last and key primaries of the campaign;
2.the voters should not be punished for the decisions the leaders made;
3.resources (i.e., money) should be saved for the Fall elections; and
4.each party involved needs to have a positive aspect of the solution, parties include the DNC, the candidates, the Democratic leaders in each state, and the voters.

Solution details:
1.all "super delegates" from Florida and Michigan should remain disqualified from voting at the Democratic convention under all circumstances (even if there is a "do over");
2.the primary votes in Florida and Michigan should be used to divide pledge delegates as follows:
a)Senator Clinton gets what she won; Senator Obama gets what Senator Clinton did not win:
Florida - approximate 50-50 split
Michigan - approximately 55-45 split for Senator Clinton
3.no "do over" - save the money for the Fall; also eliminate the possibility of bigger disasters.

Analysis:
1.the DNC maintains a position of authority by "punishing" the people most responsible for breaking the rules;
2.the candidates:
a)Senator Clinton gets every delegate she won even though the primaries were not contested elections,
b)Senator Obama, as only other candidate, gets the delegates Senator Clinton did not win,
c)reasonable compromise, some pluses and minuses for both;
d)if Senator Clinton thinks that this gives Senator Obama too much in Florida, have John Edwards, without endorsing Senator Obama but in the spirit of resolving the situation, "give" the delegates he won in Florida to Senator Obama;
3.Democratic leaders in the states (generally the super delegates) can say to the voters "we gave up our votes so that your votes would count";
4.voters - every vote for Senator Clinton is counted and if Senator Obama is the eventual nominee, he can say that; and if Senator Clinton is the eventual nominee she can say to Obama supporters, that did not vote because they were told that the primary did not count, that she credited Senator Obama with more votes than he actually received;
5.the Democratic party and both candidates can demonstrate to the entire country that they can actually solve problems.

Posted by: Dennis, Saratoga Springs | March 13, 2008 2:11 AM

k in florida,
thank you for being a clear voice of reason.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 13, 2008 1:35 AM

As a resident of the state capital, I was able to read about the whole thing as it happened. the republicans and the democrats were psyched to move up the primary to give florida more power in selecting a president. The legislature was warned that the DNC would penalize the state. The state went forward and moved it up. The DNC punished. The legislature sued and lost. Many, many people did not vote in the primaries because we knew it didn't count. The rules are the rules. It sucks for the voters, but we just have to wait it out until November. i believe it is ludicrous to say florida voters will not vote in november for a democrat. that's crazy talk. no one who cares will sit this one out regardless of whether florida delegates are seated at the convention.

Posted by: k in florida | March 12, 2008 10:05 PM

Dear Stumped,
I am astonished that the Democratic National Committee as well as senior democrats continue to let the Florida/Michigan debacle drag on. The results from both primaries were anything but democratic. Speaking as one of the Florida democrats whose voice was not heard, I suggest that the only fair and expeditious way to solve this problem is to split the delegates 50/50 among the remaining candidates. Doing so would end this debate, cost nothing, and return the focus of our nominating process to the issues, the candidates, and the future of this great party. What do you think?

David Zodda
Miami, FL

Posted by: David Zodda | March 12, 2008 9:07 PM

The DNC is to blame, they don't know how to serve justice:
You don't throw all the employees of a company in jail because of what the executives did wrong, and let the executives off the hook.

Posted by: FuriousOne | March 12, 2008 5:24 PM

I thought that the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama, wanted the People's Voice to be heard. Why then overlook so many voters in Michigan & Florida? Why punish the for such a mere technicality (timing), that really has nothing to do with them?

Posted by: That's funny... | March 12, 2008 1:14 PM

Anyone who is truly a liberal cannot vote for McCain. He will appoint social conservatives to the SCOTUS and will continue Bush's war mongering ways. From his own website:
-John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned
-John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs....of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
Also, after years of being a beacon for no torture, John McCain has now voted for waterboarding.
There's too much at stake to vote for him just because I'm mad at the Democratic party.

Posted by: mcinfl | March 12, 2008 12:58 PM

Gene in FL, hello from VA
I totally sympathize with you all down there, where I grew up and now love to vacation. I hate to see you all so badly treated, not just by the DNC, but by the media acting like you're all the FDP, when, of course, you're their beleaguered victims. I'm guessing the hang-up is fear of establishing a precedent, should the FDP be allowed to seat your delegates. But surely the precedent is mooted by the caution of the collateral infliction of distress on voters such as yourself. Hard to imagine any state party knowingly inviting this upon their voters.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 12, 2008 10:26 AM

Hate it when Dem Party Operatives act like Bushies. The Florida Democratic Party (FDP) has put a revisionist history up on its website: a collection of half-truths aimed at getting its delegates seated. They're blaming the Repubs, who had controlling majority, for legislation the FDP itself wrote, and which Dems pushed through. 181 to 0, House, 37 to 2, Senate, hardly over their dead bodies.. One reason the DNC is coming down hard is that in their discussions prior to Jan 29 with FDP, the FDP lied about their role and about the options available to them in effecting changes in the bill, blaming EVERYTHING on the Republicans. What curls my bangs is sundry ways to make it work were rejected by the FDP. e.g. holding their primary on the 29th, but not releasing the results until Feb. 5. To all such suggestions, the FDP unanimously replied in essence, we're the 4th most populated state, so F OFF! They envisioned themselves, by their own account, becoming the state that henceforth every 4 yrs would determine the nominee, and become the be-all and end-all to all candidates, totally eclipsing underpopulated IA, NH, SC, sucking up all the campaign money and hoopla and deference. Hillary on 1-30 fed this fever with a snide off-hand comment to the effect that those earlier pipsqueak states were just garnish. FL had to be seated at the convention or what was a convention for?

Posted by: jhbyer | March 12, 2008 10:22 AM

The thing is Theo Horesh,
The voters didn't agree to the rules, our leaders of the state did on their own behalf. We the voters just want to be counted, not change the rules. Punish the right people(the leaders) not the voters. We shouldn't be punished for something we didn't do.
It' be like sending you to prison for something your boss did, while he gets away with it.

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 12, 2008 5:53 AM

I am surprised that no one has made the analogy, given we are talking about Florida: isn't the effort to change the rules you have agreed to in an election, after you discover a change in those rules is to your benefit, an effort to cheat in that election? And isn't an effort to cheat in an election an attempt to steal it?

Of course, there is a level of intent that appeared to be present in the Bush 2000 campaign that is clearly not present in the case of the Clinton campaign, but the comparison is striking. Personally, I would find it difficult to vote for her, given the logic. Even if she were to win the primary and Obama - whom I strongly support - were her running mate, I don't want another nepotist in the White House who has so little respect for democratic procedures. Voting for someone like this just does too much damage to our fragile democracy.

Theo Horesh

Posted by: Theo Horesh | March 12, 2008 5:05 AM

The only people punished by the decision of the DNC are Florida voters, who made no decisions about moving the primary at all. Blocking the delegates doesn't punish those who made the decision, and consequently it is ineffective and unreasonable.

The FL Democratic party made a bad decision to bump the primary and the national DNC made a bad decision to exclude the delegates, and now we are in a mess because of it.

It may seem unfair to suggest that the FL decision shouldn't have consequences, but when you consider the situation carefully, it seems obvious that there was never any way for the DNC to effectively retaliate for the decision.

Stumped's analogy with Sebastian is a poor one. It would be more like if a visiting grandparent was warned not to give the boy a cookie, then the parents decided to withhold from the child desert when the grandparents disobeyed. The DNC can't punish those responsible (FL DNC leaders), so they punish FL voters.

Bad idea, btw. FL voters aren't people you want annoyed with your party ...

There has to be a re-vote. It's the only way to address the mess made by the DNC.

Posted by: RPW | March 12, 2008 12:11 AM

Reposting with link:
jhbyer, love to see your links to those stories, here's what the Florida Democrats themselves say happen...if you have the basics down skip to Q5 "Why didn't the Florida Democratic Party Follow the Rules".

Executive summary for those not wanting to follow the link: think about it. You're a Republican, and you know that your Democratic rivals are screwed if you make their primary too early. You control the Governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature. When are you going to set the primary for? That's right, early enough to screw the other party as long as your party's rules allow it. Duh.

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q5

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 11:42 PM

Here's more info for those who haven't looked at primary sources (no pun intended):
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml
According to the rules set by the DNC, here were the primary/caucus delegate rules:
Delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions will begin on the first Tuesday in February (5 February 2008) and end on the second Tuesday in June (10 June 2008). States are required to complete their process by the third Saturday in June (21 June 2008). However,
• Iowa can schedule its first tier caucuses 22 days before the window (Monday 14 January 2008),
• Nevada can schedule its first tier caucuses 17 days before the window (Saturday 19 January 2008),
• New Hampshire can hold its primary 14 days before the window (Tuesday 22 January 2008), and
• South Carolina can hold its primary 7 days before the window (Tuesday 29 January 2008).
If a jurisdiction begins their delegate selection process before the "window", that jurisdiction's pledged delegate allocation is reduced by 50% and their unpledged delegates are not allowed to vote at the National Convention.
If a candidate campaigns in violation of the "window" that candidate may receive neither pledged delegates nor delegate votes from the state where the violation occurred.
So, essentially, the rules were:
i) Iowa no earlier than Jan 14th. (They ended up on Jan 3)
ii) NH no earlier than Jan 22nd. (Ended up on Jan 10)
iii) Violate the rules and you get docked 50%

Then, FL and MI set earlier dates and got denied lenience. Iowa and NH set earlier dates and got lenience (NH despite the fact that it leapfrogged Nevada). Then in the only instance of actually changing the rules I've seen to date, the DNC voted for an extra special penalty of 0% rather than 50% of delegates for those going earlier than Feb. 5 without permission. This happened after, repeat after, FL had set its date assuming they'd get docked 50% under, to quote Howard Dean, rules "Florida voted for". I certainly understand that the DNC has the right to punish in order to encourage good behavior, but it's hard to believe Dean can crow about not changing the rules with this storyline.

Or that anyone can claim there's some hard and fast rule that makes lobbying for something different than the 0% solution out of bounds.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 11:39 PM

jhbyer, love to see your links to those stories, here's what the Florida Democrats themselves say happen...if you have the basics down skip to Q5 "Why didn't the Florida Democratic Party Follow the Rules".

Executive summary for those not wanting to follow the link: think about it. You're a Republican, and you know that your Democratic rivals are screwed if you make their primary too early. You control the Governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature. When are you going to set the primary for? That's right, early enough to screw the other party as long as your party's rules allow it. Duh.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 11:31 PM

dc-native, hi
According to the St. Petersburg (FL) Times, the NY Times, CNN, and BBC.UK, it was the Florida Democratic Party Leaders who moved the primary to 1-29, in defiance of their agreement with the DNC. The gov and legislature had nothing to do with it. Some have blamed the FL GOP for moving theirs first to 1-29, but there's no reason why the Dems had to hold theirs on the same date - and the proof is Mississippi. There the GOP moved to an earlier date, but the Mississippi Dems stayed put per agreement with the DNC.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 10:39 PM

dc-native, hi
"the lie" you say "people are spreading" is the truth, so far as I know, but maybe someone (me? you? any volunteers?) can research it.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 10:06 PM

Come to think of it, it's never a good time to play games with candidates' names, given that we are no longer in junior high.


Hmmm...I don't know about that Andres. Considering the way the media and the candidates continue to speak down to the electorate, I would think pretending these folks are in junior high would really be giving them the benefit of the doubt! ;)

Posted by: PhilV1 | March 11, 2008 10:05 PM

Gary asks why any party should be able to tell any state when to hold its primary?

It's actually the national party telling its members in each state when to hold their national party primary. The state allows its residents to use state equipment and polling places for national party business, but its strictly national party business, not state business. For the governor of Florida to weigh in with his opinion is pretty silly, but I assume he's a Republican with his own naughty purpose for feigning to tell the Democratic National Committee how to run its own business.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 9:52 PM

Mich and Fla shouldent have broken the party rules that was their bad choice and IMO those responsible for that should lose their jobs but i agree its not the fault of the people and they should get to vote as all Americans should allways have that right in elections

Posted by: sharon | March 11, 2008 9:50 PM

I wish people would stop spreading the lie that it was the state Democratic committees that set the dates of the Mich and Fla primaries. It was the state governments (legislatures and governors).

I don't quite see why the columnist objects to new primaries. Nothing in the DNC rules say you can't hold a beauty contest before you hold your real primary. Heck, a state could hold a beauty contest vote every day of the four-year cycle if they wanted.

Posted by: dc-native | March 11, 2008 9:50 PM

why should any party be able to tell any state when they can hold their primary?

Posted by: gary | March 11, 2008 8:07 PM

The DNC denying our votes & delegates in FL. is not sitting well with Dem. voters, why should we vote Dem. in Nov.?
The DNC is creating a mutiny and people are going to jump ship in Nov. if their original votes are not counted!
I will not vote twice to have it count once! (no revote)

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 7:16 PM

Should Clinton prevail as a result of an after the fact rule change to admit the FL and MI delegates, you can be sure we'll be hearing a lot of Republican flak in the fall along the lines of "How can you expect them to expect Mexicans to respect our immigration laws, when they don't respect their own party's rules?"

Posted by: Jim S. | March 11, 2008 6:27 PM

Just seat the superdelegates, given that they aren't chosen by the public anyway.

Or redo the election with the costs shared among the states, DNC and the two candidates. DNC didn't initiate the problem, but the decision to strip all the delegates was a terrible mistake. It leaves the voters frustrated and angry. In retrospect, taking away half the delegates and holding an election that counts would have been better.

As an aside, I'm surprised more people don't perceive that Clinton's request to have both elections stand is thoroghly dishonest.

Posted by: Eric | March 11, 2008 6:22 PM

What a joke.

Do the Democrats really think they'll win FL or MI after disenfranchising their voters during the primaries?

Sorry, we disenfranchised you during the primary, rule are rules, but please now vote for our nominee.

I don't think so.

Posted by: Bern | March 11, 2008 6:15 PM

Count all the votes.

Posted by: svreader | March 11, 2008 6:05 PM

If the votes of Florida and Michigan Democrats aren't counted in the primaries, they will make sure their votes count for McCain in November.

Folks in Florida are still pissed about the butterfly ballot.

Lots of folks in Florida aren't sure they'll even be around in 4 years.

For them, this might be the last chance they get...

Posted by: svreader | March 11, 2008 6:03 PM

Once people know both candidates, they generally prefer him. I


Posted by: WTF

NO THEY DO NOT

Look at California and Ohio. The big Dem states DO NOT WANT him.

Sorry but you Obama maniacs all seem to think that all he has to do is grace a place with his presence and all shall fall to the ground, kiss the hem of his robe and come to believe in him.

That is most definitely NOT the case. The more I hear, the more I am appalled by him.

(And neither am I a fan of Clinton. It has to devolved to 2 lousy choices - both of whom the Republicans will have a field day with.)

Posted by: Ann | March 11, 2008 5:15 PM

"The notion that Florida or Michigan Democrats are going to turn against their party in November if their delegations aren't seated in Denver strikes me as a myopic insider view. "


OH NO IT IS NOT!

Come up to my village in Michigan - one of the most liberal places in the state.

It held its collective nose and voted 15:1 for Kerry.

None of us had any say in the primary date debacle - that was a deal cut by the Republicans and Democrats in power. It was slipped through at the last minute.

The attitude of the (now bordering on being 'former') Democratic voters in this area is that if the stupid politicians can't find a way for us to participate in the primary process, we will simply vote for McCain.

DId you get that? We will jump over and vote for McCain.

We know the Republicans don't give 2 hoots about us. At least, however, they are honest about it.

The Democrats have turned into a lot of hypocrites - 'oh we want to involve everyone - but to hell with those voters whose state party politicians put the screws to them.' (NOTE: Obama is for 'inclusiveness' but only until it threatens to not be in his favor.)

Michigan has gone Republican before and can do so again. FLorida can easily land in the Republican column.

The DNC can impose fines on every idiot member who pushed through the early primary dates. In Michigan that means the Granholm, Levin, Dingel and a whole lot of legislators who voted for it. Punish them - not the voters.

The MI parties aggravated the anger of voters by adding to the bill the requirement that people identify themselves by party when choosing their primary ballot and (the really bad part) that their names will be handed over to the political parties.

In Michigan, voters do NOT register as Republican, Democrat or Independent. Now the parties have done a sneaky end run to get the names of people they can drive crazy with junk mail until the enxt election. A pox on all their houses. (The newspaper here ran an editorial urging people NOT to vote in the primary solely because of the new rule handing over voter names and the ballot they choose.)


And I am NOT an insider - just a very very annoyed voter.


Posted by: Ann | March 11, 2008 5:11 PM

Yes, I can see it all now. Someone walks into a nursing home with 25 mail-in ballots. All the clients in the nursing home are comatose. The "person" stands in the hallway and aska "Anyone against Hillary?" No one answers. Well the "person" says "I believe these are 25 votes for Hillary since no one was against her".

Posted by: Ro | March 11, 2008 5:06 PM

I'm so sick of being called names and chastised for this mess, just for being a Floridian. I e-mailed the national party, the state party, and Bill Nelson repeatedly prior to the primary, begging them to resolve this issue so our votes would count. Everyone pointed the finger at the other and did nothing. I voted anyway, because of the property tax initiative on the ballot, knowing it wouldn't count. I am not in favor of a do-over. Nobody cared then if we would be mad or disenfranchised or whatever. Now suddenly Hillary and her supporters care because they know it will help her. I say just leave us alone. We will vote in November with whatever we have left in our hearts at the end of this mess. All this controversy is just pouring salt in the wound as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: mcinfl | March 11, 2008 4:30 PM

DREAM TICKET
Simple solution

Below I have rewritten the Chris Weigant speech to turn it into the Strategic UNITY Speech

[b]THE STRATEGIC UNITY SPEECH[/b]
This version of the speech leaves the contest open but runs it without internecine war and unites the whole Democratic Party. It allows both candidates to continue to run for the Presidential Nomination. It does not Force any candidate to run as the VP. It says that both candidates will accept the will of the Democratic Party.

It totaly solves the Florida Michigan question.

"We would like to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.

Our party is now pretty equally divided between ourselves. The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but we don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions -- but we are proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.

So we would like to take this opportunity to offer each other the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should we be nominated by the party for President. Should the other be nominated, we are publicly saying we would accept that as well. We think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. We challenge our party and America to do the same."

I leave you to think on that speeches reception.

(follow link for the original Chris Weigant version of the speech written for Obama)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-obama-could-wrap-it-u_b_85595.html

DREAM TICKET you know it makes sense!

Because UNITY is a positive message.
Because UNITY is a strong message.
Because UNITY is a powerful message.

What is the NeoConMen's message? Hate Fear and Loathing.

The NeoConMen hate Obama
The NeoConMen hate Clinton
The NeoConMen hate Kerry
The NeoConMen hate Edwards
The NeoConMen hate Bill Clinton
The NeoConMen hate Gore
The NeoConMen hate JFK
The NeoConMen hate Carter
The NeoConMen hate the Dream Ticket
The NeoConMen even hate their very own McCain

The NeoConMen hate every single Democratic Party candidate, they always have and always will.

HATE is all they do.

They account for less than 30% of voters and declining. They have some loud mouthpieces like Fox and Talk Radio and the rest of the NeoConMen's media.

Their time is ended.

All they have left is Hate.

UNITY triumphs over hate every time.

That is what the [b]United States[/b] of America is based on.

And America is sick to the stomach of the NeoConMen and their hate. They are sick of the NeoConMen damaging the US economy. They are sick of the Iraq war. They are sick of the American image being dragged through the mud. They sick of the NeoConMen raping our planet. The sick of the NeoConMen's Tax Debt. They sick of rising gas at the pump. They are sick of the dollar in their pocket being worth half of what it was. They are sick of it all. Most of all they are sick of the NeoConMen and their lies and deceit.

And they are hungry for CHANGE.
And they are hungry for UNITY.
And they are hungry for HOPE.

HOPE is the Vision.
UNITY is the Strategy.
CHANGE is the Means.

UNITY is what will win.
UNITY is what the NeoConMen fear
UNITY is the Gift that keeps giving
UNITY is a landslide
UNITY is Strategic Momentum
UNITY is 16 years of power
UNITY is a Democratic Party House of Representatives
UNITY is a Democratic Party Senate
UNITY is the NeoConMen buried
UNITY will beat hate!

See how the Democratic UNITY message is stronger then the NeoConMen's hate message?

Posted by: walker1 | March 11, 2008 3:59 PM

Here's an idea to solve the Florida-Michigan debate:

Florida and Michigan voters feel disenfranchised, and rightly so. After all the Florida Democratic Committee and the Michigan Democratic Committee voted to move their primaries ahead, knowing full well of the penalty facing them. These voters should be holding their state committees responsible, not the DNC. Unfortunately, both state democratic committees assumed that Clinton would be the nominee by Feb 4, well before their states voted. After all when they made the decision last year to move their elections forward Clinton was far ahead of any other candidate. Also the committee "powers that be" favored Clinton. In their decision they believed that in this primary a say in a "beauty pageant" was more important than holding a legitimate election well after the deciding Feb 4 primaries when no one would care. The problem is they didn't count on Obama being the front runner. Ironically if they kept the original dates we would have had an exciting two primaries.

At this point there is absolutely no way a "fair" do over election can be held in either state; there is too much under the bridge. And it is far from fair to just seat the delegates. The money to hold special elections is estimated to cost $30 million dollars, dollars that would be better spent winning the election against McCain.

So here is an idea:

* Seat the FL and MI delegates as is. This makes Clinton partially happy and the voters can feel their vote mattered somewhat. Yes, I agree for many reasons that this is not fair, but wait; here is the rest of the idea.

* Seat the delegates but don't count the popular vote in the totals. After all, many people didn't vote because they knew their vote would not count. Doing a redo in Fl will only confirm that Clinton would win FL. A redo in MI would likely produce a tie. While seating the delegates as is will benefit Clinton, not counting the popular vote will benefit Obama. Do over elections will only fan the flames that are splitting the Democratic Party apart--they will never be fair to one or the other party.

* To punish the two states for moving their primaries forward the DNC should continue to strip the super delegates to these two states.

This solution helps Clinton get part of what she wants by seating the delegates, it helps Obama by not counting the popular vote, it punishes Florida and Michigan democratic committees for ignoring the DNC, it seats the delegates at the Convention, and it saves the democrats in this country $30 million dollars which can be used to win the fall election.

At the very least if there are new elections the DNC should punish FL and MI by not allowing the super delegates to participate.

Posted by: peloton | March 11, 2008 3:41 PM

I wonder how many of these whining Floridians ever attended a Democratic party meeting. I wonder how many of these whining Floridians ever cared who represented them to the DNC. I wonder how many of these whining Floridians protested the move of the primary date. I wonder how many of these whining Floridians protested after the Florida delegation was offered an opportunity to reschedule the primary last August, but instead gave the DNC the finger.

It's kind of like any other election; if you didn't participate, your whining means absolutely nothing. But it does show how immature you are.

Posted by: infuse | March 11, 2008 3:15 PM

funny, this whole spoiled child metaphor sounds somehow familiar. oh right, it was on the Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi on Sunday...

http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/florida-and-michigan-are-spoiled-little-brats/

Posted by: lestro | March 11, 2008 2:59 PM

When you are told what the rules are and the consequences for not abiding those rules are clear and you go ahead an break the rules..you do not deserve any sympathy or do over. End of story.

Posted by: friend2 | March 11, 2008 2:41 PM

How is this mess turning into Obama's fault. I would like to know why didn't any of these people speak up when this thought was being passed around.

Why didn't Hilary Clinton protest before any voting began. She seems like she is nt afraid to speak her mind why didn't she speak it then. Why didn't she refuse to sign. And now all of these governor's who are willing to raise money for this why didn't they speak out. Why didn't the voters in FL & MI march in protest at the time of this. Because in Illinois they would have never gotten away with this. And isn't it funny that all the people who are mainly talking about a do-over are Hilary Clinton supporters.

I dare anyone to find anything with Obama refusing a do over. He said he wanted to let the DNC decide what to do and he will follow those rules. He has never said he would not accept nor participate in a do over. I would like to know would you agree to anything that all of the supporters of your competitor were trying to set the rules. This is why he is ahead now because they keep trying to treat him like they were stupid.

I think that Hilary didn't start making a big deal out of this until she realized that this guy is actually beating me. I gotta try and do something to save face. I think the whole thing is stupid. But don't try to put this mess on Obama.

It is really the fault of the whole democratic party for allowing such foolishness.

Posted by: Bridgette | March 11, 2008 2:40 PM

Sorry, but the Obama camp opposition to holding a revote, reeks of hypocrisy.

The first comment on this article asked:

"If this were Idaho and Guam making the same argument would anyone care?"

Let me rephrase that for you...

If this were Illinois and Georgia making the same argument would Obama object to their votes counting?

No he wouldn't. He'd be making EXACTLY the same arguments that Clinton supporters are making for Florida and Michigan.

BOTH sides are guilty of taking partisan stances, but quite frankly, I haven't seen a reasonable and objective argument in favor of not having a revote. The "rules are rules" argument is facetious nonsense. There are bad rules, and disenfranchising two major states because they held their vote too early is one of them.

Posted by: Jerry M | March 11, 2008 2:25 PM

Sorry, but the Obama camp opposition to holding a revote, reeks of hypocrisy.

The first comment on this article asked:

"If this were Idaho and Guam making the same argument would anyone care?"

Let me rephrase that for you...

If this were Illinois and Georgia making the same argument would Obama object to their votes counting?

No he wouldn't. He'd be making EXACTLY the same arguments that Clinton supporters are making for Florida and Michigan.

BOTH sides are guilty of taking partisan stances, but quite frankly, I haven't seen a reasonable and objective argument in favor of not having a revote. The "rules are rules" argument is facetious nonsense. There are bad rules, and disenfranchising two major states because they held their vote too early is one of them.

Posted by: Jerry M | March 11, 2008 2:14 PM

Florida and Michigan got exactly what they deserved. They were told the rules and the consequences of violating them.

If this were Idaho and Guam making the same argument would anyone care?

Hillary is losing and will try anything to win. The Clintons have a singular ability to reshape reality in the image they desire.

If the DNC does not stick to their original ruling they should just dissolve. There is no authority unless penalties can be meted out. Otherwise, we will just have Anarchy.

Posted by: steelerhawk47 | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Since the absence of a candidate's name on a ballot is "irrelevant," would you support leaving Clinton's name off the ballot in the remaining primaries? Unless they live in a vacuum, indeed, voters certainly know who is running by now. If it was fair in Michigan, it is fair in the Pennsylvania primary and every other remaining primary. And if it is fair to Obama, then it is fair to Clinton.

Posted by: To Michael | March 11, 2008 1:39 PM

First of all, no one has a Constitutional right to vote in a primary. Political parties, and their candidate selection processes, are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.

To the poster who said that the Republican legislature in Florida forced the Democratic Party to move their primary - what nonsense! There are many states that have different dates for their parties' primaries, including Mississippi, where Democrats are voting today.

Posted by: Mike | March 11, 2008 1:23 PM

I'm still trying to figure why it is not fair to seat these delegates according to the totals.

Neither campaign was run in a vacuum, voters knew who was running, so the fact that Obama wasn't on the ticket in MI is irrelevant. He even pushed for people to vote "uncommitted" to show their displeasure, and HRC STILL got 56% of the vote.

Neither campaign ran ads or made appearances in either state, so voters got equal exposure to all candidates, and they both voted for HRC in overwhelming numbers. As a matter of fact, a do-over in MI now would be unfair for HRC because Edwards and Kucinich are no longer in the race, and they were both siphoning votes from Obama.

The Obama supporters don't want them seated because if you take those numbers into account then Obama's delegate and popular vote lead basically go away. That opens the convenntion up to the superdelegates, and they know he can't politic the way HRC can, and he will lose. Most of the national media dont want them seated because they hate HRC.

The Dems wouldn't have a fight because the popular vote and pledged delegates would be essentially equal, and with HRC winning all the large (and swing) states there is a valid point to be made for her to get the nomination. As a further matter of fact she has a valid claim now. The only people who would be pissed off is the whiny Obamaniacs. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Clinton on this one.

Posted by: Michael | March 11, 2008 1:18 PM

sumlukelark: Yup, I can see why you are a Republican - breaking signed promises is of no consequence to you. You're a Republican, who'd expect you to... your president doesn't like the rule of law either. Laws and sworn pledges are meant to be broken aren't they?

Fact - neither party is an official arm of any government, federal or state, therefore your rattle about trumping government is false. They do NOT have to abide by the State set date with the exception of procuring financial assistance. Florida's Republican administration could have easily had ballots printed for the Democrat's long established date for Florida. But apparently - many Democrats in Fla. also wanted to move the date - and so they didn't press the State government as hard as they should have.

What was wrong with taking the view that since your delegation to the rules committee signed on in August of 06 you would follow this time but - rather than ratifying the rules right away next time you would then negotiate for a 'better' date?

You break your promises - you live with your consequences.

Posted by: tpartier | March 11, 2008 1:15 PM

What is so wrong with voting twice: Chicagoans love it!
I really don't understand the whining and carping about doing another election in either FL or MI, you would think people were being asked to go on field patrol in Baghdad or somewhere. If neither state seems to understand how to put together a primary in another couple of months using postcards (I know, those stamp prices will kill ya!) why dont they hire Oregon to do it for them? Sheesh, and we are the same people that put men on the moon, invented the Internet (sorry, Al), and want to defeat global terrorism? For shame, crybabies!

Posted by: Frankp2 | March 11, 2008 12:58 PM

Stumped, you are right once again.

I fail to understand (well, actually I do--anything to screw things up) why some Republicans take offense at how Dems want to run their own party? Go mind your own business.

"I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers

Is there something in the water that compels Florida's elected officials and perhaps even the electorate there to just screw things up whenever they can? Is it the heat? The humidity?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM

And then, of course, there's the argument that Florida is a clusterfu@k that has consistently screwed up every election it gets its mangled little claws on. I say... let 'em succeed.

Posted by: ep thorn | March 11, 2008 12:43 PM

In response to... um... no name...

You can charge discrimination if you'd like, but the question is whether there is a LEGAL case of it. One court has already tossed the idea, because party primaries are not constitutionally controlled. Further cases will likely be dismissed just as easily, following the precedent going back to the advent of such parties (when, of course, there was NO real voting)You could just as easily take the party to court and argue that it is discriminatory to give superdelagates more votes than any other individual. The truth is, the party is allowed to do what it wants in this regard in the American system. Changing that would PROBABLY require a constitutional amendment to avoid infringing on the party's 1st amendment rights.

Annnnyway, the party has a valid reason for setting the rules. The DNC decided they did not want the primaries going back years, and they knew that the only way to do that was to set lines in the sand. They therefore had two choices, both flawed. ONE: they could set a single deadline and have every state set its primary/whatever to that date, in essence creating a national primary. TWO: they could decide which handful of states would best represent the country so that the candidates could campaign on the ground in those states. If you believe one is the best option, well, that's that. But option two means that SOME states have to be before others.

Let's not forget that this was neither indiscriminate nor unwarned. Both states were very clearly (and publicly) warned that they would lose their status. It's very sad for the voters there, but they should toss out their state house reps, who caused this entire mess. The only thing that the DNC could be faulted for its decision to take away all delegates instead of, say, 50% which I believe was the original idea.

Of course part of the idea was to punish the states and stop them from holding the event. If you want to seat them now, you can forget about any organization within the DNC next time around. Republicans will love it, but I'm not sure it would be pretty...

Posted by: ep thorn | March 11, 2008 12:41 PM

Gene in FL,
Your threat that Floridian Dems will "vote for McCain out of retaliation" justifies cutting you all loose right now. If you all don't love America more than your little primary "vote", your votes won't reflect our nation's best interest. If you don't intend to vote in good faith in November, your primary votes are suspect. There are 100,000,000 other Dems who are as powerless over the DNC as you are. There's an America that needs a Democratic president. If you don't think so, you should not have a say in the Democratic nomination. Period.

Not that I have a damn bit of control over whether you do or not. If there's something we out-of-staters can do to help those Dems of good faith in Florida, let us know.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 12:40 PM

From April 2007, this website:

Florida lawmakers today angrily assailed the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, for considering a plan to invalidate the state's presidential primary, which has been moved up to Jan. 29 in a move that has thrown the primary calendar into chaos.

The DNC's rules committee is expected to vote Saturday to sanction Florida for violating party rules against holding a primary before Feb. 5. The action would deny Florida its delegates at the party's national convention next year and prohibit Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in the state.

The DNC "is poised to assault the basic right of a person to vote at its meeting tomorrow," Florida Sen. Bill Nelson told reporters on a conference call Friday morning. He threatened to sue the national party to prevent the sanctions from being imposed.

"I hope that cooler heads are going to prevail tomorrow," Nelson said. "If they don't, and if the full DNC were to then take that position, then certainly we will have to assert what we think are important rights."

Nelson and other Florida Democrats laid the blame squarely at the feet of the party chairman, accusing Dean of trying to "disenfranchise" voters in Florida.

"There is no elected official that is going to allow their voters to become irrelevant," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Dean was not made available to comment. A spokeswoman for the DNC said that if Florida insists on having a statewide primary on Jan. 29, it must also hold another caucus or convention after Feb. 5 to officially choose delegates.

"We've spent months working with the Florida Democratic Party to come up with an alternative process and comply with the national rules they voted for," said Stacie Paxton. "In the end, we hope Florida will do the right thing."

But members of Florida's Democratic congressional delegation said they are opposed to holding a second nominating contest after Jan. 29.

Wasserman Shultz said that Dean's offer to turn the primary into a non-binding beauty contest would "completely disenfranchise almost every eligible voter. We are pushing for the party to inject some sanity into their process."

The clash between the DNC and its party leaders in Florida is the result of chaos in the primary calendar as states have rushed to move their primaries earlier. Efforts by the DNC -- and their counterparts at the Republican National Committee -- to stop the movement has so far been unsuccessful.

But the expected action by the DNC tomorrow would be an unprecedented move against the fourth largest state in the nation, which is also a key swing state in the last two presidential elections.

Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and is a member of the DNC's rules committee, said "No one has really thrown the book at them. We will enforce our rules."

--Michael D. Shear

Posted by: Hillmannic | March 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Everyone should Google and research this topic to learn more.

I am shocked at the arrogance of the Florida and Michigan Democratic Party leaders. The DNC and Dean repeatedly warned, and worked with them, to try to avoid this consequence of their actions. They went ahead and did it anyway.

Sorry, people of Michigan and Florida, but YOUR STATE REPS are the ones to blame. Target your ire at THEM.

From April 2007 on the Wash Post website:

Florida lawmakers today angrily assailed the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, for considering a plan to invalidate the state's presidential primary, which has been moved up to Jan. 29 in a move that has thrown the primary calendar into chaos.

The DNC's rules committee is expected to vote Saturday to sanction Florida for violating party rules against holding a primary before Feb. 5. The action would deny Florida its delegates at the party's national convention next year and prohibit Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in the state.

The DNC "is poised to assault the basic right of a person to vote at its meeting tomorrow," Florida Sen. Bill Nelson told reporters on a conference call Friday morning. He threatened to sue the national party to prevent the sanctions from being imposed.

"I hope that cooler heads are going to prevail tomorrow," Nelson said. "If they don't, and if the full DNC were to then take that position, then certainly we will have to assert what we think are important rights."

Nelson and other Florida Democrats laid the blame squarely at the feet of the party chairman, accusing Dean of trying to "disenfranchise" voters in Florida.

"There is no elected official that is going to allow their voters to become irrelevant," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Dean was not made available to comment. A spokeswoman for the DNC said that if Florida insists on having a statewide primary on Jan. 29, it must also hold another caucus or convention after Feb. 5 to officially choose delegates.

"We've spent months working with the Florida Democratic Party to come up with an alternative process and comply with the national rules they voted for," said Stacie Paxton. "In the end, we hope Florida will do the right thing."

But members of Florida's Democratic congressional delegation said they are opposed to holding a second nominating contest after Jan. 29.

Wasserman Shultz said that Dean's offer to turn the primary into a non-binding beauty contest would "completely disenfranchise almost every eligible voter. We are pushing for the party to inject some sanity into their process."

The clash between the DNC and its party leaders in Florida is the result of chaos in the primary calendar as states have rushed to move their primaries earlier. Efforts by the DNC -- and their counterparts at the Republican National Committee -- to stop the movement has so far been unsuccessful.

But the expected action by the DNC tomorrow would be an unprecedented move against the fourth largest state in the nation, which is also a key swing state in the last two presidential elections.

Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and is a member of the DNC's rules committee, said "No one has really thrown the book at them. We will enforce our rules."

--Michael D. Shear

Posted by: Nicka | March 11, 2008 12:37 PM

the clintons better known as bushlite will attempt to change everything in mid stream. you guys (the dreaded media), pumped her up and told her she was going to win, hands down. you spoke too soon, just as some of you are counting votes before they have been cast. and you have been WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.the people will vote for the candidate of their choice,vote for whomever you wish, just vote anyone will be better than the grinning, dancing minstral that's in there now.

Posted by: deelite | March 11, 2008 12:24 PM

as per Harry.
It would be more like this. The Democratic Party alows only four states to vote on Nov.4th and everyone else had to wait until December to vote.(Also, note the CONSTITUTION sets that date, not some old party stalwarts interested in preserving their power.

Posted by: sumlukelark | March 11, 2008 12:10 PM

So,let me get this straight. Most of you believe that the national parties rules should trump the right of states to determine their own primary. I Guess that's why I'm Republican. If the candidates had chosen to repected the people and states over their loyalty to the party they would have conducted campaigns in the states anyway, even if the votes were not counted at the convention. Then they would at least have a valid vote to count, if the party changed its mind.

Posted by: sumlukelark | March 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Democrat hypocrites. They are imploding with their race and gender wars. Their voters know both are liars and both have shady past personal gain histories. Both would destroy our energy companies, let more illegals in, give our tax money to the undeserving nonproducers, would encourage our enemies, would destroy our economy to pander to the global warming nuts and abandon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Osama would vote for Obama, Chavez would vote for Clinton and intelliegent patriotic Americans will vote for the man who knows duty, honor, country.l

Posted by: V Racer | March 11, 2008 11:30 AM

For those of you watching the Democratic runners - look at what they are doing - not just what they are saying.

Obama is trying, desperately to not get into throwing the dirt - sadly he is being sucked in.

Clinton - well not only is she throwing dirt - but she's actively supporting having delegates to be counted, from at least one state where the contest was blatently unfair to her only competition.

Remember what you SEE the canidates do and not just what you hear.

Do you trust Clinton - given she will do anything to win? What will she do if/when her power grows?

Honor comes from the core.

Posted by: Chris | March 11, 2008 11:16 AM

Lawsuit filed by a Tampa area attorney against the DNC for its decision to revoke Florida's delegates

Because some states were allowed to hold primaries Feb. 5, when the DNC took away Florida's delegates, they were discriminating against Fl. for simply trying to do the same thing.

The lawsuit is asking the court to rule on whether or not the DNC violated Florida's right to equal protection.

The lawsuit will be heard Monday by the 11th Circuit Court of appeals.

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 11:07 AM

ep thorn: Discriminator rules can be challenged regardless of the Party's decision. Since so many states changed the date, why were Florida and Michigan discriminated against?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 11:01 AM

Why can't the writer of this blog and other pundits get it through their collective heads that the overwhelmingly Republican legislature moved up the primary date and that the move was NOT supported by Democrats? The move was part of a bill that ensured that required a paper trail to be a part of every voting system used in Florida. That was such an important issue that many Democrats voted for the bill. It's infuriating to read and hear the unending criticism from people who don't know the facts.
The DNC was short-sighted when, in their "wisdom", they deprived the state of all its delegates. The RNC deprived the state of half its delegates to the Republican convention, a move that made a lot more sense. Howard Dean has been a disaster in his handling of this mess.
Apparently, Hillary has given up on having the Florida and Michigan delegates seated so now she and her supporters want a do-over because the desperately need the delegate numbers and are counting on winning in both states. Note that those being most verbal about this, Florida Senator Bill Nelson, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell and New Jersey governor John Corzine, are all Hillary supporters. Of course Florida Republican governor Charlie Crist supports a do-over as long as the state doesn't have to pay for it.
Rush Limbaugh has finally done something admirable. He is completely open and honest about the desirability of John McCain facing Hillary instead of Barack in November and is encouraging Republicans to do whatever possible to make that happen. Do you think that he may know that the Republicans are sitting on a pile of caca (even we South Florida Anglos tend to slip into Spanish occasionally) with which they will bury Hillary in a general election? Do you think he knows that the rabid right wing base who might be apathetic toward voting for McCain will rise up in fury and hatred to vote against Hillary? Do you wonder why Crist also supports the do-over?
Please, people. Get the facts and think things through!

Posted by: colton | March 11, 2008 10:58 AM

The reason it is unfair to seat Florida is because none of them campaigned there (some argue there were Obama adds there, but others argue that Hillary went to Florida the morning of the election to creat buzz). Given the name recognition of Hillary, not campaigning inherently favors her. Look at all elections so far. He has to come back from way behind to close the gap on her. Once people know both candidates, they generally prefer him. Its sad that Clinton and her surrogates have, once again, used this election to divide people. Its true that the situation is a mess. What we need now is a solution. Contrary to her campaign mantra, Hillary has not offered a real solution. All she has done is offer to seat the delegates in a wholly unfair manner, knowing that the Obama side would rightfully complain. Thus, rather than a solution that gets people together, she has chosen to divide and manipulate the people. I say WTF? If anyone is being undemocratic its her. Can you imagine calling for the delegates to be seated in a place where you were the only one on the ballot?!?!??!

Posted by: WTF | March 11, 2008 10:49 AM

"The DNC emphasizes that its rules were adopted by hundreds of DNC representatives from all 50 states. It also cites Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, which says national parties do not need to recognize the results of a primary in allocating delegates, and that a state can refuse to seat delegates from a primary that violates its rules."

For cripes sake - what was the DNC to do? Get real - imagine this one going over in a traffic court "Your honor, Mac lives five blocks closer to the grocery store than I do and the sale was for one day only, obviously then, I have a right to speed in order to even the chances for me to get the same price as Mac." And the judge then says - "Well Charley, I'd have to agree with you on that, no fine no court costs, case closed."

This is followed by 6 gabillion further arguments on the same sort of claim by others caught speeding.

What part of this does Hillary and her Florida sympathizers not get?

The idea that a candidate cannot close a gap in polls by in-state campaigning has been disproven so many times throughout history it's ridiculous. So to say that Edwards, Obama and the others wouldn't have improved their position is utterly ridiculous. WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

Nelson wants to claim he's been working with the DNC for months to correct this,
"Now there is no choice," Nelson said. "I'm preparing a lawsuit." - he said this on Sept 25th - when the State Party still had a week in whih to agree to the date originally set by party vote over one year before.

Sounds to me like he was trying to BULLY the party.

Guess you shouldn't have re-elected the good Senator. Guess maybe you should have pushed harder to field better Dem candidates and get them elected to your state offices.

For the record - I agree the primary calendaring system needs a rework - and I have no problem with preserving the traditional first four and rotating the rest of the country by regions - whether by population composition or by geographic proximity. But to try and force a change against the will of 48 other states sound pretty darn arrogant to me. Finally - I'm from Ohio - a rather late voting state and hey - we ended have a say. Though not one I am particularly happy with. Maybe I should file a lawsuit too!

See this article from "The Hill"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nelson-set-to-sue-dnc-over-floridas-primary-2007-09-26.html

Posted by: tpartier | March 11, 2008 10:45 AM

They want a revote and they want you to pay for it, sounds like my kids.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 11, 2008 10:24 AM

"But it's unfair to change the rules of the game once the game is underway."

First, this is not a game. Second, it is not "unfair" to change unfair rules.

"Howard Dean, the DNC chairman, should hold firm."

Howard Dean should apologize for his mistake and correct it. If he had given FL and MI half the amount of delegates (like the Republicans did), then the primaries would have been valid and both candidates would have been on the ballot. But no. He had to lock FL and MI out altogether. It's his poor management that got us here.

"... but it still would set a terrible precedent. It would signal to states that they can disregard party rules (hold a Thanksgiving primary!) with impunity if it turns out to be an exciting election."

Yeah right! Like any party is going to do that. Stupid argument. And besides, if the state parties are going to have to pay to clean up the mess, then they should be able to control their own primary dates.

Posted by: thebottomline | March 11, 2008 10:05 AM

It seems alot of you don't care if our FL votes count. You might care in Nov. if we all decide to vote McCain out of retaliation for not counting our votes. Then again maybe you wouldn't care because your Rep.

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 9:48 AM

And the what the party hacks agreed to should deprive the people of a right to vote??? What country do we live in??

Second point - Both names were on the ballot in Florida, no one campagined there, although some claim Obama showed some ads, and a record number voted, so why not just count it???? Oh that's right, the people cannot make up their mind without being campaigned at so therefore it was not a legitimate election. What arrogance!!

Posted by: kathy | March 11, 2008 9:47 AM

And the what the party hacks agreed to should deprive the people of a right to vote??? What country do we live in??

Second point - Both names were on the ballot in Florida, no one campagined there, although some claim Obama showed some ads, and a record number voted, so why not just count it???? Oh that's right, the people cannot make up their mind without being campaigned at so therefore it was not a legitimate election. What arrogance!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 9:45 AM

I'm with "Shirley"...The real question now is why didn't Charlie Crist and Jennifer Granholm raise their objections EARILIER?

Clearly, either counting the results as is, or having a re-vote, is in the direct interest of the trailing candidate, i.e. Hillary Clinton.

All of the people arguing for the re-vote/seating of delegates, have a vested interest in having Hillary become the nominee: Rendell, Corzine and Granholm are all superdelegates supporting Hillary. Christ wants the nomination battle to go to Denver.

So why can't the media step up and call this for what it is? A transparent, last gasp strategy to help Hillary win? NONE of these folks raised their objections at the time that (a) it was relevant and (b) anyone could have fairly taken action to reverse the DNC ruling. All of these folks accepted the known outcome that the delegates would not count WITHOUT OBJECTION.

And worst of all, the Florida primary was moved up mostly at the bidding of the RNC...Did Charlie Christ say word one then? Did he lean on the RNC and warn them that this would "disenfranchise" democratic voters?

Nope. The reason why is that back then, no one saw Barack Obama coming. They thought that Hillary had this in the bag, and that the results wouldn't really matter anyway.

Shame on Charlie Christ and Jennifer Granholm.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 9:41 AM

How dare anyone blame Michigan Democrats like me for the mess created by the state party leaders? The fix was in, and they forged ahead with an early unfair primary despite protests from voters and warnings from the DNC.

We voters disenfranchised, but not just by the DNC, by our state party leaders who apparently wanted to lock up the state for Clinton. Well, even without Edwards or Obama on the ballot, Uncommitted got a hefty 40%. Now tell me how much incentive is there to come out and vote for Uncommitted? Add Kucinich's total and you get 44% voting for someone-other-than-Clinton in a primary where write-in ballots would be disallowed.

Posted by: Lev Raphael | March 11, 2008 9:37 AM

1. The primaries are run by the individual parties who have the right to decide how they choose their candidates. The Democrats chose to begin with four regional contests intended to acheive a demographic mix which would, hopefully, weed out the candidates with little broad-based appeal.

2. Florida and Michigan were two of several states that changed their primary date, but the only ones who chose to schedule theirs during the "regional" primaries in Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. They were informed that doing so would mean that their delegates would not be allowed to vote during the National Convention. They metaphorically shrugged.

3. When these two states chose to ignore the warning that they would forfeit the votes of their delegates if they scheduled their votes during the "regional" contests, THAT was the time for the grass-roots Democrats to have spoken up and complained that their State Party was endangering their "right to vote", even mounted an insurrection to oust party leaders if needed. But they didn't.

4. You (the registered Democrats of Michigan and Florida) chose the State Party leaders, they chose the primary dates, you didn't confront them or protest, and now here we are...the consequences of your inattention are being felt and you don't think it's fair.

Get over it. You had your chance. It's too late now. Quit your whining and accept it as positively as possible. After all, we aren't Republicans to change the rules mid-contest if we don't like the outcome.

Posted by: Shirley U. Geste | March 11, 2008 9:16 AM

Is it not fair to consider what would have happened to John Edwards had it been known all along that Michigan would count? Arguably his message would have had the greatest resonance in that State. He would skipped NH focused his resources there and might still be a viable player.

I think rules matter that is what we try and teach our children. I think the Democratic party is setting a really bad example and reinforcing the image of Democrats as a party without values. It doesn't help that Spitzer all regarded as a crusader for justice has turned out to be another hypocrite.

Posted by: crazyv | March 11, 2008 9:04 AM

I think we have hit rock bottom. Doesn't anybody else think that there is something wrong about having elections financed by private donations. Is there nothing that can't be outsourced to the private sector.

I think we might as well go the whole hog and just auction of the Presidency to the highest bidder. Competing private equity syndicates raising money from the American people- may the biggest fund win.

Posted by: crazyv | March 11, 2008 8:54 AM

In terms of elected delegates the current vote is inconsequential. The issue is that if the Delegates aren't seated, the Superdelegates aren't either. Hilary is pining for those Superdelegates. She could care less whether/how the regular voters vote.

As far as voters being "disenfranchised" goes, since each State makes its own nominating rules, many voters are "disenfranchised" from the nominating process.

We have never had 1 man 1 vote in this country, by design. The Founding Fathers did not trust the people (even when it was white property owners who could vote) to make this decision directly.

We are a representative Democracy -- not a direct Democracy.

Posted by: vmi98mom | March 11, 2008 8:33 AM

People in Florida and Michigan should be upset with their state officials who deliberately broke the rules they'd previously agreed to, knowing full well the consequences, rather than with the DNC. The states should pay for any re-vote. Anything else would not be fair to all the other states who followed the rules.

Posted by: EL | March 11, 2008 8:33 AM

I'm not saying a revote would get less voter participation. I was merely stating a fact that I will not revote & that I shouldn't have to vote twice to make my original vote count!

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 7:29 AM

excuse me, but it really doesn't matter when it comes to Florida or Michigan. . .or California, Mississippi, or any of the states. The Superdelegates decided the party's nominee, the Electoral College decides the President. . .and if the EC can't, then the Supreme Court will. Once upon a time, the individual vote may have counted. . .but not for some time. Get a grip - your vote doesn't count in a viable, reality-based way. We are, every single one of us not holding over a billion dollars, not sitting in Congress or the White House, or running some corporation, we are all disenfranchised.

Posted by: Cymric | March 11, 2008 7:20 AM

I didn't change the primary date, voted on the day FL. let me, and I'm being penalized! I don't think so! If the DNC doesn't want my original vote, then the DNC doesn't deserve my vote in Nov. either! I will not revote!

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 03:36 AM
____________________________

A NEOCON poster here folks! Here's an attempt to make people think that a revote will get less votes than the original.
Believe you me a revote will go heavily Clinton and so will Florida and Michigan in November after Clinton has said "count or revote" and Obama has said disenfranchise, "Split it 50/50"! After all a 50/50 split is just another way to make Florida and Michigan irrevalent in the delegate count!

Posted by: Harried | March 11, 2008 7:09 AM

Harried wrote
"How does Crist's refusal to pay for a revote help Hillary? Does anyone really expect Obama to do better in a revote after he has tried to disenfranchise the voters of Florida!
Look people, Floridians are really ticked off with Obama now!!!!!!!"

Why are Floridian's ticked off at Obama? I'd direct the blame at the state party officials that that went ahead and scheduled the beauty contest primary knowing what the consequences would be.

Posted by: hjshorter | March 11, 2008 6:54 AM

The article states:
"And I'm with you that it is especially cheeky for Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, to demand that the Democrats seat his state's delegates, chosen in an election that violated party rules (because it was held too early). It almost adds credence to conspiracy theories about Republican efforts to do anything to ensure they will face Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, in November."
_____________________________________

How does Crist's refusal to pay for a revote help Hillary? Does anyone really expect Obama to do better in a revote after he has tried to disenfranchise the voters of Florida!
Look people, Floridians are really ticked off with Obama now!!!!!!!

Posted by: Harried | March 11, 2008 6:38 AM

Nathan, I think maybe you should take a course in law before you go claiming that something is illegal. A political party can do ANYTHING IT WANTS to select a candidate, and there is no right to sue it for following rules it clearly instituted at the beginning. The same applies to superdelegates. In fact, there was a court ruling which confirmed this- if I remember right they basically laughed the plaintiff out of court since he had absolutely no legal leg to stand on (pun intended).

Posted by: ep thorn | March 11, 2008 6:37 AM

So many states changed the dates of their primary voting date so as to be relevant in the nomination decision. These states were not stripped of their delegates. Where in the world does the DNC have the legal right to deny the votes of two critical states in the election in an arbitrary fashion by a totally capricious rule? If the rules hold, there is the distinct possibility of a court intervention because there is no denying the voters' rights in an election except in a dictatorship. It is the principle, stupid. If either of the candidates refuses to compromise on a re-vote, the original votes would have to count, rules or no rules. The rule amounts to a form of capital punishment to a kid who disobeys his parents on a single issue in which the kid feels that he has a right to be firm. The democratic party has an obligation to find the preference of these states for either of the candidates because they made a huge error in framing a rule which has no locus standi in a democratic election.

Posted by: Nathan | March 11, 2008 6:24 AM

The states don't count? Of course not. Not when you do not like the winner. Keep voting until you do like the results.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | March 11, 2008 5:59 AM

"The DNC should punish the people that changed the primary date & not the voters!"

Too bad for you your state voted in the people that changed the date.

Florida and Michigan can go to h3ll. No cookie for you!

Posted by: ep thorn | March 11, 2008 4:36 AM

The DNC should punish the people that changed the primary date & not the voters! Well all I can say is the Dem. party winner will not get my vote in Nov. if the vote I already cast isn't allowed because of what someone else did! If the DNC really wants my vote, they'll punish the right people & not the voters! It will backlash on them come Nov.

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 4:33 AM

No Gene, the DNC *did* want your original vote. It just required that it be cast on or after February 5. Unfortunately for you, the politicians that you elected (yes, both the Democrats and the Republicans voted nearly unanimously for this), chose to hold your primary on January 29. The conclusion you should be drawing, if you're so inclined, is that the politicians you elected didn't want your original vote to count. Otherwise, they would have simply held the primary later.

Posted by: nes10 | March 11, 2008 4:17 AM

I didn't change the primary date, voted on the day FL. let me, and I'm being penalized! I don't think so! If the DNC doesn't want my original vote, then the DNC doesn't deserve my vote in Nov. either! I will not revote!

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 11, 2008 3:36 AM

(Continued) Someone in an other article said: For all her years on the public stage, Hillary has never come close to assembling and running an enterprise like the 700-p[erson, $170 million - and counting - compaign organization that she created." "She described herself a 'stunned' to learn the campaign was nearly broke---notwithstanding financial reports sent to her every week by E-mail" quoted from the article, "Internal Sniping Tarnishes Clinton's Image".

Obviously Hillary cannot lead and handle a relatively small campaign, 700 people and $170 million. How does she expect us to believe she can lead and handle the entire United States, foreign country affairs, and crisis? She must really believe we are completely illiterate and downright stupid!

My view, Senator Obama has, so far, brought down the "mighty Clintonian Political Machine"! Anyone who can do that has my utmost admiration and my vote. Senator Obama has accomplish this, not by "fighting" but by bringing people together and joining in moving our country foward so that not only we enjoy better and happier lives, but for future generations as well. TOGETHER, YES, WE CAN!

Posted by: NinaK | March 11, 2008 3:23 AM

There is a major error in the "no do-over" analysis: it has always been open to these states, under the same DNC rules that they previously broke, to hold do-over delegate nominating contests. The punishment (which I certainly agree should not be revoked) for holding early contests is that the delegates chosen *as a result of those contests* will not be seated; the punishment is *not* (and never was) that these states have forever forfeited their 2008 delegates. They simply have yet to choose any legitimately--it's just as if the early "beauty contests" had never happened.

(I do agree that Hillary's ridiculous grandstanding for the supposedly "disenfranchised" voters and claims that the illegitimate early delegates be seated will probably persuade a few rubes in Florida to vote for her -- but people who lack the intelligence to grasp anything more complex than a soundbite are Hillary's bread-and-butter already.)

Posted by: nes10 | March 11, 2008 3:12 AM

The news media made a big error with crowning Hillary as the "inevitable nominee" right after she announced she would be running for President. Hillary, as self-centered as she is, donned that crown and, although it has fallen off, she still thinks she is the "inevitable nominee". I am appalled at her behavior; she will descend to the depths of hell to have it "my way or no way.

None of the candidates, Michigan, and Florida had a problem with the DNC rules regarding the not seating of the delegates. The problem arose when Mr. Obama won 11 states in a row. Hillary hit the panic button and demanded Florida and Michigan delegates be seated. These states did not have a problem until Hillary made demands. She has created a horrible mess. Those states expecting the DNC to pay for any redo is indefensible. They defied the DNC, now they want to be "pardoned". Some have suggested Senator Obama and Hillary split the costs. Why should Senator split the cost; he isn't the one making demands. Bottom line, the DNC must stand by the rules they set and not allow the MI and FL redos. The DNC absolutely should not cater to Hillary's unrealistic demands!

What started out as an exciting campaign for America's citizens has now turned into a a dispicable and ugly fight with Hillary "throwing the kitchen sink" and everything else at Senator Obama. I am so very proud of him for staying above the fray.

Hillary has told the story of when she was a little girl, a little boy punched her and she went to mom with what had happened. Her mom's response: "There is no room for cowards in this house, you go back out there and punch him back!" Hillary did just that and found if she hit back (fight) she could get her way. Evidently that incident has guided her entire life. She keeps talking about "I am a fighter" "I will fight for you" etc. You know what? I don't think Americans want a fighter at all; I, for one, prefer civil discourse If Hillary wants to fight so badly, maybe she should be given the proper military clothes, gear, and equipment and send her to Iraq to fight to her hearts content alongside our military men and women who she helped put there!

Hillary has exhibited she is not a leader; she has run a shoddy campaign, second to none. She cannot handle her campaign funds; she cannot handle her campaign people.

Someone in an other article said: For all her years on the public stage, Hillary has never come close to assembling and running an enterprise like the 700-p[erson, $170 million - and counting - compaign organization that she created." "She described herself a 'stunned' to learn the campaign was nearly broke---notwithstanding financial reports sent to her every week by E-mail" quoted from the article, "Internal Sniping Tarnishes Clinton's Image".

It is chrystal clear Hillary make decisions on the lam. Take the "RESOLUTION TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ"; she did not bother to read the intelligence report! She did not bother to read those financial reports. Does America want such a person as our President and Commander-in-Chief? I think not!

Posted by: NinaK | March 11, 2008 2:54 AM

Regarding Brian W. and the patently ludicrous "This is what is happening in Florida and Michigan, where the voters had NO SAY in whether or not their primaries were moved up. The DNC is not punishing the people who made the decision -- they are punishing the voters for something they had no control over."

Excuse me> You think the other 48 states fell off the haywagon last night? What do you mean you had no control over it? And - do you think for a second that a good number of you weren't all for moving your date up?

You had control and you still have control - you do it by getting more democrats elected to your legislature for one thing. If you think the Repubs did ya dirty - then make sure they don't get another term.

I don't recall reading or seeing any stories about Floridian Dem.s marching on the state capital or raising Cain on any talk shows as the DNC rendered its opinion and rules. Rules incidentally, that were established in August of 06. So please... spare us - would ya?

And - exactly how would any sort of revote even begin to be fair? I can see the treacherous Clinton ads now - "I'm the one that saved your right to vote!". Sheesh - let's just vilify the candidates that honored the edict of their party while were at it.

Fact - first mention of the Clinton desire to count Florida came the morning of the South Carolina primary when they had all but conceded that Bill's ill chosen words had pretty much buried their chance with the black vote there.

Just check out the internal memo issued by Wolfson that morning. "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday."

And what sort of 'quiet promotion' might have been going on for Clinton prior to the primary, too? After all - one doesn't whip up a celebration party in two hours, you know.

You must think the rest of the country is obscenely stupid.

for the complete memo - see this page:
http://www.observer.com/2008/wolfson-florida-dems-will-be-heard

Posted by: tpartier | March 11, 2008 2:37 AM

Obama is CORRUPT, his slogan of change an ILLUSION.

1) A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (reference ABC News)

2) Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon to Obama's campaigns!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (reference New York Times)

People need to stop believing their fantasies about Obama and realize that Hillary is the one who has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care (before it became politically fashionable).

Posted by: Jay | March 11, 2008 2:07 AM

Florida and Michigan didn't like Obama that much. So now they want a do over.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 11, 2008 1:57 AM

I agree completely with your take on Michigan and Florida. This is more manipulation from that despicable @sshole Hillary Clinton.

Her campaign has been working for weeks to create the false impression that there is some grievous error in Michigan and Florida that must be remedied.

Then all her minions proposed an outrageous "solution" of seating the delegates from the illegitimate contests, knowing full well that was never going to happen.

Now, surprise, they offer the "compromise" of re-votes. But it only seems like a compromise because they've tried to create the false impression of some injustice and staked out an earlier outlandish position.

It's time to just say NO to the say anything candidate.

Posted by: Steve | March 11, 2008 1:52 AM

Harry,
Your question is beginning to sink in as rhetorical. Sorry to be dense. :-)

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 1:34 AM

Wake Up Brian! Who elects/appoints the FLA and MICH Dem party leaders? FLA and MICH democrats. When you cheat, you get penalized. Besides, why should FLA and MICH get to jump ahead and literally be the deciding vote in who becomes the nominee? STOP CHEATING!

Posted by: Fuzzy | March 11, 2008 1:32 AM

The Clinton's mealy-mouth tactics (VP "offer", seat the Florida and Michigan delegates now that she needs them) leave me wondering how this thing is as close as it is. I feel like I need a bath.

Posted by: Rob | March 11, 2008 1:29 AM

As I understand it, all Dem. canidates agreed to punnishing Florida and Michigan before the primary started, correct? If this is the case they better stand by their word or there will be a great deal of trust lost. I don't even know how the argument of who pays for a recount applies. If certain cannidates and or political parties can't keep their word in a realativly short period of time how can YOU/WE vote them into office. This is just more of the same bull@$%#@$##**&^!!! that both parties continue to engage in. I feel my previous exitment and joy for Change or Experience turning to a jaded "goverment as usual" BS.

Posted by: Rob | March 11, 2008 1:29 AM

Brian W.,
You're absolutely right. Your finer distinction explains the reaction of many Floridians.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 1:28 AM

Andres' answers are excellent. In less than six months, he's really hit his stride.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 1:23 AM

Although I disagree with a "re-do" of the Florida Dem. Primary it must be noted that Gov. Crist is only making political noise to apease the democrats in Florida. On the other hand let us not forget it was NOT Florida or Florida Politicos that asked for these delegates to be counted, rather the Clinton Campaign. Florida was Ok with facing the DNC sanctions.

Posted by: Jamie | March 11, 2008 1:21 AM

Stumped,

You left an important fact out of your "cookie" story. To be an accurate analogy, your child's ENTIRE SCHOOL would have to lose their dessert because YOUR child opted for the cookie.

This is what is happening in Florida and Michigan, where the voters had NO SAY in whether or not their primaries were moved up. The DNC is not punishing the people who made the decision -- they are punishing the voters for something they had no control over.

Posted by: Brian W. | March 11, 2008 1:20 AM

Ego ? Ego ? Tribal ,Tribal.
Show me Jewish religion AS mosses said
Show me Christianity AS Christ Said
Show me Islam AS Allah ( The God in English translation) said

America deserve what they vote for ... is that correct !

it is not a football game , who you support
DO Not lie to your soul
Fact ... All human souls are good , Until they make choice

American Way Of Election is a choice
Think with your head for USA in relation to all Americans, and to the world
Think about the past and what you want America to be in the future

Remember ...

IT IS NOT A Football team that you vote for .

Think & Vote ..Obama..

Posted by: Nabeel | March 11, 2008 1:16 AM

Harry,
Yours is an interesting question, so interesting I'm not sure I understand it. The right to vote and have it count truly does apply to the autumn election - unlike the privilege to participate in a primary that will effect the nominating process of a chosen political party, a privilege any party can remove just by abolishing primaries.

It's my understanding that the November election is set by federal law to prevent any state from having undue influence. An October renegade would indeed have undue influence, owing to the documented tendency of people to vote for "winners". This is why the media dutifully keeps a lid on early returns in the East until all states including Hawaii have closed their polls. Otherwise the East would rock the boat in its direction.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 11, 2008 1:16 AM

Ego ? Ego ? Tribal ,Tribal.
Show me Jewish religion AS mosses said
Show me Christianity AS Christ Said
Show me Islam AS Allah ( The God in English translation) said

America deserve what they vote for ... is that correct !

it is not a football game , who you support
DO Not lie to your soul
Fact ... All human souls are good , Until they make choice

American Way Of Election is a choice
Think with your head for USA in relation to all Americans, and to the world
Think about the past and what you want America to be in the future

Remember ...

IT IS NOT A Football team that you vote for .

Think & Vote ..Obama..

Posted by: Nabeel | March 11, 2008 1:15 AM

I heard on a talkshow that the 'move ' request was put in by DEMOCRATS to FL legislature?? As far as I can see, seems like just because Hill is losing, she (her usual divisive self) is pushing a 'must seat them' agenda. What if it was the other way around? This is history. Time to wait for the real thing. BEfore I forget, paying with private donors' monies is as good as illiciting bribes or ....?

Posted by: trups | March 11, 2008 1:07 AM

I agree completely on the Michigan/Florida issue. Particularly as it relates to who pays for the re-do. I am amazed that anyone is asking the DNC to pay for a second primary. The DNC explicitly told these states that their primary would yield delegates but they held them anyway. Now they want a second chance to be relevant and want someone else to bail them out.

The states bear responsibility for paying for these new elections (if they happen) and if the voters/taxpayers don't like it, they know who to blame...their own state elected officials.

Posted by: Justin | March 11, 2008 12:57 AM

If Florida somehow decides to hold its general election on October 31 while other states by election law hold theirs on November 4, would votes in Florida be counted because, you know, do otherwise would disenfranchise Floridian voters?

Posted by: Harry | March 11, 2008 12:36 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company