Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Earlier this month, Julian Bond sent a letter to Howard Dean, asking him to make sure the Democrats in Florida and Michigan are represented at our party's convention this summer.  From Jake Tapper at ABC's Political Punch...

Yesterday, Clinton's side of the argument got a boost when NAACP chairman Julian Bond wrote to DNC chair Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million [sic] of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Not seating the Michigan and Florida delegations would remind Americans of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," Bond said.

Mr. Bond refers to the millions people who turned out to vote in the Michigan and Florida primaries as voters.  That's true to a point - they are voters.  More importantly is the fact that they're DEMOCRATS voting in our party's primaries and caucuses.  And I think we'd be wise to keep in mind that we will need our fellow Democrats to turn out en masse to vote in both states come November if we want to win back the White House.

Make the jump - you know you want to...

The NAACP issued a press release right after they sent that letter to Dean...

When the Democratic National Committee adopted the rules in question, it was suspected by some that they would be discriminatory for states with large African American populations.  It seemed a harsh rule to disenfranchise millions of our voters just to appease the fewer thousands of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Party rules never required that candidates had to take their names off of the ballot, as was the case in Michigan.  This was something that the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties imposed on the candidates to force them to prove their allegiance to the rabidly non-diverse first-in the-nation "white" primaries.

The Obama campaign miscalculated on this issue and should have stood with Michigan and Florida given their strong African American populations. Had Obama won these states, I am sure many people would be supporting this change in the rules.

Hmmm... You know they make a lot of sense here.  You'd think BO would be leading the charge to make sure they're represented at the convention this summer.

Mark Halperin's got Dean's Letter to NAACP Chairman Bond dated February 15th...

Dear Julian:

Thank you for your letter regarding the current situation with Michigan and Florida. I appreciate your writing to me to express your concerns. We share a strong dedication to fighting for equal rights for every American.

As you might imagine, I have heard from many people who share your opinion and from many others who take a different position. This is not surprising as two outstanding candidates are in the midst of a highly competitive race for the democratic nomination.

While it seems that this election season has already been the longest in history, 18 states have yet to hold their primary elections and over 1,000 pledged delegates have yet to be selected. Put another way; some 33 percent of voters have yet to have their voices heard. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Over 18 months ago, after a long, transparent, thoughtful and inclusive process, our party adopted a system for selecting delegates to the convention. That process was guided by a concern for the best interests of our Party and ensuring that we produce the strongest nominee possible, reflective of the values and ideals of our Party. Moving forward, we intend to continue operating in a transparent, thoughtful, and inclusive manner with three key goals: first, to keep our Party united; second, to ensure a fair process so that; third, we can defeat John McCain.

In every primary and caucus that has occurred thus far, we've seen record turnouts and tremendous enthusiasm in support of our Democratic candidates, our Party and our values. It is manifestly clear that these voters are committed to putting a Democrat in the White House. I share that commitment.

Our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that's ready to fight and ready to win. After seven years of Republican rule, it's time to restore America's greatness and put a Democrat in the White House. Every single day between now and election day, our united goal must be to ensure that we win in November and elect a Democratic president.

I deeply appreciate your concern and our strong alliance over the years in the fight for equal justice under the law.

Governor Howard Dean, MD

He raises some good points, but if this reply proposes a resolution to the possible disenfranchisement of millions of Democrats at our convention, I'm not seeing it.

Now as I'm sure you've noticed by now, BO does better in the states hold caucuses and Hillary does well in states that hold primaries.  I think it's important that we keep this next little factoid in mind whenever you hear someone call on Dean to disenfranchise the Democrats in Florida and Michigan.  (Hat tip to Tim Rinaldo for posting this info over on MyDD).  According to the United States Elections Project, Over 1/2 million MORE Democrats voted in FL than in every Dem caucus combined.  

Iowa: 236,000
Nevada: 117,559
Alaska: 8,621
Colorado: 120,001
Idaho: 21,234
Kansas: 37,089
Minnesota: 206,559
New Mexico: 153,299
North Dakota: 19,102
Nebraska: 12,445
Maine: 44,670
Washington: 200,000 (est. see below)

Michigan: 592,261
Florida: 1,734,456

We may be talking about one or two states here, but we're also talking about a lot of Democrats here folks.  And those Democrats live in two very key states when it comes to the general election this fall.  We can't write them off at our convention, nor can we tell them they're not needed or valued during our fight to win back the White House against the goopers this fall.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Dean.  I supported him in the primaries when he ran for President four years ago and he's doing a great job with the 50-state strategy now.  I'm sure fewer Chairs of our party have worked harder for the cause.

However, Dr. Dean went over board in stripping the two out of five states violating the rules, and now he's painted all of us into a corner.

FL & MI won't hold new caucuses.  They've already gotten people out to vote in record numbers and I doubt the party leaders in those states want to fire up their activists again to hold new caucuses.

Dr. Dean needs to swallow his pride and seat those delegates.  And the sooner he does it the better.

Tags: 2008 election, DNC, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Julian Bond, NAACP, president, Primaries (all tags)



Don't Tip Me - Tip Hillary!

If you're as anxious as I am to see the delegates from MI & FL take their rightful place at our convention, then please consider donating to Hillary's campaign.  Help her keep fighting the good fight until the DNC gets this sorted out.



by alegre 2008-02-18 04:38PM | 0 recs
Dean has no say.

It goes to the credentials committee to decide. The credentials committee will be made up of delegates selected by the candidates that win.

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-18 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean has no say.

Dean has caused a lot of serious problems for this party with this stupid move against Michigan and Florida.  The most recent poll in Florida shows us down 16 points with Obama at the head of the ticket.

We're in deep doo-doo here, folks.  The slam dunk election we thought we had is going to wind up in a President McCain if we don't get our act together.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-19 02:09AM | 0 recs
Slam dunk!?

Slam dunk.

Ever heard the saying - they whom the gods will make humble, first they make prideful?

And now you're trying to get delegates seated for states where the top candidates didn't even campaign...?

Needless to say I agree, you are in deep doo doo.

by Trey Rentz 2008-02-19 03:20AM | 0 recs

Our caucuses are NOT being "hijacked". I guess you aren't interested in getting more people to vote for our candidates. Also, why should a "contributor" count for more then someone else. I thought that we were all equal. If that has changed I would be really saddened.

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-19 07:05AM | 0 recs
I'm Curious.

When did you start arguing this point? Were you saying the same thing back in November?

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-18 07:04PM | 0 recs
Given that Hillary originally agreed

to the DNC's sanction, it is clear that she began this quest to seat the delegates only because she won the primaries and realized the delegates would go to her (if anyone wants to argue this point and cite an example of where Hillary criticized the decision before the Iowa and NH contests, I'm all ears).  With this in mind, I find it disconcerting that those favoring seating the delegations get indignant suggesting that Obama favors disenfranchising voters, when Hillary once supported the same thing and would have continued to do so had she not won the primaries.  Hillary is not taking this stand based upon principle but upon the political realization that her campaign depends on upending the DNC decision.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-19 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Given that Hillary originally agreed

Thanks. That was exactly my point. I just thought I would see when the first reference was made. Nothing like flip-flopping from the campaign to confirm that they are willing to do just about anything in order to win.

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-19 07:02AM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton

on the Michigan Delegates:
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,"
October, 2007 tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859. html

Harold Ickes, Clinton's senior advisor and a DNC member voted to strip the Michigan and Florida delegates.  

He now argues that should be "There's been no change," Ickes said. "I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision ... provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions."

"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them," he said.

So he was for keeping them after he voted to strip them!!

I have strong opinions about Florida and Michigan.  But I must say that the Clinton campaign's hypocrisy on this issue is  simply amazing

by fladem 2008-02-19 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

The NYT's has a chart out today, showing just how close this race is.

Obama will not be the nominee without FL and MI counting.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-18 04:41PM | 0 recs

So Obama also needs Florida & Michigan delegates to achieve 2,025? Interesting. So why doesn't his campaign recognize that? Or are they just aiming for some "caucus" do-over that would disenfranchise those older folks not as likely to support him?

by atdleft 2008-02-18 04:47PM | 0 recs

The magic number is now 2208.

Repeat that over and over until we get that through the thick skulls out there.  2208 is the number of delegates needed when we include FL & MI's delegates.

For more info check out a diary of mine - 2208

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: 2208

Does that include the Super Delegates from Florida and Michigan?  I got a different number when I added it up, but I didn't include Super Delegates.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

This is a strange statement.  If you include them, the amount you need is raised as well.  So, it is 2025 right now.  You are saying Obama needs the delegates from FL and MI to win, but he got less than half.  After you include the delegates from those states, you need another 156 delegates(approx) to win(making the total 2181).  Obama gets 67, assuming no deal with the Uncommitteds.  This means, it would actually make him about 89 delegates FURTHER away from the nomination.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

I am not sure if the post above me got Jerome's meaning correct, so this might have been a reply more to the person above me.  If the person above read Jerome's post correctly, it was a reply to them both.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

I've said it before; basically, that if Obama is gonna be the nominee, he's gotta do it by getting a large enough delegates to surpass the inclusion of FL & MI, and what that pads Clinton.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-18 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

I think if we ever get to a point where Obama is ahead of Clinton in the count with Florida, Michigan and Super Delegates included(with Obama getting none from Michigan), the race will essentially be over.  That is just my opinion.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

I was right, when I went back and reread your post.  You did not mean what the other person thought you did.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 05:51PM | 0 recs
The Clinton

hypocrisy on this issue is so mind blowingly obvious that they are not going to make the Florida/Michigan argument fly.

She said the Michigan vote wasn't goint to matter.  One of her chief advisors voted to strip the delegates.

And now they argue those delegates should be seated.


by fladem 2008-02-19 02:51AM | 0 recs
Obama is already ahead of Clinton


Look at the second table down.

Pledged Delegate Count
Clinton     1157
Obama       1179

I don't think we should include the SuperDelegates because they aren't fixed in any way and don't count until the Convention.

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-19 07:10AM | 0 recs
2208 Actually

The new magic number.

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: 2208 Actually

according to.... you?

And when did you get on board with this? Were you calling for those delegates to be seated before Hillary one Florida? OR did you wait until afterwards?

Would you be calling for it if Obama had won Florida?

What are your motives?

I am a curious one aren't I? I hope these questions aren't too tough for you to answer.

by JDF 2008-02-18 10:21PM | 0 recs
I get the sense they're

Not part of the reality based community.

At least the vocal minority over there.

I still hold out hope for that site though - if I didn't I wouldn't bother to post there any more after the horrid way some of the newbies have behaved.

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:43PM | 0 recs
Hi Jerome - You Might Want to Look @ This

Someone's impersonating you on your own blog and posting BS diaries too boot... 12/196

Thought you might like to know.

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:52PM | 0 recs

Who's encouraging it? Ummm, Hillary actually wants to make sure the DNC counts Florida & Michigan votes. Obama doesn't. Obama wants a "48 state strategy", while Hillary cares about all 50 states. So who's really backing "disenfranchisement"?

by atdleft 2008-02-18 04:49PM | 0 recs
Maybe it's because I'm not spinning...

And your candidate's campaign is. So how again is Hillary trying to disenfranchise anyone? All I'm seeing is Obama's team trying to leave Florida & Michigan out... And LOSE those states in November.

by atdleft 2008-02-18 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Disenfranchised?

Hillary wants to change the rules she agreed to. Typical cynical Clintonism.

by fugazi 2008-02-18 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Disenfranchised?

She is not asking for any rule change. I wish people would stop repeating so an obviously false meme.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-18 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Disenfranchised?

What rules does she want to change?

Seems Obama will be changing HIS rules, if it becomes clear HE needs Florida and Michigan delegates to win.

by annefrank 2008-02-18 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Disenfranchised?

Surely you jest.  She wants a 50 state strategy after basically ignoring how many states?  After her surrogates calling so many states and voters insignificant?

And what is kind of indicative of the bias here is that someone gave you a 2 for that tripe.

by Robert in WV 2008-02-18 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Disenfranchised?

That would have worked better with me had she complained last summer. Or had she not signed that pledge after the initial punishment was put forth.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-18 07:59PM | 0 recs

tell me why she said the Michigan vote wasn't going to matter in October.

She is desperate, but there is a record here, and when you look at her statement and the actions of Ickes the sincerity of the argument becomes laughable.

by fladem 2008-02-19 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Tip Hillary???

Let's all play nice here...

by OrangeFur 2008-02-18 04:53PM | 0 recs
Answer this

Should the votes count in Iowa, NH and SC? They also broke the rules but only FL and MI were punished.

I have no answers on this mess. I think the DNC was hoping the race would be over by now and none of this would matter.

Maybe what they should do is only allow 50% of the delegates like the repugs are doing?

Who knows.

by kevin22262 2008-02-18 04:57PM | 0 recs
We know

The rules of the DNC are the rules.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-18 04:59PM | 0 recs
and the rules are what?

So what does your comment mean?

by kevin22262 2008-02-18 05:04PM | 0 recs
Follow the spirit of the law, not the letter

Iowa, NH, and SC only moved their contests in response to MI and FL.

by MILiberal 2008-02-18 05:05PM | 0 recs

that makes it OK?

by kevin22262 2008-02-18 05:33PM | 0 recs
A crude analogy

It is illegal to randomly go up to someone and punch him. However, if someone does that to you, most people would say that you are justified in defending yourself.

IA,NH,and SC only moved their primaries to return to a semi-'status quo.' If SC had moved its primary ahead of Iowa, for example, than that would be making a 'power grab.' It only moved its primary ahead 3 days, so it wasn't the same time as FL.

by MILiberal 2008-02-18 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

This is crazy.  You don't change the rules halfway through the game.

by Chuckwalla 2008-02-18 05:05PM | 0 recs
So votes don't count?

When did it become OK for our party to begin disenfranchising Democratic voters? When were the rules changed to allow voters in certain states to be left out of the entire process?

by atdleft 2008-02-18 05:29PM | 0 recs
the "rules"...

...went out the window long ago. the bylaws of the DNC call for states to be penalized half their delegates, not all. nobody followed THOSE rules.

by campskunk 2008-02-18 05:40PM | 0 recs
Actually, thats the default rule

but the DNC also has rules allowing for discretionary sanctions that alter this default.  You may criticize it as an abuse of discretion, but it was certainly within their power to do it.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-19 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: yes you do

You only think the rules are stupid because you don't like the outcome.  But like it or not, we have an imperfect process to become President.  Sometimes it benefits Hillary (superdelegates) and sometimes it benefits Obama (FL and MI).  

And the will of the people is on Obama's side too.  He leads the popular vote so far.

by Chuckwalla 2008-02-18 05:54PM | 0 recs

Its why John Edwards was still referred to as Senator. And why former presidents are still referred to by their title.

Once you are elected to a political office, you can use the title thereafter. Its not like Edwards was claiming that he was still in the Senate.

by MILiberal 2008-02-18 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No.

Which is why you hear people refered to all the time as 'Commisioner of Sewers' Grobnick or 'Dog Catcher' O'Reilly. In Victorian times, women would use their husband's elected title in their name: Mrs Commisioner of Sewers Olivia Grobnick.

by DaleA 2008-02-18 05:52PM | 0 recs
It's unthinkable but possible

This mistake of FL and MI could cost DEM the presidency.

It might go down history as the year that DEM produces two excellent candidates in years but lost out to GOP due to internal conflict.  And considering that this election happened after 8 years of GOP disastrous government, DNC should be ashamed of themselves if they would lose this GE.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-18 05:10PM | 0 recs
And that is exactly why

Obama and Clinton need to hold a joint kumbaya press conference and demand that the elections be re-scheduled.

That will best heal the party for November.

by Bill White 2008-02-18 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: NO

Your attitude is what could doom our candidate in the Fall no matter who he or she may be.

I'm okay with elections instead of caucuses. (I know Clinton is lousy in that format.) Anyway, ask Oprah and Streisand to pay for them. Or some other rich Democratic minded person.

Or, the DNC pays 25%; the state parties 25%; and the campaigns 25% each.

But to resist re-scheduled elections and to demand that the delegates be seated creates a wedge that will explode the Democratic Party IF those delegations are relevant to the final result.

King Solomon comes to mind as here we have Alegre shouting: "Cut the damn baby in half! No new elections!"

by Bill White 2008-02-18 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: And that is exactly why

the legislatures of MI and FL will never pay for another election. They already paid for one, and it turned out just fine. Take it or leave it. I understand that the MI legislature has threatened any party that does not seat duly elected delegates with being thrown off the ballot this fall. Just think, no Dems on the ballot in MI. Brilliant strategy Dr Dean.

by DaleA 2008-02-18 05:58PM | 0 recs
And YOUR attitude

is what will elect John McCain.

by Bill White 2008-02-18 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re-schedule FL & MI and then

seat the delegates AFTER the new voting is completed.

A win-win-win-win scenario

by Bill White 2008-02-18 05:22PM | 0 recs
Oh jeez...

So it wasn't good enough when Michigan & Florida already voted?

by atdleft 2008-02-18 05:27PM | 0 recs
Is Clinton afraid of another vote?

To re-schedule is the ONLY win-win scenario (unless someone wins without needing those delegates).

Any other scenario will leave deep divisions after a nasty nasty fight at the convention.

by Bill White 2008-02-18 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton afraid of another vote?

This strategy will leave deep divisions after a nasty nasty fight at the convention. A revote is ridiculous.

by DaleA 2008-02-18 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton afraid of another vote?

Then we had better hope and pray that someone wins enough votes and super-delegates to secure the nomination without FL & MI.

Because otherwise we are all screwed.

by Bill White 2008-02-18 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton afraid of another vote?

I'm opposed to any re-vote. I don't think you can right some wrongs, only compound them. And there is nothing that one can point to as a legitimate reason to throw out the results of one election in favor of another.

There just is no win-win scenario here, there is only doing the least further damage scenario. And that is if the nominee, whoever it is, can win without those delegates.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-18 07:56PM | 0 recs

"there is nothing that one can point to as a legitimate reason to throw out the results of one election in favor of another"

Maybe the fact that the contests in MI and FL were not elections.

election ( the selection of a person or persons for office by vote

Hillary herself admitted that the Michigan vote would not count in the selection of delegates and the vast majority of people cast their ballots in both states aware that their votes would not count towards deciding our nominee.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-19 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

I know this may be a shock to you, but Hillary doesn't get to decide which elections count and which don't. State parties run primaries. And while the national party doesn't need to recognize the results, it doesn't make it less legitimate.

You want to say that people knew it didn't count. But 1.7 million Dems voted in Florida. Which is a lot of people saying that still thought it was worth the effort to vote.

You've given no legitimate reason to throw out the results of one election in favor of another.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-20 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

My take is that it's wrong to punish the voters in these states due to bad judgment by their party leaders. I can see an argument for a do-over in Michigan, but not for Florida. All the candidates were on the ballot in Florida.

It's absurd for this b.s. manufactured controversy over super-delegates to cause so much drama when the real disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan is so much worse.

by OtherLisa 2008-02-18 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

When you can't argue facts, call names.  Alegre writes an intelligent, reasoned piece and the Obamatrons show up and start calling her a political hack?  How I would love a few minutes alone with any of these verbal bullies.  They apparently lack the intellectual firepower required to marshal a real argument.  Doesn't reflect real well on folks trying to convince others that Obama represents change.  

Shit!  We've had 8 years of Bush acolytes trying to bully folks as sell outs to terrorists, and now we have a preview of what Obama offers.  Doesn't look like much change to me.

Nice piece Alegre.

by Larr Johnson 2008-02-18 05:43PM | 0 recs
A wee bit inconsistent aren't we?

You write:

When you can't argue facts, call names.
and then you drop the
on us.  Nice internal consistency.

by Robert in WV 2008-02-18 06:48PM | 0 recs
Hey Code Blue - C'mere...


by alegre 2008-02-18 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Code Blue - C'mere...

Heh - Sorry gang but that's about all his comment rated.

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Thanks for the kind words Undiesided ;o)

After the abuse I took over on dKos this evening it's nice to find a friendly comment!

by alegre 2008-02-18 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Actually, the DNC punished the Florida voters for the REPUBLICAN legislature of Florida for moving its primary.

Can anyone not understand this? Democrats do not control the Florida legislature, which moved the primary day. So when it was moved, the DNC punished Florida for something that its own party had no control over.

I think seating Florida makes sense.

Michigan is a whole other conundrum. Obama and Edwards removed themselves to make them more appealing to Iowans. Clinton knew she wasn't going to win Iowa and stuck to her guns. There was also an attempt to have Obama and Edwards voters vote for the uncommitted option.

I think the DNC should seat Florida, and have some sort of compromise with Michigan, such as seating half the delegates.

by njsketch 2008-02-18 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

It was a nearly unanimous vote.  You would have a stronger leg to stand on, if some of the Democratic State Senators and Representatives voted against it.

by Tantris 2008-02-18 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Tip Hillary???

What a nasty accusation.

by Mike Pridmore 2008-02-18 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!
exactly, thanks for this post! AGREED 100% WITH YOU.
But it seems to me that Dr. Dean does not understand that longer he will prolongate this FL & MI mess, bigger damage Democratic party will do to itself.
by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-18 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Yes ... ex diary!

by IndyRobin 2008-02-19 01:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

The Delegates cannot be seated until the credentials committee meets.

Be patient.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-19 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

It's not Dr Dean that has disenfranchised those states, it is the Democrat leaders in those states who knowingly broke the rules.

by neil from across the pond 2008-02-19 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

It was neither Dean or the Dem leaders of the state. It was the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the DNC.

You are never going to convince the people of Florida otherwise. The RPoF (state Repub party) and the state elected Repubs acted the same (actually worse because the RPoF head actually championed the new date) and yet they managed NOT to disenfranchise the Repubs. The difference is the DNC didn't get to make the ruling for them also.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-19 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

You can argue until you're blue in the face about whether it was the right decision to strip the delegates, but the key point is that whatever rules were in place AT THE TIME THE VOTING OCCURRED are the rules that have to be respected. People relied on those rules in making decisions about whether and/or how to campaign, organize, volunteer and vote.

Any lawyers here should obviously know this from the legal world. A case may involve a set of facts and law that were in place five years ago, and since then the laws have been changed because it was found that those laws were unfair, not effective, whatever the case may be, but the case will be still be decided based on the law AS IT WAS AT THE TIME THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, regardless of any subsequent changes, except for the rare case where the change in law is specifically made to be retroactive, and we can see how controversial that is in the case of FISA.

by dmc2 2008-02-19 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

seat them?  why?  THEY BROKE THE RULES.

the LAST thing the DNC needs is for opponents (the RNC et al) calling the Dems out for breaking THEIR OWN RULES.

if we want to seat them, something equitable has to be done to even out the fact that the only major Dem candidate to do any sort of campaigning in MI and FL was Hillary Clinton, because she felt that the pledge from Edwards and Obama wasn't something she had to honor.

huh, "honor".  seems like the Clinton campaign has completely forgotten the definition of that word.  although i suppose it also matters what the definition of "is" is, too.


by fightinfilipino 2008-02-19 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

The people of the state didn't break the rules. And it's not as if their were no choices on the punishment that disenfranchisement was the only option.

Clinton did not campaign in Florida. You need to get your facts straight before you talk of honor.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-19 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean! id=276341

"The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders."

huh.  like i said, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

no, the people of the state didn't break the rules, but Florida's Democratic Party did.  considering how crucial FL has been in the general, it's EXTREMELY important for the state parties to be working in concert with the DNC, not flaunting the rules and ignoring the 50 state strategy.  it's unfortunate that the people of Florida aren't getting represented, but then, THOSE ARE THE RULES.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-19 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Every candidate held closed fundraisers during the boycott. They were specifically allowed in the pledge. Did Obama campaign when he came for fundraisers? He got press for them. Of course not.

It amazes me how for some people if one candidate does something it's wrong but if the other candidate does it it's perfectly acceptable. If you want to argue that every fundraising event, although specifically allowed by the pledge, was a form of campaigning go ahead. But don't single out one candidate and ignore the other for something they BOTH did.

The FDP is not the Florida legislators anymore than the DNC is the Congressional Dems. Funny how the RNC managed not to disenfranchise their voters when they had the same rules as the DNC.

Rules are not always good. Rules state the superdelegates could override the pledged delegates. Is that good? Are you supporting that move as well?

Yes the DNC could take away all the delegates. They didn't have to per the rules, which recommended half the delegates. They chose to. And it's their right. But that doesn't make it right.

Had they given a thought to the people in Florida and Michigan perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in such a mess now.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-19 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

I agree to some extent. Dean was deprived of credit for the 2006 results. But damn, he needs to get a lot of blame for his bungling of this situation. I cannot believe he has been this dense. He is not even out there doing any public relations repair.

This is what I want at the very least

  1. Restore at least half the delegates for FL IMMEDIATELY. Both candidates contested on equal terms. There won't be much of a difference if they held a reelection.
  2. Hold a reelection in MI. Set up a DNC meeting to frame temporary rules for holding the election. It doesnt have to be a caucus. It doesnt have to be a regular primary. Just have caucus like centers where people cna come in vote all day. There will be reps from both Obama and Clinton camps at each center. Cost is not an excuse when you compare it to the money the party is going to spend to win the Presidential election.

by Pravin 2008-02-19 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

How will Obama & his supporters tell these delegates and essentially people of Florida and Michigan if he becomes the nominee by not counting their vote that please vote for me in general election but by the way we are not going count your vote in the primary.

by Opandora 2008-02-19 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

Does anyone here believe Hillary would be pushing for MI and FL to be counted if the tables were turned and she was not on the ballot in MI and lost by 17 in FL? If she was truly concerned about disenfranchised voters she would push for MI and FL to be counted in any case, although we know this is not reality. I'm sure most candidates would be doing the same thing as Hillary. Unfortunately for her it makes her look like a sore loser when she hasn't even lost (yet?).

by supsupsup 2008-02-19 08:58AM | 0 recs
Florida should count!

The dems in FL did not move the date voluntarily. It was tied to get a paper trail in voting. Something we needed in Fl. given the past two elections. Since everyone was on the ballot it should count. The argument that no one campaigned there is ridiculous. These were national candidates. Everyone knew who the candidates were and what they stood for. They voted enthusiastically and in great numbers. There is no reason to punish Fl. dems for wanting to have a paper trail.

In Mich. it is more problematic since Obama withdrew from the ballot. So I don't know how this one gets fixed.

by demwords 2008-02-19 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Seat Those Delegates Dr. Dean!

No, see, as several people have pointed out, you can't argue that the delegates should be seated, because that would be breaking the rules. Never mind the fact that the rules clearly say that whether the delegates are seated or not is in the end up to the credentials committee. Never mind the fact that seating the delegates is hence completely within the rules. Never mind the fact that Democrats believe the rule in general is that every vote should be counted, even in an imperfect situation (and this is clearly an imperfect situation) -- some "rules" are apparently more important than others. Oh, and of course, never mind the fact that "they" -- the 2.25 million voters -- didn't break the rules; let's punish them anyway rather than restricting punishment only to the party officials that broke the rules.

It's truly amazing to me that both Senators Clinton and Obama are willing to play politics over the disenfranchisment of 2.25 million voters -- that both were willing to throw their votes out last winter, and that Senator Obama continues to argue for their disinclusion only because they didn't vote for him. [Granted, Senator Clinton's change of heart on the issue is hardly less cynical.] Can no one in this party take the side of the voters anymore?

by fsm 2008-02-19 12:08PM | 0 recs
Respect DNC Rules

Sign the petition and send to your friends. ionrules

by maceo 2008-02-21 08:13AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads