A 50-state strategy needs Florida and Michigan
There's a fairly good summary and editorial over on USA Today: Voters in Florida, Michigan deserve to be heard.
Together, Florida and Michigan account for 9% of Americans and more than 8% of Democratic delegates. They could affect the outcome of the nomination race, and therefore the general election and the nation's future. To take their voice away because of the boneheaded decisions of legislatures to play chicken with the parties is a slap in the face of popular sovereignty.
While there is no constitutional right to vote in nominating contests, the two parties have essentially adopted this principle by choosing their nominees in primaries and caucuses, rather than smoke-filled rooms. Polls have made clear that Democrats do not want "super delegates" tipping the balance if Obama emerges from the primaries leading in pledged delegates and popular votes.
I believe that this issue goes beyond a matter of state "strategy" - that's when you choose to focus your campaign efforts on some states but not others based on limited resources and whether you think you can win. But consenting to the total exclusion of millions of Democratic voters, and complete states, is not strategy: it is disenfranchisement.
Whomever you support in this race, all Democrats - and most of all Howard Dean, whose leadership of the DNC is built on the premise of a long-term 50-state strategy - should be demanding some path to re-vote move forward to include these states, and we should all urge our presidential candidates to get on board and support a re-vote before it's too late. I bet there are even Democrats in Oregon who could offer hands-on expertise in running mail-in ballots, and many of us who would be willing to contribute to cover the cost of the re-vote. Somehow though we have to get past the notion that it's not our problem or that we can simply abide by whatever the DNC does (or doesn't do). As the editorial sums up:
Doing nothing would leave key decisions up to the party insiders on the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee. Agreeing to seat some or all the delegates now, based on the lopsided "wins" in January for Clinton, would be grossly unfair. Seating them after one of the candidates has won, or splitting them 50-50 now, would give delegates a place at the convention but would deny voters a voice.
The way out of this mess is to vote over.
|
March 20, 2008 |
Chris Corbell | Comments (98 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Mar 20, 2008 5:29:29 PM
It will come as no surprise to people here that I agree with you, Chris. You cannot square being an agent of change with working every minute of every day to keep these two states from re-voting. If will eventually catch up to Sen. Obama in the general if his campaign gets away with it in the primary season. Sen. Obama should live up to his wonderful oratory and actually do the right thing.
And now for the people who are about to yell about these 2 states breaking the rules, how many of you screamed damned loud when Bush kept every vote from being counted in Florida in 2000? A variety of arbitrary rules were used to deny those people the vote, as well. Can Democrats afford to be for a full democracy only when it suits us?
Posted by: BCM | Mar 20, 2008 5:47:21 PM
A re-vote in MI and FL is dead. It's too expensive, too time consuming, and too contentious. There could be a compromise struck between the state Dems and the DNC to seat some delegates, but how that would look isn't known.
These states knew the consequences of moving their primaries into January, ignored them, and now they suffer the consequences. If they are allowed to re-vote, I actually wouldn't mind because then I'd be able to gather signatures for a petition to move Oregon's next presidential primary from May to December knowing that the DNC is gutless and won't be able to stop us.
Posted by: Mick Finn | Mar 20, 2008 6:16:17 PM
If the "issue" was Michigan and Florida voting before the national party said they could, then a re-vote in June (at cost to the state and/or state party) deals with that issue (and the cost issue is punishment): the first vote still doesn't count. What I "hear" in the various messages from Obama's supporters on whether Michigan and Florida voters should get a chance to vote on the democratic nominee is that they are afraid that Obama cannot carry the vote in Michigan and Florida. If you are not afraid of a vote of the people, then let them vote!
The continuous suggestion from Obama's supporters that Clinton should bow out now (thankfully, Obama has not endorsed that foolish message) tells me - and other Oregonians - that they don't value our vote either. I want a chance to vote on the nominee and I don't want Obama supporters telling me I can't "for unity's sake" - that message tells me I (and all the other voters in Oregon) should just shut up and trust you. Again, thankfully, that is not Obama's message (just the wrong-headed logic of over-zealous Oba-maniacs).
Finally, in the debate about "the popular vote", please, let us all remember that the popular vote will mean squat in the national election against McCain. What will count is the electoral votes. Has someone posted a wiki somewhere that tracks the electoral votes in the states won so far by Obama and Clinton (and the history of how many times a democrat has won the national election in each those states?). That is the kind critical information that should inform the decision of the super delegates (especially as some of them want to ignore the will of their constituents, e.g., Kerry and Kennedy ignoring the fact that Mass. went for Clinton).
Posted by: gf | Mar 20, 2008 6:28:22 PM
Pick one:
Answer A). Hillary can't win the nomination unless the lopsided results of Florida and Michigan are added into the totals. Obama wins outright UNLESS she gets the DNC to seat the dirty delegates.
Answer B). Hillary doesn't care who wins, she just wants to make sure that every vote is counted, especially in Florida and Michigan, which she won by HUGE margins.
Answer C). Hillary knows she can't win, even if there is a do-over in Florida and Michigan. So she pandering to Florida and Michigan voters in the hopes of picking up their Super Delegates.
Answer D). Hillary knows she already won, no matter how the remaining states vote, because she's already bribed the Super Delegates that can be bought. The rest will die mysteriously of a previously undiagnosed heart condition or shoot themselves (twice) in a hotel room before dragging their own corpse to a nearby park. Then they'll shoot themselves a third time.
Answer E). Obama is too young and too black to beat John McCain, so Hillary will acknowledge that she is 10 years older than indicated on her birth certificate, and reveal that she's a she-male who chews Skoal Bandits and loves NASCAR. She'll add the Stars & Bars to her campaign logo, and win 90% of the white vote. You go Mirl!
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 20, 2008 6:32:31 PM
Josh,
The Florida 2000 analogy doesn't work. There the arbitrary rules were used after the fact. In 2008 Florida and Michigan went into this with their eyes wide open. Two fundamentally different situations.
I'm skeptical that a re-vote could be fair to the candidates. The milk has already been spilled. Some variation on the caucus method seems the only viable way of redoing their primaries in an equitable fashion.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 20, 2008 6:36:47 PM
Shilling for Hill again??
Can't be done. Too expensive, needs changes in the law in both states. So this is just empty words. It's all about a vain attempt to bolster the argument with the supers. Any do-over isn't going to change the numbers. Obama wins MI and Hill wins Fl. Minor fluctuations in delegates.
Well, done, Chris! You've followed orders.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 20, 2008 6:38:42 PM
Oh, and by the way, Chris, Clinton's bag men did a sloppy job in breaching security of Obama's passport file. They got caught!
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 20, 2008 6:44:53 PM
Now that Hillary's WH records are being released, in redacted form, it has become clear that she has been deceiving us and in particular the voters of OH and elsewhere about NAFTA. Here's the record, documented, and here's her statements. If we did MI again, this wouldn't sell at all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFuA0z4kKD4
Posted by: Douglas K. | Mar 20, 2008 7:02:12 PM
And now for the people who are about to yell about these 2 states breaking the rules, how many of you screamed damned loud when Bush kept every vote from being counted in Florida in 2000?
I yelled about it, and that's exactly why I think they should follow the rules now. The proper way to run an election: set down the rules WELL IN ADVANCE and stick to them. The wrong was: change the rules or just make them up on the fly after the election, like Florida did in 2000. Michigan and Florida both made a deliberate decision to give up their delegates in exchange for an early vote. So they don't get their delegates seated? Too bad. It's called living with the consequences of stupid, greedy, short-sighted decisions.
If the Democratic party doesn't enforce its rules in this case, it will signal that the rules are meaningless and can be changed even after the election. You'll wind up with every state setting primaries in January or December or November, continually pushing to the front, confident that party-mandated schedules and rules actually mean nothing.
That said, I think Democratic Parties in Michigan and Florida should be able to organize and hold caucuses to seat their delegates. But that's up to the parties in each state; either organize a caucus or sit around whining about having to follow the rules the other 48 states followed. If they get to it, four weeks should be more than enough time to hammer out caucus rules and line up a bunch of school gyms and cafeterias some Saturday in early June.
But if they aren't willing to do that, then their delegates should remain stripped. Nobody should be allowed to change the rules after the voting's already done.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2008 7:04:26 PM
Josh, come one. You know as well as I do that Hillary agreed to not counting the results...all the way until the time that she couldn't win without redoing them. When she won NH and thought she was back in control, she agreed with the rules. Only now, is her campaign whining about something so absurd as FOLLOWING THE RULES.
I also fail to see where someone can make the charge that Obama is "preventing" anything. MI and FL have known for MONTHS that they could have their delegates seated if they simply hold a contest within the rules of the party. They waited, and waited, and fulminated until it was too late. Why blame Obama for what the state legislatures do?
And it's pretty damn insulting for a supporter of Hillary Clinton--the candidate who espoused a TEN state strategy for this campaing--to suggest anything about trying to have all states matter.
Why does Hillary hate the Democratic Party so? Why does she want to destroy it by sabotaging the rules SHE agreed to and espoused? WHy does she think being President though deceit and character assassination would do anything other than further divide the country?
I just can't believe how unworthy this person is to even have a SHOT at the Presidency. She and her husband deserve a place in the ashbin of history, their common legacy completely tarnished. They need to go home to NY and not bother us the rest of their lives. They've done enough damage already.
Posted by: Tamerlane | Mar 20, 2008 7:05:42 PM
You're SO annoying -- SUCH a broken record!! Please post less often!
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 7:15:09 PM
Clinton's supporters rave about how tough she is - exploiting every opportunity to win.
But they complain when Obama does the same thing.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 7:18:45 PM
It was Hillary's campaign that threatened to sue the Texas Dem Party to try to wrongfully obstruct the finalization of the caucus results.
Hillary gave the finger to Texas Dems. She didn't want their voices to be heard.
Doesn't she give a damn about down-ticket? About Nick Lampson (holding DeLay's seat)? About Rick Noriega?
Posted by: Katy | Mar 20, 2008 7:23:51 PM
Tamerlane, Such a classy post.
I honestly cannot believe that Democrats are willing to disenfranchise the voters of Florida again. The people of these two states did nothing wrong, their party leaders did. You can't leave them out of such an historic election. Why not do a re-vote?
Posted by: Marissa | Mar 20, 2008 7:37:17 PM
Chris, Josh, Katy...if it's so important that Florida and Michigan be given a second chance, why isn't Hillary supporting a caucus? Seems to me that given the very real voting machine problems in Florida, a caucus would at least allow something to happen there. Same thing in Michigan. So, to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, is the Clinton Campaign "afraid" to caucus?
Posted by: jamesmattiace | Mar 20, 2008 7:37:58 PM
I, for one, am very tired of having Florida hog Presidential election limelight yet again. Finally, Oregon is about to get some fun in the sun and everyone is still talking about the snowbirds in the Sunshine State. Where's the in depth analysis of what Oregon's going to do on CNN? Who's releasing polls? When do the candidates start showing up at the Keystone Kafe in Eugene to vote for their favorite tofu powerhouse? (Obama on Friday, apparently) Where's the johnny on the spot camera crew interviewing Jane Blow Hipster shopping at Zupans? Where is the incredibly insightful commentary from that former logger who has found new love in creating blown glass sculptures on ABC? What about Mr. Meth Dude telling NPR all about his most recent tooth loss?
Why the hell are we still talking about Florida? Seems like this one should have been solved when the DNC showed it was serious about not seating their delegates back in FEBRUARY!!!!
Perhaps its because I am a teacher, but my attitude is sorry, "no late work accepted".
It's Oregon's chance to show the nation how to a) pronounce the state's name and b) reveal our true inner selves to the world - without having Grey Panther filled Florida taking anymore of our sunshine.
James Mattiace
In Morocco (where my absentee ballot should be arriving any minute)
(note: disclaimer - while I have eaten at Keystone Kafe numerous times I have never built a website for them nor do I have a preference on powerhouses.)
(Note, Note: The Grey Panther reference was not a dig at Senator Wyden's lack of endorsement, in this race so far, I swear.
Posted by: Katy | Mar 20, 2008 7:47:35 PM
James, funny post - but I for one wouldn't be okay with the "no late work accepted" concept if this had happened in Oregon and he dpo had screwed me out my vote in the most exciting primary I can remember.
...and Marissa - I could care less how they vote as long as they get to vote (and of course I understand why you like the caucus idea as an Obama supporter). The point is you can't honestly be okay with leaving out all the D voters in these 2 states? It's ridiculous.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 7:50:55 PM
If Florida wants a re-vote, why haven't they done something about it before now? They have known for months that there would be a problem - there was plenty of time for a re-vote if they started earlier. They have only themselves to blame for monumental mismanagement.
Also - Florida voters will get to vote in the General. There is no Constitutional right to vote in a primary.
Posted by: Katy | Mar 20, 2008 7:56:09 PM
SDG, that is so paternalistic! Pat'm on the head and remind them that they'll get their chance to vote in the general?
I'll remind you of Obama's media ad blitz in Florida (after he'd signed the pledge not to campaign there). Of course the reason his campaign is willing to disenfranchise the voters in Florida is because they know he can't win there, so it's okay to leave them out? And here I thought the one thing we could all agree on was a belief in democracy.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 7:57:22 PM
Obama's name wasn't even on the damn ballot in Michigan! Delegates cannot be seated on that kind of fatally flawed contest.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 7:59:05 PM
Stop lying about Obama's "ad blitz". You know damn well it was part of a national buy, Fla could not be excluded, AND it was approved by the DNC in advance.
Hillary, on the other had, was in state campaigning when she promised not to. She's a liar.
Posted by: YoungOregonVoter | Mar 20, 2008 8:03:06 PM
Hmmm...So are according to what the DNC, the Florida and Michigan legislatures, and the Obama campaign are saying is that the 50 state strategy is the 48 state strategy?
I would bet $1,000 today that if Michigan and Florida were redone in June, Hilary would win both by larger margins than she originally did and in doing so she would inevitably go on to win the Democratic nomination. Why?
1. The Obama/Reverend Wright controversy.
2. Demographics of both states are in Hilary's favor:
a. high numbers of Latino voters and retired voters in
Florida.
b. high number of union voters in Michigan.
Obama supporters, explain to me how a 48 state strategy is the pristine, idyllic picture of Dean's 50 state strategy that is supposedly representative of all the U.S.?
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2008 8:03:10 PM
"It's Oregon's chance to show the nation how to a) pronounce the state's name"
I suggest they start at this blog for a crash course.
:)
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 20, 2008 8:04:34 PM
In case anybody is interested, from the news it looks like Michigan is NOT going to be holding a revote.
I'm all in favor of second chances, but only if people want them. Clearly, the incompetent political establishments of Michigan and Florida don't.
And that's an issue they have with their own voters. Not the Democratic party.
Posted by: KJBEugene | Mar 20, 2008 8:08:55 PM
If Obama was hopelessly behind and trying for a redo in Michigan (even going so far as having a list of donors offering to pay for it), we'd be reading a post telling Obama to accept the campaign rules and bow out gracefully. Transparent much?
I agree with Douglas K. on this one; unless the DNC sets a firm precedent here, we'll have chaos at every primary for years. Dean's hardly been my favorite person lately, but I admire him for standing firm on this. If the voters of Florida and Michigan don't like (and they shouldn't), then they should vote the leadership out of office. That's the beauty of democracy.
It's also just petty to suggest that this is somehow Obama's fault. He repeatedly said that he'd abide by whatever the DNC decided. If Florida and Michigan can't get their act together, that's hardly his fault. As for the whole vote-by-mail, Obama's people made the excellent point that it took Oregon nearly a decade to perfect our system, and we're relatively small. It's unrealistic to expect Florida and Michigan to get their acts together in just a few weeks. It'd be a circus.
Oh, and does anybody really think that voters in these states will just pout and sit home in November? Of course they'll vote. I say we should strip away the superdelegates (they're the ones responsible for this mess), split the regulars 50-50, and just get this over with already.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 8:13:03 PM
How can the DNC function if it cannot enforce its own rules?
It's not Obama's fault that there's no re-vote in FL and MI, although that is Hillary's deceitful talking point of the day. Hillary said those contests would "mean nothing". Now she's going to have to live with her own words, and she is going to have to live by the pledge she signed. Now if she wants to try to destroy Obama's chances in the General by falsely alienating FL and MI - then she will be reviled as she deserves.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 20, 2008 8:14:07 PM
katy, spare us the talking points. Obama did not run any ad blitz in Florida: he ran national ads (CNN & MSNBC) that oddly enough included Florida as part of the nation. but we know Clinton's 10-state plan has a much different idea of national — and utter contempt for anything Howard Dean is behind.
but nice of your to keep your xerox machine running for us.
Posted by: YoungOregonVoter | Mar 20, 2008 8:16:30 PM
KJBEugene,
If Obama is the transcendent political figure that he is, then he would rise above the current situation where he lets others decide the process in Florida and Michigan to argue to let the voters of Michigan and Florida have their vote matter in June.
This may come to pass. Or it may come to pass that Obama and his campaign stay silent and do not take a stand for the voters of Michigan and Florida, thus giving McCain a lot of Hilary supporters come November
To just lay the blame on the states is irrelevant because any observer with half a brain knows that Obama has the most to gain and the most to lose with a redo of Michigan and Florida.
I say, let the 50 state strategy be the 50 state strategy and not the 48 state strategy.
Posted by: Matt Blevins | Mar 20, 2008 8:21:28 PM
Chris, your argument is a joke and you know it.
Florida and Michigan tried to game the system and lost. Hillary agreed to it back when she thought she would roll through the rest of the states.
Now she's desperate and knows the only way she can even have a chance of actually getting the votes to win the nomination is to go back on her original agreement.
It's not about disenfranchisement. It's about political desperation.
You know it. Every Democrat knows it.
So give it up.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 8:27:27 PM
Here is Hillary's version of the 50 state strategy - it ends on February 5:
I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination.
All the way to Feb. 5th! Wow!
And this from an appearance in December on Fox and Friends.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Mar 20, 2008 8:38:28 PM
This so insane- antagonizing two big swing states. I don't blame them for wanting to movee up. The DNC had their big nomianting rules "changes" committee meet in '05, but they really changed nothing. Actually, they did put NV before NH, but NH moved up anyway. Why isn't NH being pnished? It makes NO sense to me that two small states like IA and NH are favored time and again at the expense of big states like FL and MI. Their delegates must be seated with or without a new primary.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2008 8:50:38 PM
"Why isn't NH being pnished? It makes NO sense to me that two small states like IA and NH are favored time and again at the expense of big states like FL and MI. Their delegates must be seated with or without a new primary."
This is exactly why the DNC cannot budge. If they back down on this, they will NEVER be able to enforce any kind of reform. States won't screw around if they know the national doesn't play--and that knowledge is necessary to enforce any kind of break with IA/NH tradition.
Posted by: LT | Mar 20, 2008 9:01:09 PM
Right on Matt B!
Josh, all due respect,
You cannot square being an agent of change with working every minute of every day to keep these two states from re-voting. If will eventually catch up to Sen. Obama in the general if his campaign gets away with it in the primary season. Sen. Obama should live up to his wonderful oratory and actually do the right thing.
this is not Obama's fault. In Florida it was apparently the fault of Fla. legislators. In Michigan (my home state) Carl Levin and others gambled and lost.
We have to decide something right now. Either party rules don't matter---and those who believe that should make an affirmative statement to that effect---or else this can be solved by adults negotiating with the campaigns, the states, and the DNC.
I didn't become the person on a presidential campaign whose job it was to learn the delegate selection rules and explain them to others (and then become a national convention delegate myself) and then be one of the people who was involved in the process of rewriting the rules between that election and the next one, only to be told some years later that the whole process doesn't matter because no one matters except a battle between the campaigns.
Gov. Granholm (in one report I saw) was blaming the DNC. There have been other statements from those in Mich. and California with similar remarks. The DNC made rules well in advance, and unless the system has changed drastically, there was plenty of process to allow people to protest/change the rules.
In Tuesday's Oregonian there was an item about a Florida Dem. activist named V. DiMaio who went to court saying that stripping the delegates is unconstitutional and Florida voters have been disenfranchised. The item says federal appeals judges in Atlanta questioned that reasoning.
So all of you (incl. some pundits from Politico.com) who want to see a revote, let's ask a broader question.
Do party rules matter? If not, why have a political party?
Back in the day, our DNC member was involved in a national process to provide discussion of rules some people did not consider to be fair (a disagreement, for instance, on whether a particular paragraph which was more useful to some kinds of candidates than to others should remain in the rules). I was on State Central Comm. in those days, and every time I saw our DNC member, we would have a conversation about the process in general and that paragraph in particular. I went to meetings of Oregon's Rules Committee and participated in at least one discussion at one of the meetings.
After the decisions were made, the national and state delegate selection rules were published. They were explained at a State Central Comm. meeting and some people who hadn't taken part in the process of writing the rules screamed because they didn't like the outcome.
I had no sympathy for them, and today have no sympathy with the idea that this Mich./Fla. problem is all Obama's fault.
I'd rather the focus be in the fact that Sen. Webb (veteran with a son who served in Iraq) is asking why McCain (veteran with a son who served in Iraq) will not sign on to his update of the GI Bill---the current one pays for less than 20% of the sort of college education paid for when WWII vets returned home.
But if people who don't respect the Rules process of the Democratic Party at all levels if it inconveniences their candidate, why shouldn't we assume they are saying we don't need a political party because it is just about the candidates?
They are saying party structure really doesn't matter and people like me really might as well re-register NAV from the day after the primary until March or April 2 years from now.
Is that what you want?
Or is this a "win at all costs" Mondale-style campaign?
A campaign which got soundly beaten in Oregon in 1984.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 20, 2008 9:04:45 PM
I think Steve Maurer is exactly right.
I'm an Obama supporter, and I think there should be re-votes.
But the blame for this mess falls squarely on the party leaders and legislative leaders in those two states. No one else. Not on Barack Obama. Not on Howard Dean. Not on Hillary Clinton (and yes, some Michigan activists are blaming her.)
I think we need to END the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire. If we're going to do that, we need to make sure that the rules stick. Otherwise, any future rules won't have any teeth.
There are rules in place. Michigan and Florida can do a new vote under the existing rules.
They need to get their act together.
Posted by: Sleepless | Mar 20, 2008 9:06:46 PM
The way I see it Florida has an argument as the decision to move their primary up was in the hands of the republican part in Florida as they wanted to help their guy. So the democrats can at least say that moving up was not what they wanted with a straight face.
Michigan is another story. Those where democrats who decided to move up despite warnings that it would result in delegates not being seated. As said before, they did so with advance warning, and an understanding of what that warning meant. They bet that it was an empty threat, and look to have lost.
As far as Obama and Hillary each playing politics with the revote efforts, what a surprise politicians playing politics. Each has good political reasons, but only one has changed their tune since February 4th. Nothing wrong with playing politics in my mind, but there is something wrong with agreeing with the rules ahead of time, and deciding because they may hurt you now you want to change the rules midgame.
Posted by: Lennon | Mar 20, 2008 9:27:47 PM
Personally, I'm sick of hearing folks talk about how Michigan and Florida voters are being "disenfranchised" and "not having their voices heard." To me, getting the first and last vote in a primary cycle seems more like getting your voice heard twice as often as anyone else, not being silenced.
I have to say that I saw all of this coming when I heard that Clinton's name was still on the ballot in Michigan. She obviously chose to "play it safe" and take the votes just in case, and now is playing the card she's been holding on to since Super Tuesday.
Obama should just let the Florida delegates be seated, accept his win at the convention graciously, and spare himself (and all of us who so desperately want to see McCain lose in November) the indignity of appearing to play down to Clinton's level on this one.
Posted by: Displaced Oregano | Mar 20, 2008 9:30:37 PM
Enough! Everyone's right. It's a close competitive contest. The locals in MI and FL bet and lost, trying to make their states' opinions more important. Now they don't have the character to admit a mistake and fund a redo. Too bad. The DNC can't change the rules now without being self-destructive in the long run.
Naturally H. wants to count the illegitimately elected delegates -- they are her votes. Naturally B. doesn't -- why would he? He didn't compete, per the rules, and at that time he was one of eight, not one of two, with a fifth of his present stature and name recognition. To assert that he wouldn't do any better with a re-vote is ridiculous.
If MI and FL can't get a re-do vote or caucus together that's their own fault and problem. "Denying" them a voice in the primary does not remove them from the fall electorate! How many times have we held primaries that had no influence in the process? Did that stop us from voting in the general?
I'd prefer Obama, but I will happily fill in the dot by Hillary's name if it's on my October ballot. The invective on here does no good. It's fun to have a close contest, with two strong, historic candidates. (Four, counting the Senate!) Be happy, choose your favorite, but supporters of the other are not horrible, misguided fools. They are fellow Democrats, needed this fall.
It's all to reminiscent of Harry Truman's (I think) remark: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Mar 20, 2008 9:55:45 PM
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
--Will Rogers
Revote problem is to do with willful delays and bungling by the state parties, along with real, not fake, issues with enabling legislation. Michigan, for example, let things slide and then manufactured a crisis: "Yo, the legislature is about to adjourn!" Bummer.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Mar 20, 2008 9:59:07 PM
Break the rules at your own risk. Lesson learned. Let's move on.
Posted by: Oliver Twisted | Mar 20, 2008 10:04:58 PM
I believe that all states should have the opportunity to vote in this regardless of who I think or hope will win. We cannot say we are a democracy if it is only so when it's convenient, democracy has never been easy.
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 20, 2008 10:12:02 PM
Clinton and Obama are both palying politics with MI and FL. Yes, MI and FL should not have moved their primary up and the results should not count. Yes, we should all hope that MI and FL do get a say, because the democrats in the states deserve to have a vote and should not lose that chance because party leaders messed it up. Clinton only wants the votes in hindsight because she has very little chance without them revoting. She didn't care before Iowa and only cares now. Obama knows they should be allowed to vote but was delaying. Obama knew after Thursday there would be no revote. He is doing it purely for political reasons. Both Clinton and Obama are making the right political moves and both their positions are not based on principle, only on political expediancy. I wish, however, that Obama took the right principled position and had proactively supported a vote. As of now, though, you can not allocated delegates in either state based on the elections as they took place. That is fundamentally unfair.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 10:20:16 PM
The "principled" position - what a load of hogwash.
Hillary is LOSING so she is fighting tooth and nail to cheat to win. It's disgusting. So spare me your "principled" position.
Now go back and report to your minder how many times you spammed this blog for your "team". Ick.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:30 PM
Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.
“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.
The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.
The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida’s 210 delegates — and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 — if it does not come up with an alternative plan.
Posted by: LT | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:36 PM
Jonathan,
" I wish, however, that Obama took the right principled position and had proactively supported a vote"
Are you saying Obama's position should be "the heck with DNC rules and procedures, we must find a way for these states to revote"?
Because it looks to me like Obama wants a solution within the rules and H. Clinton wants a revote in both states, the rules be damned.
I am not a part of either campaign.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 10:40:19 PM
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle."We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
Hillary pledged NOT TO PARTICIPATE:
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON pledged in August, "I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."
Is it PARTICIPATING to claim victory and demand delegates be seated? I think it just might be. Hillary broke her oath. It's clear.
Posted by: SDG | Mar 20, 2008 10:47:05 PM
Chris Corbell -
You need to address Hillary's breach of her pledge.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 20, 2008 10:52:45 PM
Now I think I know how LT feels about the Senate race.
Neither of these candidates has shown me what I want to see yet. And I am further away from preferring one of them than I was a month ago.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 21, 2008 12:30:55 AM
Breaking- Bill Richardson Endorses Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_el_pr/obama_richardson;_ylt=AifhjZXGT3Lg9JaJHo0WnquyFz4D
Here's a statement:
Steve,
During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.
We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.
Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.
As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!
Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.
His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.
To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.
During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.
So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.
Sincerely,
Bill Richardson
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: MCR | Mar 20, 2008 5:27:18 PM
I'm sick and tired of hearing about this issue. Those two states understood what they were doing when they made their decisions. If the Democratic constituents who live in those states have an issue, they can take it up with their state party leadership and turn them out of office. It's time to give up on this re-voting idea.