Democrats count the votes - ALL the votes.  And just as the voters dictated - no games.  Just seat the delegates.

Grat diary Camp :)

the reason that Florida got the death penalty was because only 1 of the more than 20 states that moved to Feb 5th had decided on the date for their primary.

Had Florida not gotten the death penalty all hell would have broken loose.  And because of a ballot referendum in Florida, there was no way the Democrats could agree to move the date.

Dean should have understood this long ago and brokered a solution.  

Glad to hear it.

why is he in the same party as me?  How on earth can a Democrat ever advocate for anything that is remotely undemocratic? yuck. yuck... barf.

I'm just wondering how everyone would feel about this if we had polls out of Florida showing that Obama would likely win by a large margin if they did a revote. I can't help but wonder if HRC supporters and HRC, herself, would want all the votes to count as much as they do now. I'm assuming the revote idea would never have been pushed.

From now on, I'm counting Florida when I talk about the popular vote. They will be counted.

At this point, I'd be willing to let them seat half the delegation (like the Republicans are doing) just so they'd shut up about it already.  They're nuts if they think the results of their early primaries are going to count completely as is.

Any seating of delegates based on a primary in january wherein the voters were told ahead of time that their votes wouldn't count is illegitimate.  I know that 1.7 million people voted, but their votes hold an unfair amount of weight in a contest that awards delegates based on percentages because you cannot know how many stayed home as a result of being told that the primary wouldn't count.  That's not fair.  Say whatever you want about it, but let's be honest adults here folks.

Hilary is doing her job as a candidate.  Dr Dean is doing his job as DNC bossman.  Obama is doing his job as a candidate.

The point is that those of you who think that Barack is some sort of bad guy for not laying down because Hilary NEEDS him to agree to changing the rules in the middle of the game are not being honest.

Don't get all self-righteous with me about "democrats count all of the votes".  Please first demonstrate to me how every state has had its say in the nomination in the past.  You can't because, in fact, it is the norm for the nomination to be over with way before all of the states have participated.  Besides, I could point out that democrats should have the honor to live by their word.  Hilary DID agree ahead of time that it wouldn't count.  If she's not as good as her word on this why should we trust any of her other commitments? In fact, if she keeps pushing to double cross on her commitment, I would hope he'd point it out right alongside her Tuzla gaffe and question whether she is trustworthy. She made an agreement and doesn't want to honor it.

Revote or seat them 50/50 or don't seat them at all. It's not legitimate to seat based on the january results.

Ahhh....and where have we heard such a thing before?

The Florida delegates will be seated only if they don't count, but they will count only if they're not seated.  And that's the catch.

Catch 22.

For the first time, some people like Dean, are coming to the realization that actual registered Democrats have been actually voting in the majority for Hillary, and that you cannot ignore half of the Democratic voters, in favor of just the Obama voters.  Perhaps, Dean has come to the realization that when damage to the Democratic party is spoken of it might happen because of his and others actions not despite them.  I cannot imagine what is in the minds of people trying to boot a candidate which over half of the actual members of the party have voted for and want to be the president.  When the election is over and done, all that will be left of the Democratic party will be the actual registered democrats, and Dean or whomever will have to depend on the actual members to keep the party financially, and spiritually alive.  The independents and republicans who voted in the open primaries, and caucuses will be gone and on their way to a better land.  Dean, Pelosi, Leahy, and all the rest of the yahoos, WAKE UP! You are doing the damage.

to a diary about " machinations by Donna Brazile  to increase the penalty from half the delegates to all the delegates"? I missed that one.

Did Donna Brazille cast a spell on Harold Ickes?  Seduce him?  I must have missed that one.

In other words, Florida's votes can count... but only if they don't count.  Thanks a lot, Tom. We knew we could count on you ;-)

I had the exact same reaction inside.  That ought to have been picked up as a major gaffe.

I think what we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg of a much broader undeclared truce among all of the parties involved, for the sake of party unity.  I diarised this elsewhere but this seems to be part of the changed stance by Pelosi and Dean on superdelegate propriety as well as the apparently revised focus and tone of Hillary's campaign itself.  It's in the best interests of the party to have some solidarity on issues like this, as many have suggested for awhile.  It is not so long ago we heard mutterings from Republican strategists that these 'disenfranchisement' issues would be manna for them in the general election in the affected states.  I'm not so sure, but why take the risk?

The FL primary cannot be considered valid. Based on virtually every other state, if Obama had campaigned he would have done better. The Obama campaign realizes this - and I am sure the Clintons would acknowledge it.

The Clinton name IS a household name and her victory there was surely based on that fact...to a certain extent; this is about politics...campaigning IS politics. It brings in local media, excitement, voter registration, etc.

To hold a primary without it is ... well ... not valid. It is simply disingenuous to claim that FL should be counted as is...certainly that is NOT what the democratic candidates intended to happen when they pledged to uphold the wishes of the DNC.

So I would not expect Obama to agree to any plan that considers that original vote valid...and I am sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, there is no way in hell HRC would eiher.

Will it come as a shock to anyone that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns will try to achieve the solution that benefits each most (respectively :)?

I don't suppose we'll all agree that "enfranchisement" is (almost laughably) not the issue, for either campaign.

No? So be it. So let's retire to neutral corners and smoke some more crack.

Meanwhile, McCain continues to build huge positives across the nation while we continue to debate this old issue and beat each other up.  I'm not going to make any new points that other people against seating the MI and FL delegates haven't already made, so I'll spare you. But, as HRC's campaign has become so fond of saying, lets "Get Real."

I would have voted for Hillary had she won the primary, but at this point, the only way she can win is by stealing the nomination with 11th hour tactics like seating FL.  Which do you think will disenfranchise more voters?    Not seating the states that broke the rules or overturning the election results with crap like this?  It's time to move on and start fighting the real enemy... unless Hillary in 2012 (and "Four More Years" McCain) is that much more appealing to you than Obama in '08.

Has anyone noticed that Obama is willing to countenance the January outcomes as long as he gets delegates he didn't merit according to the January results?  The votes are valid as they were cast, or they're invalid, Barack.  Senator Obama, you can't have it both ways.

I guess I just cannot reason through how all the votes should be counted when one of the candidates was not on the ballot in Michigan.  Yes, I understand he took his name off, as did others, but only because everyone agreed and understood the rules to mean the election would not count, including Hillary before she lost Iowa and other contests.  

Michigan's legislature decided not to implement a bill fraught with problems (example: I am a voter who, understanding that the election would not count, as even Hillary said before election day, voted, but for a GOP candidate.  Under the proposed law, I could not participate in the "do-over" election because I had already voted), so saying "do a do over" is not feasible under the law.

So:  If the principle is count all the votes and give voters a voice, it must mean count all the votes in a fair election.  The first election did not do so, so how can you seat those delegates as they are?  It unfairly favors Hillary.  

I have seen Democrats whose reality-based judgment I respect twist themselves into logical pretzels trying to show how a one-candidate election is fair for both candidates.  

It's frustrating to see people fall for partisan arguments in stark opposition to reason and rules.  

If neither Hillary nor Barack cannot reach the required 2024 pledged delegates how can either of them steal what he/she doesn't have?

It's very unlikely that any fair apportionment of MI and FL's votes would bring Clinton within distance of a lead in pledged delegates (and even apportionments which everyone agrees would be unfair probably wouldn't be enough to do this job).

Here's what I suspect Dean is going to do.  He's canvassed the superdelegates, and has figured out that 2/3rds of them are willing to vote for Obama so long as he emerges in late June with the most pledged delegates.  If that's the case, then the seating of MI and FL won't be a big deal.

"I am completely unimpressed by Howard Dean's statement about seating the Florida delegates today.

Seating the delegates at the convention is not the same thing as allowing their votes to count in picking the party's nominee. Timing is everything. If the delegates aren't seated until the convention in August, it will be too late for them to have a role in choosing the nominee.

Dean isn't saying anything that wasn't said by the party initially -- the credentials or rules committee, at the request of the party nominee, can decide to to seat the delegates. As Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman said back in January, before the primary:

Florida's 210 delegates will be seated at the national convention in August. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, honorary chair of the convention; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; and former DNC Chairman Don Fowler of South Carolina have all said that, ultimately, the presidential nominee will decide who attends the convention.

Dean seems to be implying that absent an agreement between Hillary and Obama, the delegates won't get to vote because the decision will have to wait until we have a nominee who makes his or her desire known to the appropriate committee.

In order for Florida's 1.7 million votes to really count, the penalty needs to be lifted before the last primary in June. Otherwise, Floridians will have no say in choosing the Democratic nominee. The risk in not lifting the penalty in time for Floridians' votes to count is that they will desert the party in droves in November, either by not voting or by voting for McCain. Who could blame them?"

Is this true - are they playing games with the word "seated" - does it mean they will be allowed to VOTE?

Are acting just like Republicans.

Tom Daschle: "He told CNN's Gloria Borger that the Illinois senator would like to "give Florida the opportunity to vote" - but not in a way that would change the overall outcome."

No difference than Republicans suppressing the vote.  They too do it to help them, to heck with democracy and our liberties.  No difference,  Thanks Obamacans.

dean needs to hold the line on this issue.

a new election is best. It's not perfect (not having the GOP primary the same day) but it is best.

and it would include a whole lot more people then the first elections. so while it might be bad for Obama, I'm into this thing called democracy. and I'm really not into breaking the rules at this juncture.

Why on EARTH should the FLA votes count??  They don't follow the rules . . they don't count.  People are told they don't count so they don't vote. Arguing that the vote totals represent reality is absurd.  I could give two hoots in hell which candidate wins it in FLA, but it is sheer idiocy to even THINK that the FLA vote meant a damn thing.  i thought only republicans argued like this.  Guess not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dT A4

Didn't she head Gore's disastrous campaign? And now, this.

She needs to go.

In reply to:
"Because Obama took his name off the ballot. His choice. His consequences. "

And Hillary agreed at the same time that the results from MI and FL would not be counted in the nomination race. Her choice, her consequences as well.

People arguing for MI and FL, as is or any other way that affects the outcome of this race, are basically saying if you agree to and abide the same set of rules that everyone else agreed to, it's your own fault if you get screwed later.

Honestly, how do some of you reconcile this with any sense of honor or integrity? Either rules and written agreements mean something real or they don't. Whether any of us like them or not is irrelevant to the question of applicability.

To Dean's credit, he has remained consistent and fair on this issue: we agreed to a set of rules before we started the game, and those are still the rules. Any change in those must be through the  processes also set out in the rules or by mutual agreement of all affected parties.

What's wrong with that?

Wow. Is there any real reason to do this pesky voting thing?