Dear Rubican Members:
 I have sat in and observed many of the RBC meeting mostly out of interest in the Shay Amendment. However I also witnessed first hand the jealousy and competitiveness of so many state parties who want the special status to go first and all of the political, media and financial benefits that go along with the early window. The RBC's needed to act swiftly in August and December to prevent total chaos before January. Your job was to herd cats through a minefield. You truly have my sympathies.

I have read the complete DNC Delegate Selection Rules along with the RBC transcripts for both the August and December meetings when both Florida and Michigan were ruled in violation and lost all of their delegates (I also observed the December meeting in Vienna VA).

There are a number of points worth considering.

The Delegate Selection Rules, DSR, provide several paths for state in violation of timing to get back into compliance and have their delegations sat. The DSR also give the RBC the authority to create an independent committee to plan a contest in compliance should the offending state party and legislature not cooperate to resolve the timing violation. It's fair to say the rules were written with the intent that any violations be resolved so that come August the rank and file voters of the offending state will have their candidate preference fully considered in Denver. All parties had a responsibility to resolve this problem, including the DNC, the RBC and both the Clinton and Obama campaign. It is 8 months since Florida was stripped and 5 months since Michigan. Should the voters pay the price because ALL of the concerned parties failed their duties to push for a fair resolution before this late date?

At the August RBC meeting Florida requested a waiver on the grounds allowed in the DSR as it was a 2/3rds Republican majority and the Republican Governor that passed the early primary legislation. Also The Florida Republicans added an amendment to the bill that for the first time since 2000 would have required a paper trail for all Florida voting equipment. The DNC lost both the 2000 and 2004 elections in part because of "lost" votes with Florida's paperless electronic voting equipment. Florida Dems have also lost many down ticket races for Congress and state office due to voting irregularities that probably wouldn't have occurred with a paper trail. Florida Democrats presented a very persuasive and eloquent argument that they had no control over the early timing. Also that there reluctance to fight legislation that would require a paper trail was in the interest of the Democratic Party winning back the White House in 2008. Curiously after Florida presented their case with their request for a waiver, Ralph Dawson immediate moved to strip Florida of all delegates before the RBC even discussed the merits of Florida's waiver request.

In contrast both Iowa and New Hampshire also violated the RBC timing plan by moving their respective contests to January 3rd and 8th respectively. Curiously Donna Brazile had no mercy or sympathy for Florida even though the paper trail would solve many of the issues her Voting Rights Institute was focused on. However at the December meeting Brazile fawned over both IA and NH and granted them waivers even though their move was purely out of self-interest with no consideration for winning back the White House or protecting disenfranchised voters.

Michigan is equally problematic however less so than the media reports. Much ado is being made over Obama not being on the ballot. As I interpret the DSR and the rules of the MI contest, candidates are responsible for getting their names on the ballot and keeping them on it. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot in October 2007. The RBC didn't discuss or penalize MI until December 2007, two months later. Obama removed his name from a primary that was getting delegates in October without being commanded by the DNC to do so. Even if one was to make the automatic sanction argument, that sanction required a 50% reduction. The primary still counted. At the December meeting Debbie Dingall said she begged Obama like she never begged any elected official before not to do this and penalize the voters of her state. I don't mean to sound harsh but it's obvious that the removal of names represented a cynical attempt to spoil an early contest where polls suggested an opponent would gain great momentum and to curry favor from the very territorial state parties of IA and NH.

If one was to follow the DSR, the Michigan contest was fair. Should the cynical actions of one candidate be allowed to hold the voters of a whole state hostage and place the force the DNC to bear the burden of complications they created for their own campaign? I feel the same way about the "Pledge(s)" forced on the candidates by the four sanctioned early window states. The Pledges only served the self-interests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Like the removal of names from the MI ballot, these were self-interested maneuvers that undermined the DNC's eventual fair resolution of an unfortunate situation. I certainly hope when the RBC deliberates and tries to hold some parties accountable for this mess, that candidates and the early window state parties are held just as accountable to the rules as the rank and file voters of Florida and Michigan for complicating an orderly and fair nominating process.

As your letter suggests there were attempts to have a fair revote in both states. Both Chairman Dean and the Clinton campaign agreed to several reasonable proposals that would allow all eligible Democrats in both states to participate. It wasn't the respective State Parties, the DNC or the Clinton campaign that blocked revote efforts. It was Obama's lawyers.

I realize that chairman Dean and the RBC has a responsibility to find a resolution that leaves supporters of both candidates feeling that they were treated as fair as possible. However it has been one candidate who has blocked any and all attempts at a fair revote. Should the voters of FL and MI be penalized because one candidate will not allow a contest to proceed that polls suggest he will lose? The RBC had the power to create an independent committee that could create a new contest that both candidates would have to agree to.

I agree both state legislatures violated the DSRs and that should not be rewarded. However On May 31, 2008 the DNC and the RBC also bear a good deal of responsibility towards the voices of three million Democrats being silenced. Reading the transcripts various RBC members acknowledged both in August and December that at some point the delegates from both states must be seated. In most election cycles once candidate would have garnered the 50% plus 1 votes needed to secure the nomination and seating the delegates by the fiat of the nominee or through the credentials committee would not be controversial. However when the race emerged as a close split after Super Tuesday, it should have been incumbent upon the DNC to aggressively force a resolution. This is not a matter of forgiving or excusing those responsible. It is simply wrong to force the Democratic rank and file voters to be penalized for the wrongdoings of their legislature and the inability of the DNC to force an earlier resolution. Twenty five percent of those in Florida are so angry that the DNC is pulling a James Baker on them with Donna Brazile repeating Kathleen Harris's talking points as a "neutral" commentator on CNN, they will either sit out or vote McCain should their primary results not be counted in full. They are serious. They believe the DNC and the candidates had every opportunity to negotiate a revote in good faith. As all parties failed to do so, they firmly believe the January results should accepted and they should be fully sat as is or they will spoil the election. Some Obama backing friends say they just couldn't vote McCain. In 2004 John Kerry offered the VP slot to McCain before he finally gave it to Edwards. McCain is far more moderate than Bush. Voting for him is not nearly as scary as we might hope.

On May 25th HBO will premiere the movie "Recount" about the Florida fiasco of 2000. The general public will have refreshed memories of Kathleen Harris twisting the election rules to block a recount. We will see images of Floridians with duck tape over their mouths protesting, as they became little footballs being tossed around by the self-interested political elite.
As a union shop Stewart I spend many days arguing rules and debating their interpretation and application. I have never encountered a rule that seems fair or perfect under every unforeseen situation that arises. I understand your dilemma. You have my sympathy. However which of the values that guide the Democratic Party are to be our guiding moral compass as we search for a resolution? Are we guided by the petty self-interest of states that jockey and fight for the status of the early window? Do we rule to placate the cynical maneuvers of candidates who would spoil a states primary to sabotage it their contest from being resolved in the future? Are we parliamentary fundamentalists who must interpret the rules coldly without humanity or common sense? Are we as Democrats concerned about the voices of the common citizen who may not have the money, pedigree or influence to have a voice on their own?

As you know I am a very partisan supporter of Senator Clinton. However I am also a Democrat who was outraged by the nonsense of 2000. I am also a Democrat who was very angry with John Kerry and the party for the relative complacence when uncounted voters faced similar disenfranchisement in 2004. How can we claim to be better than Jeb Bush, Kathleen Harris and James Baker if we let strategic electoral games and parliamentary procedure disenfranchise voters within our own party?

I personally think that as intended in the rules the DNC resolve the situation so that both delegations be fully sat. If the window of opportunity for a revote has passed, the circumstances are such that both states should be given a waiver.

In regard to 2012, the current DSR's flaws have grown exponentially. No we do not want a repeat of states moving their primary to the early window in 4 years. However I seriously doubt the RBC will not aggressively work towards a major overhaul of the Democratic Primary beginning with the new RBC in January 2009. I have confidence the RBC will use this dysfunctional election cycle to help pinpoint what needs to be overhauled so we can revamp the nominating process into one that will be compliant, smooth and best reflect the will of the voters and the spirit of the Democratic Party.
Yours Truly,
Jon Winkleman