Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated

Republished with the express permission of authors Jon Winkleman and Jeffrey H. Campagna

Senator Obama and his surrogates, including MoveOn.org, are waging a public relations battle to pressure the DNC to refuse credentials to the Michigan and Florida delegations for the Democratic National Convention. Their message consists of misrepresentations and lies about the DNC rules concerning these states. Unfortunately most news outlets and commentators are repeating this misinformation without ever checking the Obama campaign's claims for accuracy against the actual DNC rules.

It is critical that every one of us combat this misinformation. There has been much discussion recently about the will of the voters. We can't accurately determine which candidate has the greatest support amongst primary voters if we disregard the preference of 1.5 million voters in Florida while giving outsize weight to the 250,000 who caucused in Iowa, and even more outsize influence to the mere 20,000 people who participated in the Democrats Abroad contest.

Senator Clinton won decisive victories in both Florida and Michigan in January and is entitled to the delegates she won from those states. In the tight race for delegates, Florida and Michigan could decide who will be the Democratic nominee for president.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, it is important that the victory be based in the rules. If the nominee's victory is perceived to be based on false information or rules violations, the Party will be divided going into November. We can't afford such a scenario.

Please correct all misstatements and cite the actual sections of the Rules where applicable. Also direct the person repeating the misinformation to the actual DNC Delegate Selection Rules posted online at,

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

In addition to forwarding these talking points to fellow Hillary supporters, send them to Obama supporters who you believe support a fair application of the rules. Point out to them that it is for the good of everyone that all understand the rules of the game. If someone remains argumentative and insists that Hillary is cheating, simply ask,

"Have you actually read the rules?"


DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state's delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state's pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state's pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is "changing the rules."

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state's primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state's Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.

Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.

5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.

6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC's Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.

7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.

8) Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.

FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters..." The Michigan ballot included an option for "uncommitted" to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.

9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.

FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.

Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.

10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.

FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.

11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.

12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?

FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

13) Hillary's activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.

FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary's victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.

14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.

FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote "uncommitted," Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.

15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.

FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.

Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.

16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.

FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.

Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job ("I'm like a player on the field. I shouldn't be setting up the rules" ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state's excluded delegates, declaring that he would "Do right by Florida voters."

Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton.

17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.

FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.

Sources:
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter "DNC Rules"), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275. html?hpid=topnews
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/ obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

Tags: 2008 election, Barack Obama, democracy, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, Voter Disenfranchisement (all tags)

Comments

233 Comments

Voter Disenfranchisement

Sucks. Vote disenfranchisement on a massive scale is a crime against the Constitution.

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

You'd think that we'd learn a few things from "hanging chads."

by KnowVox 2008-04-23 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

No kidding.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
I believe I read this same diary

a month ago.  Also, see the million accurate rebuttals of why "disenfranchisement" is the wrong word.

And yeah, we know about the credentials committee and eventual floor vote on seating MI and FL.  Thing is, the decision is only relevant if Clinton is behind in total delegates (NOT including MI and FL) when the vote gets to the floor.  Which means that for them to be seated, a number of Obama delegates would have to effectively vote to hand the nomination over to Clinton.  How likely do you think that is?

Unless, of course, the Clinton campaign has been planning a "mole" strategy of running supporters as Obama delegates.  Which I'm not too worried about, as it would require the kind of careful planning her campaign has not exhibited so far.

by corph 2008-04-23 07:46AM | 0 recs
Yes, you did.

It's a cut-and-paste from a MyDD diary on 3/17.  And many of the statements in it are completely unsupported by the single document that is linked to.

It's as if using the <blockquote&rt; tag is enough to fool the overly credulous.

by McNasty 2008-04-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

Yeah, voter disenfranchisement sucks. So, according to your True/False, this is the case:

Hillary should get all of her Florida/Michigan delegates according to the primaries already held.

Obama should get no delegates from Florida, and none of the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan.

Any attempt at revoting would be voter disenfranchisement, even though the original votes disenfranchised Democrats who either didn't go to a primary they thought wouldn't count, or voted in Michigan's open Republican primary instead.

Oh, and I seem to remember Clinton having a press conference in Florida the morning of the Florida primary. She had just gotten off her plane and was standing in front of some palm trees. According to your rules, she shouldn't get any Florida delegates either.

by dantes 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

I also seem to recall..

her own campaign surrogates voting FOR the states' sanctions. She had more reps on the committee than any other candidate.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:14AM | 0 recs
I'm going to start troll-rating these anti-

Democratic comments.

the original votes disenfranchised Democrats who either didn't go to a primary they thought wouldn't count, or voted in Michigan's open Republican primary instead.

You cannot disenfranchise people who sat on their asses and hoped for the eventual possibility that a loophole would render their state's votes meaningless.  Its a bullshit if/come argument.  Anyone who really cared about electing Obama would have voted in the primary, and hoped their votes counted in the end.  They would not have stayed home and refrained from availing themselves of the right to vote that people have literally died for them to obtain.  This is especially true for Obama's biggest voting block - African Americans.  They didn't even have the right to vote in this country for some time.  They get the right to vote, and then refuse to exercise that dearly held and hard fought right - - - because of the possibility that a loophole might render their votes meaningless at some point in the future, or might not?

Fuck that.  All MyDD members are on notice.  Act like an anti-Democratic troll by spouting off that knowingly disingenuous argument just to score cheap points, and I will troll-rate you, regardless of the consequences to me.  

As an American voter in Michigan, even though I was aware of the controversy and the possibility that my vote would not count, I still left my office early for court and lost valuable billable time, drove out of my way to the polling station before going to court, and voted uncommitted, because I supported Edwards at the time.  And my vote should not count, because someone else didn't care enough about Obama to vote just in case it would count, like I did?  Moreover, although I was a happy member of Daily Kos at the time, I did not take Markos' advice and use my right to vote as a game to play against Republicans.  I voted uncommitted because that was the way to vote for John Edwards at the time, just like it was the way to vote for Obama at the time.  Just like nothing stopped me from voting uncommitted, nothing stopped any of you.  

Someone who was less committed to their candidate and more lazy than me should get the benefits, and someone who was more committed to their candidate and more willing to "waste" their time in a potentially meaningless primary should get screwed?  Fuck that.  

If you don't want to be troll-rated, don't act like trolls and spout that bullshit on this website anymore.  As someone who bothered to vote, I'm done with allowing that trollish behavior to stand.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-23 09:31AM | 0 recs
Nothing stopped them?

The names we wanted to vote for were not on the ballot, and the election was declared invalid by one of the two major organizing bodies.

That's like an election in Romania.

I'm sorry you lost billable time in order to vote, but don't lose your perspective.

by McNasty 2008-04-23 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing stopped them?

Listen there is nothing fundementally unfair about a candidate taking their own name off a ballot

The candidate chose the action, the candidate understood the possible outcomes and was trying to game to an outcome that he liked.

Now that Michigan may be the deciding vote pulling his name and blocking revotes is starting to look like a major miscalculation...

You should have voted and written in your candidates name if need be.

by DTaylor 2008-04-23 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing stopped them?

Yes, Obama could have simply lied like Clinton instead and (just like she did) pledge not to participate and then go back on their pledge.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 10:25AM | 0 recs
that is a blatant lie

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-23 12:27PM | 0 recs
Um what?

Are Clinton supporters so far removed from reality that they're simply denying Clinton ever made such a pledge?

What's the deal, Teresa?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 01:03PM | 0 recs
I appreciate that you're sorry I lost billable

time, but you were warned.  Troll-rated for anti-Democratic nonsense.  There was a campaign to vote uncommitted for Edwards of Obama.  I knew about it, you knew about it, and everyone else knew about it.  It worked, because 35% of Michigan voters took time out of their day like I did to vote uncommitted.

I availed myself of the right to vote.  You did not.  Now you're trying to throw my vote out to cover for your laziness and/or ineptitude?  Fuck that.  TR'd.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-23 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I appreciate that you're sorry I lost billable

TRed for calling another person lazy and inept, merely because you disagree with him on what a proper democratic vote is supposed to look like.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 10:24AM | 0 recs
You people with your TRing are pathetic

Like little kids on the playground.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I appreciate that you're sorry I lost billable

TR'd for TR'ing people because they disagree with you. Hit the showers--we all get pissed off at the other side. But TR'ing in this case is out of line.

by Brannon 2008-04-23 08:26PM | 0 recs
BTW: What is your position on those who don't vote

they are certain their candidate will either win or lose without their vote anyway, based on polling?  It is a documented fact that in every election in U.S. history, there are people who refrain from voting because they think they know how the result is going to unfold, and don't feel their vote is necessary. Should we invalidate any/all elections in U.S. history, because in each election, there have been voters who made the wrong decision by staying home?

What is your position on people who don't vote because because it is raining outside?  Should we invalidate all elections in which it can be proven that someone stayed home because they didn't want to get wet?

What is your position on people who don't vote because Republicans send them mailers saying a Tuesday vote is actually ocurring on Wednesday?  Should we invalidate the entire election if it can be proven that at least one voter did not vote based on bad advice?  

In accordance with the foregoing, it is clear that we should not invalidate primaries in which millions of people voted for their candidate, because of the ones who voted for Mitt because Markos Moulitsas told them to, or who stayed home because they were told their votes would not count?

The fact that you people want to throw out two entire primaries based on the people who did not vote is comparable to all of the above.  Yet, I don't hear you complain that all elections that have ever occurred in the United States of America should be set aside, because there is proof that someone did not vote, and now regrets THEIR MISTAKE.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-24 05:44AM | 0 recs
What a fantastic response.

Emphasis on fantastic.

Blurring the difference between the illegitimate election in Michigan and depressed voter turnout because of rain is a new level of fiction for you.

Seating Michigan as-is results in what--86 for Hillary and 1 for Barack, I think?  If you think that's what we should do, you're a Republican.

by McNasty 2008-04-24 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

That's a complete lie. Hillary did not have a press conference in FL on the morning of the primary. She landed in FL after the polls closed. Don't spread these lies...it is typical BO crap to accuse Hillary of the crap he is doing. BO violated the rules, not Hillary.

by seattlegonz 2008-04-23 09:06PM | 0 recs
Whould that be why..

the "election" in MI, where Obama was not on the ballot and not a single vote has been counted for him, was in fact ruled unconstitutional?

Or does the Constitution not matter there?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:13AM | 0 recs
Correction on Constitutionality

The "election" wasn't ruled unconstitutional.  The provision whereby the public would have no access to the list of who voted was.  Under the rules the legislature set up for the primary, ONLY the Democratic and Republican parties would have access to the lists of who participated.  This was ruled unconstitutional because Michigan is a sunshine state and publicly funded things need to be covered under FOIA.

The ruling had nothing to do with the ballot, or with who was or wasn't on it.

The suggestion that Michigan's delegation should be seated as is is still ridiculous of course.  It just doesn't have anything to do with the court ruling you're talking about.

The "Does the constitution not matter there," crack is particularly pathetic.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction on Constitutionality

Got it, my bad.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Love the tapdancing. So much to choose from. Let's start with:
THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).
One might argue that just being on the ballot is a form of participation. She explained this with the following:
"I personally did not think ... uh ... whether my name was on the ballot ... uh ... it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.
So, intentional lie or hypocritical flip-flop? Either way she doesn't look good.
by Huck 2008-04-23 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

Can it be any friggin clearer?  Thanks Huck!!!

by SovSov 2008-04-23 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

I know, it's crazy, did you know not a single independent voter was allowed to vote in the PA primary last night.  I hear this sort of disenfranchisement has happened in a number of contests this primary season.  How dare we ignore the voices of such a large part of the electorate.

by matchles 2008-04-23 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Voter Disenfranchisement

To those of us who understood and accepted the rules, before the first vote was counted, this new logic is insulting.  Clinton(s) were the strongest people in the Party when it was decided and remained mummmmmm.  When you fix a fight, you should do it better.  

by SovSov 2008-04-23 07:36PM | 0 recs
the Florida and Michigan delegations

republicans disenfranchise voters- democrats win when every vote counts. it's time for democrats to start acting like democrats. it's just common sense.  

all the rationalizations and excuses are wearing thin as the clock ticks down. dean knows that the longer he holds this dead fish, the worse it will smell.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: the Florida and Michigan delegations

And that fish is rotting from the head downward.

by KnowVox 2008-04-23 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: the Florida and Michigan delegations

something is 'fishy' about Dean.

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: the Florida and Michigan delegations

...and, that would be why anyone who wanted to vote Obama in MI, but dutifully voted "uncommitted" won't get counted at all?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

An argument can be made for Florida, but claiming Senator Clinton "won a decisive victory" in Michigan is just plain ludicrous....she was the only MAJOR candidate with her name on the ballot.

by feliks 2008-04-23 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Obama had his removed before the DNC ruled to penalize the State. Who's fault is that?

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Still doesn't change the fact she won a flawed, specious victory in Michigan, not a decisive one

by feliks 2008-04-23 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

keyword: won.

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Yeah, she totally pwned Mr. Uncommitted.

by username2 2008-04-23 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

by only 15%.

by dantes 2008-04-23 08:07AM | 0 recs
So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!

Mr. Uncommitted is precisely the correct name for someone who voted present as frequently as he committed to a position on anything.  Thanks for the chuckle.  

by macmcd 2008-04-23 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!

On the one hand, I'm tired of hearing that dishonest old talking point.

On the other hand, I would not have thought of that connection on my own, so I had to chuckle as well.  Kudos to you!

by username2 2008-04-23 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!
129 present votes as I recall, only 7 accounted for by PP...so what about the other 122 or so? just forgot to vote or something?
by zerosumgame 2008-04-23 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!

Just in case you're looking for an honest discussion...

Link?  My impression is that "uncommitted" is a parliamentary maneuver in IL, and basically all of his "uncommitted" votes were for parliamentary reasons.

by username2 2008-04-23 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!
which would be just fine if he would detail those actions. maybe they were all in as good a cause as supporting PP, but in this vacuum of info he is not supplying just taking his word for it is not an option for me. after all look at all the fuss over taking his word about being a Christian ;p
by zerosumgame 2008-04-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama was, in fact, on the ballot!!!!

So you're saying the burden is on him to prove he's not a closet America-hating Muslim?  Sorry, not gonna buy that...

by username2 2008-04-23 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Hey keep remembering that keyword.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:56AM | 0 recs
KUCINICH WON MICHIGAN!

Actually Clinton didn't win.  She pledeged not to participate.  People who don't participate in something cannot win it.  Kucinich won Michigan they were the only ones that didn't say they wouldn't participate, get over it.

Any delegates for a candidate that didn't participate, or uncommited candidate, should remain for uncommitted.  Woo them at the convention if they get seated at all.

Popular votes for Michigan:

(checkmark) Kucinich : 21,715 votes 3.7%
Gravel: 2,361 votes 0.4%
Uncommited: 566,437 Votes 95.3%

I thought Gravel had a chance at this thing, but Kucinich really put it away.  The demographics were really much more in his corner.

by Why Not 2008-04-23 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: KUCINICH WON MICHIGAN!
and she didn't participate. But unlike you and BHO she has no problem with the VOTERS participating...
by zerosumgame 2008-04-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: a history lesson from Michigan

Were you in MI? Obviously not, or you would know that Obama supporters in Michigan ran radio, tv and internet and newspaper ads to get voters to vote uncommitted. If you want I can post the links. It was well covered here on the news and the blogs. MI Democratic voters, particularly Obama supporters knew that they should vote uncommitted for there candidate. Unfortunately, some of them decided to be cute and follow Markos suggestion to vote in the Republican primary instead. Now they have remorse. But the vote Uncommitted was well advertised here before the primary. It was flawed because people squandered their votes by following the suggestions of someone who doesn't live in the state.

by ricardo4 2008-04-23 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: a history lesson from Michigan

Were you in Florida when this was being decided...?  I mean the penalties not the primary....

I was and did what I could to avert this...  but the state party held fast to the idea that the primary should be moved up... and then incurred the penalty of not having the delegates seated... which was threatened before it was decided....

And my votes counted... and I was able to vote... so I was not disenfranchised.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: a history lesson from Michigan

Yeah. I was there. And we were told the election wouldn't count. Period. End of story.

And then the MI court ruled the election unconstitutional. Period. End of story.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:55AM | 0 recs
Why Do People Keep Repeating This Nonsense

And then the MI court ruled the election unconstitutional. Period. End of story.

That ruling had nothing to do with the outcome of the election, nor did it void the results of that election.  The ruling said that the provision of the election whereby the public would not have access to the lists of who voted was unconstitutional.

The primary should not have counted (and it won't).  But you don't need to go around saying stupid lies to make that true.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Do People Keep Repeating This Nonsense

Then I was misinformed, which seemed to happen a lot in Michigan this year. Thanks for clearing it up.

And for being so nice about it.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
My Apologies

I was taking my cues from the overall tone of this thread.  I have no specific issue with you and I wasn't going out of my way to be a jackhole.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: My Apologies

S'ok. I hate to go around spouting something at the top of my lungs that's inaccurate (unless it's personal measurements ;).

Tips for the use of "jackhole."

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:24AM | 0 recs
It makes no difference what the ads said

A vote for "Uncommitted" was a vote for "Uncommitted," not Obama.  

Our primary was fatally flawed, and it was our own doing.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
The talking point now is..

that we should have known to "write-in" Obama in that election we were told would not be counted towards the nomination.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 09:10AM | 0 recs
Well That's a Silly Talking Point

Our primary does not allow for write-in votes.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Well That's a Silly Talking Point

I didn't think so! I didn't recall seeing any such opportunity. Okay, one less thing to feel bad about.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: It makes no difference what the ads said
Again we are talking about what the rules say and what they don't say. According to the DNC rules that Obama constantly invokes, telling your supporters how to vote is considered campaigning.
That's the rules. Obama broke them.
by Jon Winkleman 2008-04-23 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Despite the best efforts of Obama supporters, they were not able to embarrass Hillary Clinton by having her lose in MI to "uncommitted" as I'm sure was their intent.  We weren't all born yesterday - she probably got a few extra votes, because people don't like that kind of mean spiritedness (sp?).

by AnnC 2008-04-23 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

And Romney beat McCain... due in part to the efforts of the netroots to get Dem voters to support him....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Thank you markos for that brilliant move.

</snark>

by switching sides 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Not Sure How That is Snark?

It didn't end up having much impact.  Do you think the Democratic party would have been better off somehow if McCain had won Michigan?

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Sure How That is Snark?

The impact that it had was in giving Rush LImbaugh the idea (and the moral excuse) for gaming OUR primary.

Get it?  

Oh, and THANKS FOR THE TR"S!!!

:)

by switching sides 2008-04-23 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Not only that Obama and others removed their names from the ballot in Michigan to pander to Iowa.

by rocky 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

And tell me again why Clinton's surrogates voted on the rules committee to sanction MI and FL, and agree to abide by those sanctions?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo
Actually, they removed them because the agreement required them not to participate. Don't you think being on the ballot is participation? Obama certainly did. Edwards certainly did. Hillary just insisted the results wouldn't count, so it didn't matter if she didn't remove her name.
by Huck 2008-04-23 09:15AM | 0 recs
yes, I have two brothers in MI
and that is exactly what the campaign was about.  They told me so.  
The Obama folk are also campaigning to make sure there is no recount and that the existing votes do no count.
by TeresaInPa 2008-04-23 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: She won Michigan; Obama lost Michigan.

I used to agree with your position on Michigan, but I've learned a few things since then.  The fact is that Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot as a strategy to game the system and win favor in Iowa.  That was their choice.  No rule required it.  Now, Obama does not want to live with the consequences, so his team is trying to fool the public about what the rules are.

You should ask yourself if we really want a candidate who has to have so many breaks to win the nomination.  We are supposed to throw out millions of valid votes in Florida and Michigan to help him; he has a biased press pushing his candidacy but he still can't close the deal; he whines when he gets a hard question once a month while being silent or piling on while HRC is trashed by the press; with a 3-to-1 money advantage he still loses Penn. by 10 points; he's lost all the critical Dem. states but the one he lives in.  Most of the delegates he does have come from states where a single vote counts for more in delegates than it does in more populous states -- in other words, overstating his victories.  This is your candidate????  You must want to lose in November.

by PlainWords 2008-04-23 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: She won Michigan; Obama lost Michigan.

"That was their choice. "

The word 'participate' certainly seems to mean a different thing to Clinton supporters than it does to the rest of the English-speaking world.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I see. It's not a "fairness to the voters" argument. It's a "too, bad, he have known" argument.

Then, MI and FL won't be counted, because their own elected representatives violated the rules. Too bad, they should have known.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Even though that's true, what do you think about the fact that Obama and Edwards intentionally and voluntarily removed their names for strategic purposes?  And that they were able to profit from that in Iowa, at Hillary's expense?  Whose fault is that?

Nobody forced them to remove their names.  The DNC Rules which state that the final decision on delegate seating is made at the Convention were fully in place at the time they made that decision, so they had full knowledge of the potential consequences of their decision.

by Trickster 2008-04-23 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

They removed their names so that a bogus election that voters were told would not count, would not become a bait-and-switch and "made to count" later.

And sure enough, that election was ruled unconstitutional.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
No, They Didn't

They removed their names because they signed a pledge that said they wouldn't participate in a primary or caucus before 2/5 except in NH, SC, NV, and IA.  It had nothing to do with people coming back later and saying MI should have counted.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

"""And sure enough, that election was ruled unconstitutional."""

Holy shee-it.  This is not an election.  It's a primary.

Thus, its rules are not covered by the constitution.

Therefore, nothing was ruled unconstitutional.

ffs

by switching sides 2008-04-23 10:55AM | 0 recs
A Diary Well Needed

People are so unaware that the DNC rules allow for one-half of the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated. In addition, Hillary has the right to seek reinstatement of all of the delegates at the Convention, and she should.

Great job! Nice Diary.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-23 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: A Diary Well Needed

Not only do the rules allow for half the delegates to be seated (in fact that was the mandatory penalty) the rules also allow for the penalty to be lifted entirely if they should see fit.

They can, within the rules, seat the delegations in full. It is within their discretion.

by americanincanada 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Who'se they?

The only correct answer is the rest of the delegates, pledged and super.  This MI-FL flap only matters to the outcome if Clinton is behind in total delegates by less than the margins she got from the sham elections.  Which means Obama delegates would have the majority vote on the ultimate decision to seat MI and FL.

Do you see why this line of argument is an exercise in futility now?

by corph 2008-04-23 11:06AM | 0 recs
Of course she does.

I can hardly blame her for trying.  Thing is, she's not going to get them seated.

by corph 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course she does.

And you are...um, nostradamus?

by switching sides 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
I can predict obvious vote outcomes

Do you think it's up to random chance?  Obama delegates would have to vote against their own candidate for them to be seated in any scenario where their vote would matter.

Yeah, I have a gift all right.

by corph 2008-04-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
omg

Such arrogance.  

Is your head tilted back?

Are we looking up your nose?

by switching sides 2008-04-23 10:58AM | 0 recs
I guess sometimes the obvious

is not so to the unfamiliar with convention rules and the childish.

Are you 12 years old?

by corph 2008-04-23 11:01AM | 0 recs
They'll be seated.

But they won't participate in choosing the nominee. Like most states after Super Tuesday generally don't.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 09:02AM | 0 recs
I just noticed this whopper

"From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time."

So the implication is that Senator Clinton would only count the Florida votes if SHE won???They wouldn't count, according to this statement if someone else won??

HHMMMM

by feliks 2008-04-23 06:29AM | 0 recs
Unlike Obama

Clinton will seat all the delegates no matter what, and if she is not the nominee she will still insist on seating the delegates.

Obama will only seat delegates if he is assured of a win....and as can be seen from this diary, he can't claim "rules" require this.

by 4justice 2008-04-23 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike Obama

That argument is self-contradictory.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike Obama

No crap...It only helps her

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

Actually, Obama said the same thing (at the "illegal" press conference he held in Florida last September).

Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

by skohayes 2008-04-23 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

link


Obama Vows To 'Do What's Right'

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. ... If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

"This wasn't planned," Sanchez said of the brief press availability. "He was going to the car, and he just went across the street for a moment."

According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."

looks like this vow was about as sincere as his promise to take federal campaign money.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

There seems to be a pattern forming with his promises...

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:59AM | 0 recs
obama is political kryptonite in FL.

he's losing to mccain by 11.7% - hillary's within half a percent. look at the RCP results here and  here. i guess we're dead to him. he knows that he'll lose FL if he gets the nomination, no matter what he does re: seating the delegates.

the SUSA poll crosstabs right before the FL primary showed him getting nine percent (yes, NINE PERCENT) among hispanics and old (65+)people. take away the hispanics and old people, and FL looks like wyoming, except with alligators.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

Florida is not going blue this year...

There is a popular GOP Governor who may be tapped for veep by McCain and there is an anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot....

The legislature is in the hand of the GOP, so who knows what other measures they will add...

And those Hispanics and old people will likely get crumbs tossed their way to lure them away from whatever Dem we nominate... even Hillary.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

It won't go blue if Obama runs, because he alienated the Cuban community.

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

It won't go blue regardless...  We could nominate Santa and it would be an uphill battle....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

even if that is the case, I want a candidate that actually has a shot.

by owl06 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

So, even if he leads by every metric available, you would still want Clinton to be the nominee because of Florida....?  Which is an uphill battle regardless...?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

he's losing the popular vote and has lost in every delegate rich state except for IL. how is that winning?

by owl06 2008-04-23 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: obama is political kryptonite in FL.

Screw the Cuban community,  or at least the portion you're talking about. I'm sorry but I grew up with them and the Cuba Libre people are nutballs, they've basically had veto power over our foriegn policy for the last half-cntury and its time for that to change, for god's sake these people think their plantations are coming back when Castro dies. Oh, and in a bit of Clarification Hillary would get slaughtered in the Cuban vote, they love McCain for being martyerd by the commies, and Hill hasn't been hit by the ad that would basically given McCain their votes at a 9-1 margin-- Elian, over and over again-- he's the Horst wessel of the Cuba Libre crowd.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-23 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: public financing

He said he would discuss the matter with the GOP nominee, but that they had to figure out the roles of the 527's in order to make it work...

Saying he "pledged" to do it is a GOP talkingpoint...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: public financing

It was a questionnaire...

From WaPO...

"Last February, lawyers for Obama asked the Federal Election Commission if the campaign could raise funds for the general election but retain the option of returning to the public finance system. When the FEC gave its permission, an Obama spokesman said the candidate would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Answering a questionnaire in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network, Obama said he would forgo private funding in the general election, adding he had "proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election."

In recent weeks, however, Obama has suggested he has not made up his mind on whether to opt out of the public financing system. In an op-ed in USA Today, Obama wrote today that if he is the Democratic nominee he "will aggressively pursue" a policy with his opponent for a "publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits," but made clear that he thinks a new agreement is needed."

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

I think the implication was that she would attempt to do it whether she was the nominee or not.  If she was the nominee, she could pretty much guaruntee success...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-23 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

Under normal circumstances, the nominee controls the Convention, including delegate-seating.  There have been numerous delegate-seating controversies in the past, and the nominee always prevailed, sometimes (e.g., 1972 and 1980 Democratic conventions) by hard-ball power plays based on numbers of delegates committed.

by Trickster 2008-04-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

She would only have the power to seat them if she won, dummy.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I just noticed this whopper

Once a candidate wins the primary, that is secures 50% plus 1 delegates they then control the convention and also control the decisions of the credentials committee.

Hillary said from the beginning that iof she wins and therefore has the power to seat Florida she will if the DNC doesn't.

If Hillary does not secure 50% plus 1 of the delegates the rules prevent her (or Obama) from being able to seat the delegates by their own executive order.

Before the first contest was held Hillary has consistently stated that those conflicts need to be resolved whether it be by the DNC and the state party or failing that, by the winner of the primary.
Jon Winkleman

by Jon Winkleman 2008-04-23 11:39AM | 0 recs
Excellent and informative

not only will I hot list this, but I will, with your permission site this post on the other sites I contribute to.

The more clarity we have on these rules and where we are, perhaps we can now start having a substantive discussion here, instead of "hillary's stealing the election" or "hillary's changing the rules".

Good job.

by 4justice 2008-04-23 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent and informative

I'll get back to you on that shortly! My friends were the primary authors, and I'm not going to give the okay to republish their work without asking first.

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent and informative

He is just going to link to it.

I don't think you explicitly need permission to link to a story on the internet.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent and informative

then by all means. I want to make sure that credit is given where it is due, and that the sourcing is preserved.

by owl06 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
nyc

owl --- you know jeff???

Have you been to all the HHH events????????  Have i seen you before in person?

This is exciting!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: nyc

yes, you probably have seen owl in person! ;-)

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: nyc

well arent i lucky!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 06:54AM | 0 recs
FYI i won the signed copy of

Living History in that raffle (but only because i sold the most tickets)

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

That was you? Was that the one at Therapy? I was there with my ex... hmmmm I am wondering who you are now. You can find me on facebook if you look hard enough in the HHH group! (sorry folks it's a private group)

by owl06 2008-04-23 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

i'll just post a comment on the HHH group now.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

posted a response.

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

haha gotcha

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

add me!

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

no - the person who actually won the raffle gave a bad number and jeff tried contacting him/her for a few days. When the person never responded or showed. I sold 17 tickets for that event (not at therapy, it was at the place near Cielo -- APT) so i got it.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

Cielo was crazy... wtf was that woman that cleared the place out after she started to sing?

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

i couldnt focus because i had to stop the bleeding from my ears. What was weirder was when she tried to get me to dance.

Christine Quinn was nice to see though.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: FYI i won the signed copy of

yeah.. I took cover then ;-)

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: nyc

I met Owl this weekend in PA. We Hillary supporters keep running into each other in every state primary.

I have primary friends from TX, MA, MD, AK, OH, CA and DC. Owls are indiginous all over North America so that doesn't narrow it down

by Jon Winkleman 2008-04-23 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo

Very impressive, and provides much food for thought.  

In general, I'm always for enfranchising voters.  Frankly, if a political party refused to include the results of my vote on the selection of their candidate, I'd be pretty ticked off with that party.  

Folks, we need to empower the voters in Florida and Michigan, and the only way to accomplish that is by enfranchising them.  Let's not hand the Republicans a stick to beat us with in November!  

by BillCat 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
They will be seated.

But Obama won't get zero out of MI and they won't change the race.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: They will be seated.

He withdrew his name from the ballot before the DNC penalized MI. He is not entitled to any.

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: They will be seated.

Not agreeing with you on the facts of your assertion. However, do you believe what you just said reflects the will of the voters in MI?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: They will be seated.

I want a revote. I want people to be able to pick between the two. They deserve the right to vote or Barack Obama - even Michael Moore.

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: They will be seated.

for*

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: They will be seated.

First, that's not true.  Why would any candidate take their name off the ballot in one state when they don't have to?

Second, he will get delegates out of Michigan.  Michigan just conducted their county conventions and Obama received somewhere around 32 of the previously uncommitted delegates.

by nklein 2008-04-23 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

hahahahaha. Comedy thanks!

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

I'll remember this quote from you.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

If you expect Clinton to pull this off, you'd best pray pretty hard. :)

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 02:38PM | 0 recs
Kudos

This is excellent, well-researched material

Highly recommended.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Count Florida!

Why did Edwards do it?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Count Florida!

Obama and Edwards had the exact same motive.  Clinton was polling very strong in MI.  They didn't want her to get a big early win in a contested state, with all the momentum that would bring, and they thought by pulling out they could force her to pull out as well out of fear that they would use her not pulling out against her in Iowa.  She didn't take the bait.

by Trickster 2008-04-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
vile

republican tricks are what edwards and obama engaged in.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Thank you for clarifying this.  Highly rec'd.  I live in Florida and was raised in Michigan, where most of my family still lives.  I never really thought that as an American, that I'd have to fight for any vote of mine to be counted.  Howard Dean and Donna Brazile proved me wrong, unfortunately.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

You don't blame the state legislatures at all?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:25AM | 0 recs
def not in FL

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Even though they voted to move the date knowing the consequences?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

They voted for a paper trail with electronic voting machines, the lack of which actually kept Democrat Christine Jennings out of Congress when 18,000 votes from the most Democratic part of the district were "lost".

So, no, I don't.  Anyone who has really educated themselves on this issue should know where American principals point to--counting the votes.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

wrong kind of principles, there ;)

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

So the Dems made a deal and understood the consequences. Was it worth it?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

I really can't believe that you're saying that.  I mean, really.  A state legislature that is 2/3rds Republican votes to move a primary forward, moreover on the same bill that provides for paper trailes with EV machines (a democratic cause for YEARS), and the Obamacrat response is "Okay, fuck Florida."

You, sir, are no Democrat.  Just like all those chest-thumping bureaucrats who demanded the punishment of Florida, who dare speak against the authority of IA and NH.  Democrats believe in COUNTING VOTES.  We believe in DEMOCRACY.  You are simply an Obamacrat, more dedicated to your candidate than our democracy.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

They don't have the ability to filibuster bills in FL? You mean the minority party has no power?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:50AM | 0 recs
You mean?

Anytime you type "you mean" i know you're coming with a big fat ridiculous analogy, and just skip on to the next post.

I'd advise others to do the same.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Here's why this is a dumb argument. Not only did all but one Democrat vote for the bill on the floor, but every Dem also voted in committee to keep the paper trail and the new election date together as legislation.

And you blame Obama, even though Hillary acolytes control the state party here.

Silly.

by jbill 2008-04-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Oh Come On

You don't get to say somebody isn't a Democrat just because they disagree with you.

The correct response by the FDP (and the MDP for that matter) would have been to say to the state Government, "Hey sorry guys, our party rules say we can't hold the primary that early.  We're just going to do a caucus and fund it ourselves."

In Michigan of course, they wouldn't do that, because the MDP was the DRIVING FORCE behind moving up our primary.  In Florida, ALL the evidence we have indicates that the FDP was 100% supportive of moving the primary up, but beyond that they are too broke to pay attention so they probably couldn't have funded their own caucus anyway.

In any event NOBODY but the State Party is responsible for choosing how that state chooses its delegates.  IF they want to suck the tax teat to pay for it, then they have to do what the legislature says.  In both of these cases, the legislatures selected dates that the DNCs rules committee had implied would result in sanctions, and the stat parties did NOTHING to stop it.

I can see Florida only suffering the 50% penalty and being seated, but Michigan deserves no such justice.  Our primary was a flagrant effort by our own state party to violate rules they had previously agreed to.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

for downticket races, for the legislature, and for the Democratic party of FL, it was definitely worth it.

If the DNC stuck with their rules, it would have been a 50% loss of delegates.

Was it worth it for the national party to strip them of all the delegates?

That is the question

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

The DNC rules said 50%?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

As stated in this diary...

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

The DNC is allowed to change those rules right?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Yes They Are

But I think the question being asked is, "Was it wise to change them?"

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Do you know what the rules actually say?

"The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state's pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state's pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention."

That is one area where the DNC and RNC agreed.

Hence FL had HALF the delegates in the GOP contest.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

But of course they're allowed to change them.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

and they did, to the detriment of the National democratic party and the florida democratic party.

As well as to the detriment of the voters.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

The Dems in FL had no way to block legislation?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL
The DNC rules say 50%, but they also add that a greater penalty can be imposed. I believe it was felt that MI and FL would accept the 50% penalty and not move the dates, trading delegates for influence, so the great 100% penalty was imposed. Unfortunately, said legislatures arrogantly assumed they could bully their way through, and it might even work. Of course, Hillary agreed to these races not counting, and only suddenly discovered her love of voters everywhere when it became apparent she was desperate for delegates.
by Huck 2008-04-23 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

if you look at the actual bill, there were other things attached to it that would have been very hard to overcome for the state legislatures that could potentially INCREASE the republican stronghold in the state legislature.

It wasnt just a "lets move the date of the primary" bill.

Plus the repugs already knew they would get half and the DNC were threatening to strip all of the delegates from FL.

Win win situation for the repugs, and the dems did what they had to do.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Fair enough. And they did it with full knowledge of the consequences.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

they did it with knowledge that the DNC was threatening to punish them ABOVE and BEYOND what the actual rules stated.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

When adults are fully informed of consequences they need to take responsibility for their actions.

As the GOP let the paper trail onto the ballot the Dems must have had some way to stop the whole show.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

pray tell, how so?

the repugs have a majority in the state legislature and hold the governorship.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Then why did they allow a paper trail to be added to the bill?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

not without stonewalling a popular portion of the bill - the paper trail!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

I understand. They weighed the loss of delegates vs. a paper trail and chose the paper trail. It will surely work out for them in the long run.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

But will cripple the party (national and state) if the DNC doesnt do something about it now.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

They'll be seated in some capacity. Of that I have no doubt. Hope FL & MI residents vote the bums out next time they have a chance.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

See, for example, the Florida house filibustered an education bill this month.

Why didn't they do that with the change in the schedule?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

because it would have been political suicide to filibuster the bill BECAUSE of the paper trail.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: def not in FL

Political suicide? You think the voters would vote them out over that but not over losing their primary delegates?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:51AM | 0 recs
Thanks for admitting the truth.

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but didn't you just say:

Those who knew there was a possibility that the votes would count but did not bother to show up to vote in Michigan or Florida must live with their decisions, and the votes of those who bothered to show up when fully informed of the consequences that their votes might not even count must be counted.

Thanks for admitting the truth, RLMcCauley!

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-23 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

good diary - rec'd.

by canadian gal 2008-04-23 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide

If the dem party doesn't count these votes, I think we will lose in Nov. I don't think the base will stand for it. I don't mean just Hillry people. A lot of people are watching the dems and looking at this as absurd. Rove really yukked it up last night about it.  Dean is dicking away our victory in Nov.

by linfar 2008-04-23 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo:

good stuff. Rules are rules.... except when you dont really know them, then they are just a bunch of talking points...

by amde 2008-04-23 07:43AM | 0 recs
Oh, I see.

This isn't from the web site Talking Points Memo, it is an actual memo.

Sorry, no sell.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I see.

you disagree with the rules?

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
Incorrect framing.

I'll re-read this later and see whether or not your interpretation of the rules is accurate.

It's rather unfortunate, but we've seen so much moving of goalposts by Hillary's campaign regarding the governing rules of the contest that a healthy skepticism is warranted.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Incorrect framing.

I include the sources - read the rules yourself. Do you think it is okay to disenfranchise over a million people?

by owl06 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
I will read that.

But tell me, if you ever go to court, do you adopt the interpretation of law presented by opposing counsel as binding?

Do you think it is okay to disenfranchise over a million people?

You mean like Hillary and Harold Ickes agreed to? Try not to be too disingenuous.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I will read that.

You quote rules now? Horse Puckey!

Lets first assume the rules dont allow it, although the diary demonstrates it does. But lets go with your assumption. Were you one of those dems who supported Bush's claim in 2000 florida recount, that "you cant change the rules after the game" and the count is over and it showed Bush won? If so, you need to send a memo to your messiah. He claimed the other day that Al Gore won in 2000. If Al Gore won in 2000, as I believe he did, it wasnt by the rules as it existed at the time of the recount. The rules didnt require any further recount after the automatic recount. It was the fact that many votes may not have been counted properly in the auto recount process, that many dems like me and Al Gore were arguing in the courts. Not that it the rules required any further recount beyond the auto recount.  The people of FL (about a couple of million of whom went to the polls despite the rules) had nothing to do with the writing or execution of the rules and have every interest in making sure their vote applies to the nomination of the candidate the majority preferred. Florida dems didnt sign on any rules and dont have to abide by any. And to discount those millions of dems who voted is disenfranchising, unless they had actually agreed to those rules in some way. And you cant even argue they agreed to the rules thru their reps. Because it was done by the republican congress they had. If you were one of those who said Al Gore won florida (as your hero suggests) and was robbed of the victory, you cant have it both ways. I call it the Barak Cognitive Dissonance.

by pdxarch 2008-04-23 11:58AM | 0 recs
That doesn't even make sense.

What is today, I-hate-Obama primal scream therapy day?

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: That doesn't even make sense.

I guess since you dont have any substantive answer to that (facts and figures are stubborn things), you have to call everybody haters, racists, low info voters and such names. You could have just said nothing and I would have taken that as you dont have any worthwhile to refute the facts I put up. You didnt have to make it so explicit

by pdxarch 2008-04-23 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Incorrect framing.

Like people proposing the popular vote as a measure? The delegates will be seated in some capacity.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Incorrect framing.

we sure did in 2000! funny how many democrats have seemingly forgotten about another FL screw job. The party looks very hypocritical.

by owl06 2008-04-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
owl. give it up.

Youre not gonna convince MBNYC...he's a rabid Obama partisan.

A goalpost mover, in other words.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: owl. give it up.

Classic projection.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:52AM | 0 recs
LOL, I was almost right

now you are just denying that the rules are linked so you don't have to read them and admit the diarist is right.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-23 08:42AM | 0 recs
Here we go again

with Teresa's insistence on maximum abrasiveness.

But if you really want to discuss that, sure, I have a habit of being cautious about partisan pieces that never actually cite their source material. You see, as opposed to some people, I don't need to, have to, believe this. My guy will win even if you folks get all you desire.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
Please do read them.

The diarist makes many assertions that are simply not in the document.  (The original diarist that is--this is simply a cut-and-paste from an article on March 17.)

by McNasty 2008-04-23 09:33AM | 0 recs
Rules

The framing goes, I believe, we don't like the rules so we'll make sure they don't apply, or something like that...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo:

Great diary, Owl.  Thanks for the info.  It's one that will go into my resource file.

by mtnspirit 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Level Playing field

"Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field."

And being the only person on the ballot created a level playing field?

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
off topic and a strawman to boot

I give you a 10 for deflection attempt and a 4 (sorry) for logic.

Red the rules again.  Obama did not run in MI, that was his choice.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-23 08:40AM | 0 recs
Huh?

Obama had the ruling of the DNC, the other candidates (including Hillary's) pledge not to campaign or participate in MI, and Hillary's statement that it was clear that the vote in MI would not count.  How, with all of this, was he not jutsified in thinking that the vote was meaningless and removing his name from the ballot in fulfillment of his pledge (which Hillary subsequently broke).

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 10:04AM | 0 recs
Rules for Florida and Michigan

After reading this diary and the following comments, you should all get familiar the term: President McCain.

by venavena 2008-04-23 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo:

This is a great diary.  Thank you very much for writing this informative and well thought out piece.  I get pretty emotional when I'm fighting for my candidate, but we really do need to step back sometimes and just look at the facts.  Words like "coup" and "civil war" are tossed around as talking points.  Then there is the inevitable "will of the people!"  And I always hear a little fast talking announce guy right after saying "*warning 'will of people' not valid in Michigan or Florida, 'will of the people' does not apply to people who voted on DNC rules, for the purposes of 'will of the people' superdelegates are not considered people but shapeless abstract vessels which we will tell how to vote.  If 'will of the people' causes a burning sensation contact your doctor immediately"

by ofao 2008-04-23 08:22AM | 0 recs
Are we back to a &quot;rules&quot; argument?

That's interesting.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

it's funny to me...Clinton supporters want FL & MI to stand as is (including full delegates and full popular vote with 0 going to Obama in MI) no penalties.

Why have timing rules if we are not going to enforce them??  This argument opens up a huge can of worms.  If the DNC gives in and seats MI & FL as is, what is stopping other states, such as IN or OR for moving themselves up earlier next year knowing full well the DNC may threaten them sanctions but will know they will eventually be seated and counted anyways?  Heck every state would ignore the rules knowing they have in the back pocket "the will of the people" argument.

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

And for years people have been decrying the fact that somehow "Iowa" represents us all and should be first.

But aside from that, punishing citizens for the DNC's ineptitude is simply undemocratic.    Dean has been playing this whining game for too long.  And his open support of one candidate over another has hurt the credibility.  It's BS.  The citizens of of FL and MI are being dissed in an unconstitutional way.  

by Jjc2008 2008-04-23 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Well you haven't answered my question...What would stop other states from doing what MI and FL did this year if the DNC gives in and lets them stand as is?

It's funny how people now have a problem with Iowa going first, even though they have been doing so since 1972...Where were all these people for the last 37 years??

by hootie4170 2008-04-23 11:01AM | 0 recs
excellent diary

very informative.  I have not read the comments and I am going to guess that MYNBC has commented yet again that the candidates had to take their name off the ballot in MI.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-23 08:37AM | 0 recs
Not excellent.

Using the <blockquote> tag does not by itself lend authority to statements.  Most of the citations of the rules above are actually unsupported in the document he links to.  You're being fooled.

by McNasty 2008-04-23 09:31AM | 0 recs
College Kids

I have 4 kids, all in college (one in grad school).

While I want Clinton to  win, every single one them is for Barack Obama. They, as well as their friends, voted for him in our state's primary, a state he won.

I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that their interest in this race will drop to nothing if Hillary bamboozles her way into the nomination.

Really, they have no reason to vote for her if you think about it.  To begin, none of them like her at all for some reason. My kids were raised in a very liberal house and they still dislike her. Its popular to dislike this woman among college kids I think.  She's not inspiring, she doesn't represent change to them, she's not someone they can identify with. And as far as "the issues" go? A college kid doesn't have a family to worry about...the economy isn't really taking a toll on them.  They're poor no matter what at this stage.

The war in Iraq is something they want to end, but the effect on them of the actual war is so minimal that if their candidate is out of the race (especially by some bonkers doublespeak...seeing as there is a recording of Clinton herself saying MIchigan doesn't matter)....  "indifference to voting" will win the day in November.

Just a thought.

by AlexScott 2008-04-23 08:39AM | 0 recs
First you say you want HC to win...

In another post you state that you would vote for Obama if "Bill & Hill" divorced. I saw some Obama bashing too. Heh...I don't think you have a dog in the race.

"I have 4 kids, all in college (one in grad school). While I want Clinton to win, every single one them is for Barack Obama"

I fully support Hillary Clinton (entirely because of Bill Clinton factor), however, this is true.

1992 Bill Clinton=2008 Barack Obama. It's not the first time this has been noted, and it definitely will not be the last.

If Bill and Hill got divorced, I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat.

by soyousay 2008-04-23 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: First you say you want HC to win...

Um, I do. I want Bill Clinton back.  Hillary Clinton does nothing for me. I vote for her to get him, got it? She is nothing without him.  Every ounce of her credibility/experience/ability to run for public office comes from him.  I know plenty of women more brilliant than HRC could ever be, and they're not running for office....because they've never been married to a president.

Is that too hard for you to understand? "Heh."

by AlexScott 2008-04-23 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: First you say you want HC to win...

If you know plenty of women more brilliant (which is laughable on its face), why is it she routinely wipes the floor with Obama at each debate?  I mean, it's not even close. She knows her way around policy like few others do, man or woman.  Pretty rude on your part to denigrate her. She's highly respected by her Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

And it's interesting that you think, for some reason, that Bill Clinton is everything he is --by HIMSELF, with no help, no input, no advice, no nothing from his wife.  How foolish.  

Moreover, I don't give a rat's ass what or who your kids want for president.  Why should I?  Kids are kids.  Hopefully, everyone's overly idealistic when they are young.  That's a pretty lame argument.  

by DaTruth 2008-04-23 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: First you say you want HC to win...

Of course you don't give a rat's ass!  I mean, they're just VOTERS right?  Do you understand this mentality is exactly why Hillary is losing, and will never, ever be president, ever?  

I blame people like you for Bill never being able to come back to the White House.  You fuck it up for all of us.

by AlexScott 2008-04-23 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: College Kids

I'd say you should curtail your kid's tv consumption before it does permanent damage to their values.  Without some social-historical-political perspective, if all you hear is cable and obama-speak, you'd think hillary was a smelly hag axe-murderer.

by oh puhleeze 2008-04-23 08:06PM | 0 recs
I Like Your Format But...

7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.

Do you have ANY evidence that Obama's victory in Iowa was related to his pulling his name off the ballot in Michigan?

Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden were not making a "tactical move" to curry favor.  They were upholding their interpretation of a pledge they had made, which was this:

I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.

The quandry here is over what the word "participate" means.  Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden felt that in order to not "participate" in the Michigan Primary, they had to take themselves off the ballot.  And while it is true that there ARE ways to get delegates seated later, Michigan HAD been told by the DNC that they WOULD NOT be seated.  The DNC even cancelled the hotel reservations for the Michigan delegation.

Florida is a different story.  Once you've got yourself on the Florida ballot, the only way to get off of it is to drop out of the race which I think anyone would agree would be a pretty silly interpretation of the pledge.

Clinton took the pledge too.  Her interpretation of the word "participate" was clearly different from that of Obama et. al, but keep in mind that these were her exact words at the time (spoken to New Hampshire Public Radio):

"I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

She EXPLICITLY said that the only reason she kept her name on the ballot was that it was clear to her the primary would be meaningless.  Now she says that the votes of Michigan need to count.  I actually agree with her (and I live in Michigan) but to count the results of our January primary would be completely foolish.  EVERYBODY including Clinton herself and all the Democrats in the state TRULY believed it was meaningless.  Obviously that would influence our levels of participation and who people might vote for.  The January primary is therefore fatally flawed, and cannot be used for any purpose.

The CORRECT way to resolve this was to hold some kind of party selection process, be it a caucus or a series of county conventions... but we couldn't do that either.

At this point we will not be heard at the convention, and we SHOULD not, in spite of the fact (as you point out) that there are technicalities that would allow us to.  We had our chance (more than once) and we blew it.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 08:49AM | 0 recs
And who do we have to blame for

this:

The CORRECT way to resolve this was to hold some kind of party selection process, be it a caucus or a series of county conventions... but we couldn't do that either.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-23 09:07AM | 0 recs
The MDP

The same people who put us in this situation in the first place.  If they would have left our primary on Tsunami Tuesday, not only would it have STILL mattered, it would have been one of the biggest contests.  Instead they "assumed" us right out of relevance.

The MDP is also to blame for not holding a later contest.  In spite of all the talk, they refused to pursue anything that wasn't state funded.  Obama Democrats in the legislature didn't like that, and neither did Republicans (who control our state Senate) and said they would not give the issue a floor vote.

by TooFolkGR 2008-04-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Great diary and analysis. As this thing

moves towards the point of "resolution," it is going to become more and more difficult for the superdelgates to ignore Florida and Michigan. Thank you, owl06, for reminding us that there are rules governing this process and they don't necessarily comport with Obama's wishes. All I ever hear is how seating Florida's and Michigan's delegates will cheat Obama out of a win. What about Hillary? Taking Florida and Michigan out of the process cheated her of access to a huge number of delegates and popular votes, no matter how it happened - probably a winning number. It is truly a tough one, but I don't think it's fair for the superdelegates to not take Florida and Michigan into account when casting their votes.  

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-23 09:03AM | 0 recs
This diary's over a month old.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/9311 4/2956

A cut-and-paster at the top of the Rec list.  And the content is still incorrect.

For example, Dodd didn't stay on the MI ballot.

The business about the mandatory penalty being "one half" of delegates is not in the document at all, nor in other DNC materials I've been able to locate.

I could go on, but it won't matter.  Clintonites at MyDD are truly living the lie.

by McNasty 2008-04-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: This diary's over a month old.

This was republished with the permission of the authors. It is an updated version of their earlier work, and I was not aware that a version of it had run on MyDD already.

by owl06 2008-04-23 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Please stop selling out the party to find a way for Clinton to win - it's ridiculously short sighted.

The DNC needs to control the schedule of primaries so Iowa and NH don't keep leapfrogging the system, and awarding delegations to Michigan and Florida (which Clinton very well knew would not count, and even clearly stated so for Michigan) when they subvert the system does nothing to stop states in the future from moving up.

It's also worth noting that if the only reason Clinton wins is because of seating Michigan, she is going to have a very hard time getting the black vote out in the GE.

Finally, it's important to not frontload the system because then the primary just becomes about name recognition. Obviously, I don't think the same two states should lead off every cycle, but the long term solution is not to have all of the big states move up, and FL and MI moving are a major blow to having voters vet candidates.

by gcensr 2008-04-23 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

you think it's okay to sell out over a million fellow democrats?

by owl06 2008-04-23 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

Definitely, when their told the election won't count by the people on the ballot. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

by gcensr 2008-04-23 11:28AM | 0 recs
Rules are rules when they favor Soros's boy

That's what Howard Dean keep saying, right?

Or the rules are worth consideration when it favor his money man.  Howard Dean need to keep George Soros happy.  And Soros won't be happy if his golden boy is losing the nomination.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-23 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI

I think that now she has won PA you will start to hear more calls for Fl and MI to be counted. I can see FL being fairly included since all candidates were on the ballot and nobody campaigned there (though Obama actually ran some ads there - thought they were 'intended for a national audience'), but MI is more difficult because Obama wasn't on the ballot. I say seat Florida based on it's result (or penalize them by taking away some delegates) and then let MI delegates act like superdelegates, but with consideration of their voters. Of course anything anyone suggests is cut down... Honestly, Howard Dean needs to grow a couple and make a decision - both candidates have said they would live with a party decision. All the party and Dean are doing is waiting it out and hoping that the they don't have to make a decision on that.

by sunnyaz08 2008-04-23 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI

The PA is more evidence that voters want their say. This is a close race, and every vote should count. Only then will we have a nominee that is accepted by everyone.

by owl06 2008-04-23 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules

12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?

FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

Your "rebuttal" does not address the allegation that she signed a pledge to remove her name from the ballot in Michigan.

by dmc2 2008-04-23 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules

Wow, you do go on.  Shorter Team Hillary:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dTA4

Obama's also a better candidate in Michigan:

http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf /2008/04/obama_does_better_against_mcca. html

by bosdcla14 2008-04-23 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

I feel civil war coming on.

by SeanF 2008-04-23 11:58AM | 0 recs
Except for 1 tiny little point.

The rules committee is chosen at the convention I believe with the nominee getting the most seats on the committee. I'm not quite sure of that, but you may want to check. Hence the assertion that FL and MI will be seated by Obama at the convention.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-23 12:04PM | 0 recs
End Game

If anyone wants to know how this will actually end it will be this:

The Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated in a way that does not overturn the delegate count in the other sanctioned contests FULL STOP

Debating about anything else is just academic.

And including the Hillary 328,309, Obama 0 in popular vote counts only convinces other Hillary supporters, but no one outside that group.

by wengler 2008-04-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: End Game

That popular vote number coming out of Michigan of course.

by wengler 2008-04-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
diaries

Can someone please tell me how I can post a diary? Thanks.

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-04-23 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo:

I read the diary looking for Josh Marshall's word on this.  Whoops.  

by PeterB 2008-04-23 07:47PM | 0 recs
not to campaign

I think all candidates did make an agreement NOT TO CAMPAIGN in FL or MI. But there was nothing in the agreement about taking their names off the ballot, or about not supporting seating the delegates (and counting their votes for the nomination as actually voted, not some bargained split).

by 1950democrat 2008-04-23 09:19PM | 0 recs
Framing

Important point.  The popular vote tally should include all states and should only exclude FL/MI where specified.  This would contrast the way it is done currently on RCP where FL/MI are excluded by default.  Instead, they should be presumed included.

RCP now:
"Popular Vote = Obama, Popular Vote with FL/MI = Hillary."

The way it should be:
"Popular Vote = Hillary, Popular Vote without FL/MI = Obama."

A little framing goes a long way.  

by BPK80 2008-04-23 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Flo

I'm all for Colorado..Labor Day 2011..whose gonna stop us a toothless DNC?

by nogo war 2008-04-24 05:28AM | 0 recs
Hillary was against MI and FL

before she was for them.

I wonder why, if MI and FL are so important to her, she was agreeing to abide by the rules of the DNC and joined with her other candidates in pledge to that effect?

Why in December was she saying that the race would be over on Feb. 5th but when it wasn't, when it became clear the arrogance of the Clinton camp - so certain that they couldn't possibly lose the nomination - led them to not plan for the states after 2/5, she suddenly picked up the mantle of defending voters in MI and FL?

If she was so dedicated to that cause, why was she going along with the DNC last Fall?

Of course, it's an easy question to answer - She never thought for a minute, prior to 2/5, that she would lose.  She only latched on to MI and FL when she needed them, not because she gives a shit about someone's voting rights(not that those were violated in MI and FL, because courts have ruled that nominating contests are set by the parties).

by jaywillie 2008-04-24 09:33AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads