home

Dean: FL Delegates Will Be Seated

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

So sayeth Howard Dean:

It is our intention to do everything that we can and we believe we'll absolutely seat a delegation from Florida at the convention. That is absolutely in the best interest of all of us.

Guess Florida won't be learning that important lesson about NOT moving up its primary that some Obama supporters insist is important. After all, seating the delegations means the DNC penalties will be lifted. How they will be seated remains a mystery. But get this:

Dean called on Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to agree to a solution to the impasse with the delegation.

So who should give in Mr. Chairman? We need revotes. For Florida AND Michigan.

< 5th Cir. to Hear Skilling's Enron Appeal | Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dean: FL Delegates Will Be Seated | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I always thought the table (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    was fairly level in Florida except for Obama's big national TV buys in Florida. Nevertheless,  let the vote stand where it is. Michigan is a different story.  I would be for a revote there as well, but not allowing those who voted for the Republicans to cross back to vote in the Democratic election.  For no other reason than it is ILLEGAL.

    I don't understand three things: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    1. Why is he only mentioning Florida?

    2. Does he mean seat them so their vote has meaning or seat them after the result is a fait accomplii?

    3. Does he mean seat them without penalty?

    All unclear.

    Parent
    This should do it.. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    FL allocate as per votes..
    MI allocate Hillary the ones that voted for her. Of the REMAINING allocate 50% to each candidate.

    :)

    Parent

    That sounds good. When is this going to happen? (none / 0) (#151)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    What are the obstacles?

    Do they have to get Obama's permission?

    Will this happen before the primary voting is over (ie., will it count??

    Where would it put Hillary in terms of delegates if this flies?

    I still have questions. Sorry.

    Parent

    How about seating Fl as voted, giving (none / 0) (#172)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Hillary 50% of the delegates and leaving the others free to vote as they please?

    Parent
    Why arbitrarily (none / 0) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:56:57 PM EST
    allocate the Uncommitted in that fashion?  As a Clinton supporter I suppose I would be expected to cheer her getting 75% of the total. But, Uncommitted means Uncommitted.

    Select the delegates in the usual manner and let them cast their ballots as they see fit.

    That was the chance that anyone took when voting Uncommitted as I did when I was an Edwards supporter.

    Parent

    It's all about the unknowns (none / 0) (#178)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    I think that Obama has trouble letting things he can't control, remaining things he can't control.

    Even those uncommitted delegates can still vote for non-obama, so: no dice.

    Parent

    Seat Florida Without Penality (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    The democrat party didn't have anything to do with Fla. breaking the rules.  The contest there was fair, as both candidates agreed not to campaign there, and both were on the ballot.  Florida voters had access to informaion about the issues and turned out in record numbers.  

    At the end of the day, Obama will still lead the race.  But supporting a valid Florida vote, he will demonstrate his support for the democratic process.

    If all this is true (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    Why not just seat them now as is?????

    Parent
    Because hope is not a plan (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's a reason (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    The totals as they stand right now drive a narrative that can impact votes going forward.

    That narrative changes if you change those totals right now.

    Because the process creates hierarchy, FL has already been punished enough as it is.

    Dean is helping Obama to stall.


    Parent

    Great bumper sticker. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST


    Parent
    That's the stupidest reason of all (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    If you believe you can win with FL seated as is, (IF that's what you believe, and I have serious doubts you believe that, as evidenced by your answer), but if you actually believe that, AND you care about Floridian voters (if you actually care about Floridian voters) the SOONER you seat them the BETTER your chances are in FL in the General Election.

    That is if you care about winning the General Election.


    Parent

    Neither can get the numbers required (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    So, my question is when will Obama accept responsibility for taking his own name off the ballot in Michigan so that we can get on with the real business?

    Parent
    Never. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    IACF (It's Always Clinton's Fault).

    Didn't you get the memo? ;-)

    Parent

    You do realize (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    That Obama cannot mathematically get the nomination before the convention either, right?

    Parent
    Ending this before the voters have their say (none / 0) (#128)
    by reality based on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    will only exacerbate the situation.  Let all the people vote.  Then count the votes.  The winner of the popular vote should get the SDs barring some extenuating circumstance that will pass muster with the voters. This has become a question of whether the Democratic Party is in fact the UnDemocratic Party.

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    So then seat FL now as is.

    What's your problem with that?

    Parent

    his campaign is relentlessly stupid (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    but the saving grace is the media.

    If Obama makes it to the ge, we'll see exactly how stupid his campaign is in full, living technicolor.

    He will never be the legitimate nominee with FL and MI hanging over his head.

    And I have not given up on her chances, because she is a very strong contender and we've many races to go.  

    (though, perhaps some need to be reminded that McCain never publicly called for Huckabee to drop out.  He knew he would win either way.  Obama, not so much.)

    Parent

    How will seating Florida (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    put him over the top?

    You do realize the numbers of delegates required for the nomination expands if Florida is seated.

    Situation stands. Neither can get the nomination with pledged delegates.

    Parent

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    It must be so nice to be able to predict the future with such certainty.

    Or, just a thought, we could let the people vote and see what happens.

    Why are Obamans so terrified of that possibility?

    Parent

    And then there's Indiana (none / 0) (#127)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    etc.

    PA is not likely to run close, and Indiana and Kentucky are Clinton country.

    It may end up with Puerto Rico putting her solidly in the popular vote category. The Obama supporter governor being indicted for corruption certainly didn't help. Their turnout is generally high.

    There are many factors the SDs may take into account when picking a nominee. That could be one.

    All these are factors,and there are many scenarios. There is a certain faith-based factors Obama people use too..... like the idea the SD HAVE to rely on the number of pledged delegates. No, that is not true.

    Parent

    Oh, I love these (none / 0) (#149)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    "If Obama is bad, then Clinton is the anti-Christ" responses!  I so missed them while I was away.  Thank goodness all these new people are here to make it, the old ones having been out-logic'd by BTD.  Our mighty lion has new mice to play with.

    Parent
    FL can't put him over the top (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    Seating the delegation changes the number of votes needed and he isn't aheead in FL.

    Parent
    all you folks will start claiming the results show (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    Ohmigod, the voters might decide the election!  Quick, where's Scalia&Co. to save us from the turmoil?!?

    Parent
    Technically (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    The last 2 pollls show Clinton up 9 and down 2.

    the best pollster, SUSA, has Clinton up 12.

    Parent

    You're both wrong (none / 0) (#136)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    PPP does show that, but it's an outlyer.

    SurveyUSA shows her up by 12, Ras at 5%, and Qunnipac at 9%.

    RCP average is 6%.

    The pattern this year though is recent surges in polls will show for both candidates, and people will make up their mind on election day.

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#139)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    although SUSA was the only one that predicted a Clinton win in NH, so I tend to think their methodology might be a bit more solid.

    However, we won't know till they vote. :-)

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#11)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    what a stroke of political mastery that would be.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#177)
    by HGillette on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    The democrat party didn't have anything to do with Fla. breaking the rules.  The contest there was fair, as both candidates agreed not to campaign there, and both were on the ballot.  Florida voters had access to informaion about the issues and turned out in record numbers.  

    Which Democratic Party are you talking about? The state or national?

    The National Committee set the penalties for moving a primary up before anyone did so. They were not targeting any state or any candidate.

    The Democrats in the Florida legislature overwhelming voted for the bill containing the movement of the primary date. Only two or three Democrats voted against it.

    Hilary agreed to the rules, just as Obama did. She stated publicly that the votes in Florida and Michigan wouldn't count, at least until she realized that her nomination wasn't the sure thing she originally thought.

    To count the results now, without any penalty would be grossly unfair. It would be as if a teacher gave a pop quiz, saying that the results would not count on your final grade, and then deciding afterward to count it after all.

    Parent

    Pretty sure there are 2 falsehoods here (none / 0) (#189)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    Hilary agreed to the rules, just as Obama did.

    Show me a cite.  I've researched the hell out of this and didn't find a statement from either campaign agreeing or disagreeing with depriving MI & FL of the vote, although I can tell you for sure that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns made non-committal statements on the days that the DNC acted against MI & FL.  

    Certainly neither candidate was involved in making the rules in any way, shape or form.  

    She stated publicly that the votes in Florida and Michigan wouldn't count

    Wrong.  Clinton did make a statement in a radio interview to the effect that the Michigan election wouldn't count, but it was clearly about Michigan only.  It was just as clearly a statement of fact, and not a statement of position, and it was merely a one-time off-the-cuff statement.  It has been blown way out of proportion countless times by Obama adherents; for example, in your post where you attempt to give the impression that it was an idea she approved of until she realized she was stuck in a difficult battle.  There's no evidence at all for that idea.

    Parent

    Thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#190)
    by HGillette on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:51:10 AM EST
    Show me a cite.  I've researched the hell out of this and didn't find a statement from either campaign agreeing or disagreeing with depriving MI & FL of the vote

    Statement of the Clinton campaign, September 1, 2007:

    We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

    And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

    Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

    Signing the pledge and agreeing to the DNC's rules seems to me to be an implicit agreement to abide by whatever punishment the DNC handed out.

    Wrong.  Clinton did make a statement in a radio interview to the effect that the Michigan election wouldn't count, but it was clearly about Michigan only.  It was just as clearly a statement of fact, and not a statement of position, and it was merely a one-time off-the-cuff statement.

    You are correct that she only said the Michigan primary would not count. However that was the only one she was asked about. It's reasonable to assume that she would have said the same about Florida had she been asked.

    Clinton is not responsible for what she says in "off-the-cuff" statements? She was asked a question, and she said that the Michigan results would not count, so there was no point in taking her name off the ballot.

    It has been blown way out of proportion countless times by Obama adherents; for example, in your post where you attempt to give the impression that it was an idea she approved of until she realized she was stuck in a difficult battle.  There's no evidence at all for that idea.

    Other than the fact that she didn't start saying they should be seated until after the primaries. And I didn't say she approved; I said that she agreed. The time to protest the situation was before the primaries were held; not afterward, when it was clear that doing so would be to her advantage.

    Parent

    Thanks for your reply (none / 0) (#191)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:18 AM EST
    That's informative.  When I get some time, I'll follow up on your September 1 quote to see if I can figure out some more, because I'm very interested in this question.  However, the inference you drew from it -

    Signing the pledge and agreeing to the DNC's rules seems to me to be an implicit agreement to abide by whatever punishment the DNC handed out.

    is a huge stretch.  A general statement of support for the rules is in no way a support for the application of the rules in an individual case.  The Rules Committee had to make an individual decision and take individual action in order to apply the rules to any state.  In fact, even though there were extenuating circumstances for both Florida and Michigan, the DNC actually applied a punishment that was harsher than that called for by the rules Clinton's campaign vaguely expressed support for.  There's just no way you can construe support for that application from Clinton's support for the rule in general.

    It would be just like assuming that, because I approve of the Title VII sexual harassment laws, I automatically approve of the 5th Circuit's ruling in Smith v. Jones.  It just doesn't follow.

    Later you said

    You are correct that she only said the Michigan primary would not count. However that was the only one she was asked about. It's reasonable to assume that she would have said the same about Florida had she been asked.

    No, it's not.  Again, you just can't discuss rules and rules violations on this level of generality where an approval of one thing signifies an approval of something else.  Those are two entirely different cases.  Clinton only said a few words on the subject.  It's not reasonable and it's certainly not fair to read something into those words that she absolutely did not say and then go about claiming that she said the thing you read into them.  Really, it's not even a borderline case, it's just not fair.

    The time to protest the situation was before the primaries were held; not afterward, when it was clear that doing so would be to her advantage.

    Why?  Where's that rule?  My understanding is that the candidates are free to do and say whatever they wish whenever they wish.  And generally speaking, they're a little busy campaigning in the state they're running in right now than to go haring off after issues involving states at some later part of the calendar.

    It sounds like you're saying it's not fair for her to advocate for Florida delegates because she's only doing it because she wants to win.  Well, for one thing, I don't think there's anything particularly scandalous about Clinton wanting to win, nor do I recall her ever denying that she wants to win.  

    Secondly, trying to figure out what she "wants" is a fools' errand.  What does she "want?"  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    A better question: is the thing she's asking for the right thing to do, or is it the wrong thing to do.

    The second I heard about these states getting stripped, I assumed it would not stand, and I'll tell you exactly what I thought would happen.  I thought the campaigns wouldn't comment on it, because each campaign wanted those states' votes.  And I figured that whoever won those states would start making a noise about it either after they won, or if it looked like they were going to win, right before the election as a good way to drum up support in the state.  

    And I figured that candidate would get his or her way--because it's just right to seat those states.  Adherence to DNC rules is a nice principle to stand for, but as principles go it's really not in the ballpark with the principle of let the people's votes count.  In a democracy, the rules derive their legitimacy only from the consent of the governed.  That's what those folks were on about back in the day, when they dumped all that good tea in Boston Harbor.

    Parent

    You Make Some Good Points (none / 0) (#193)
    by HGillette on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:42:33 AM EST
    but I still disagree.

    You are correct that she only said the Michigan primary would not count. However that was the only one she was asked about. It's reasonable to assume that she would have said the same about Florida had she been asked.

    No, it's not.  Again, you just can't discuss rules and rules violations on this level of generality where an approval of one thing signifies an approval of something else.  Those are two entirely different cases.  Clinton only said a few words on the subject.  It's not reasonable and it's certainly not fair to read something into those words that she absolutely did not say and then go about claiming that she said the thing you read into them.  Really, it's not even a borderline case, it's just not fair.

    Again, I was wrong to include Florida in her statement. But I don't see how my inference is wrong. Do you really think, that after saying that Michigan wouldn't count, that if she had asked about Florida, she would have said that Florida should count? I can't see that.

    The time to protest the situation was before the primaries were held; not afterward, when it was clear that doing so would be to her advantage.

    Why?  Where's that rule?  My understanding is that the candidates are free to do and say whatever they wish whenever they wish.  And generally speaking, they're a little busy campaigning in the state they're running in right now than to go haring off after issues involving states at some later part of the calendar.

    Of course the candidates can say and do what they wish. But if I can make an analogy without you thinking that I am comparing Hillary to Bush, a lot of the damage that Bush as done to the country is because he's said that the rules (in this case the laws) don't apply to him.

    That's also the reason that the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws.

    In 2000, Al Gore never made the claim that because he got more popular votes nationwide that he should be declared the winner. Why? Because that would be changing the rules in the middle of the contest.

    How did Bush get declared the winner in Florida? Because the Supreme Court changed the rules during the contest. Florida state law had very clear procedures on how to contest an election and what the standard should be for counting (or not counting) problematical ballots. Gore followed those procedures (that was why he only disputed three counties, because that was what the law stipulated) to the letter. The Supreme Court overruled the law.

    I know that DNC rules don't rise to the level of the law or the Constitution. But the rules were set before Florida and Michigan changed the date of their primaries, before it was known what states, if any, would move their primary date, and which candidate it would help or hurt. To the extent that the Republicans were responsible for the date changes, the voters should hold them to account.

    I think the argument that Hillary was too busy to worry about Michigan and Florida doesn't hold water. Someone who aspires to be President should be able to see the big picture. Her apparent plan was to overwhelm the competition on Super Tuesday, and after that didn't happen, she's floundered ever since, changing her message, her tactics, and her strategy.

    I do appreciate your civility, and I hope that I have reciprocated. No matter which candidate wins the nomination, I will vote Democratic. We need to start repairing the damage of the Bush administration, and to me that's much more important than "sending a message" if my candidate doesn't prevail.

    Parent

    Here are a couple of additional citations (none / 0) (#194)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    A pdf copy of the document Hilary signed:

    "Whereas blah blah blah

    THEREFORE, 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."

    And an audio  of an interview in which Hillary states of the Michigan primary, "Its clear, this election they are having is not going to count for anything." The passage in question is twenty to twenty minutes into the recording it's worth listening to the whole thing for context.

    I think her agreement not to "participate" in the primaries precludes her from now fighting to have the delegates from those primaries seated as is. How does one gain a victory in a contest one did not "participate" in? But those are the documents and people can make up their own mind.

    Parent

    One other point (none / 0) (#195)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    Regardless of how one interprets the pledge she made, as far as I know she made absolutely no objection to the DNC decision at the time it was made. If I'm mistaken here, I'd appreciate a citation.

    In my view, if she had felt it was wrong, as she says it is now, she should have voiced it well before the disputed primaries were held, when it could have made a difference; she certainly shouldn't have signed a pledge or made statements affirming the DNC's rules and calendar.

    Protesting then could have been a principled position. In my view, protesting now, months after the primaries took place, and after we know what the vote totals are, is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    This sounds like nothing more than a faith-based statement by Dean.

    Hail Mary, Full of Grace. . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    I think Dean's still hoping (perhaps expecting, as I think most close observers are) that one of the candidates will finish with delegate and popular vote leads even including the existing votes, with sufficient super-delegate commitments to ensure that the popular result is also the convention result.

    At that point it doesn't matter who gives in.

    Dean would be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    a big win in PA, IN, WV, KY, PR and keeping it close in NC will change the game.

    A big win in PA will change the narrative.

    Parent

    Plus the removal of FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    has caused irrepairable harm to Hillary's campaign and shaped the constant "Tonya Harding" narrative. Imagine if Obama's best early states -- South Carolina, Illinois, Georgia and Virginia --were taken off the table. That's approximately what happened with Hillary when they took MI and FL out.

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    It's dizzyingly unfair to Clinton and it's not because of the rules...there are rules that would not take FL and MI off the table.

    Seems like some party bigwigs have picked the nominee for us, and they appear to be prepared make any argument they feel like making in order to back up their choice.

    It's political suicide for our Party.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#89)
    by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    For all of Nancy P's moaning that FL and MI cannot possibly pick the nominee because "rules are rules," it seems that excluding these two states may do just that - it may play a vital role in picking the nominee, only it is not a problem for Nancy because it is the nominee she wanted.

    If Florida and Michigan don't play the same role as other states in picking the nominee, the Dems have lost my vote in November.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    what we're seeing is an internal power struggle in the Democratic Party for the keys to the helm.

    Their battle, it appears, has spilled over into the primary. And it looks like the DLC has tentacles into both camps.  The DLC is certainly prevalent in Obama's campaign among staffers and his right-of-center economics team certainly fits, right down to pro-business advisor Austen Goolsbee and Social Security privatizer Jeffrey Liebman.

    I may be missing something but the DLC influence doesn't seem as dominant in Hillary's camp. Some of her proposals are far more progressive than would be expected if DLC influence was strong.

    Parent

    Florida (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by View from a broad on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    I live in Florida.  Many democrats I speak to are not plannig to vote.  Howard Dean and his rules took away our voices in Florida.  He needs to understand that there is just as much power in NOT voting as there is in voting.  Yes, a non vote is a de fact vote for McCain -- the DNC understand that perfectly well and they are O.K. with it.

    I must be incredibly dim, please (none / 0) (#44)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    help me understand how you rectify your vote not counting in the primary, by abstaining from voting in the GE.
    So you would disenfranchise yourself, because you feel disenfranchised? Sounds a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And just to clarify, I assume you mean you will not vote in November if OBAMA is the nominee. Does your pique stay intact if Clinton is the nominee?

    Parent
    For me (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    I won't vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general.

    It doesn't rectify my lack of a primary vote, but sends the message that my vote belongs to me. It isn't owed to the Dems simply because they aren't Repubs.

    Parent

    Clinton can only be the nominee (none / 0) (#51)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    if the FL and MI votes count.

    Parent
    Don't Blame Dean (none / 0) (#179)
    by HGillette on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    I live in Florida.  Many democrats I speak to are not plannig to vote.  Howard Dean and his rules took away our voices in Florida.

    Howard Dean didn't take away your vote. The Florida Legislature did. You weren't responsible for being disenfranchised in the primary. If you choose to disenfranchise yourself in the general election, that's your own fault.

    The rule restricting the dates for primaries was set well before either Florida or Michigan changed the dates of their primaries. The rule was made by a committee, not Howard Dean.

    The states knew that they could be penalized, and chose to ignore the threat. It would be unfair to change rules that were made in a non-partisan way, in the hopes of helping one candidate.

    Parent

    Dean Doesn't Get Off (none / 0) (#184)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    scot free in any of this. He could have helped to head off the imbecilic death penalty vote but apparently didn't.  I'm wondering if maybe he was a party to the slaughter.

    There were sensible remedies far short of the death penalty in da roolz.

    Six states broke the "rules" but only MI and FL were penalized.

    The GOP legislature in FL and the GOP State Senate and GOP dominated State Supreme Court in MI brought about the advanced dates.  Da roolz actually specify that penalities can be put aside if the state party can prove no ill intent.

    The party is supposed to have a hearing to make this kind of decision (dems da roolz)but failed to do so.

    So da roolz weren't followed by the DNC.

    So I have to ask just where the hell was Howard Dean while all of this was going on?


    Parent

    Michigan Revote (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by expertlaw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    I think a Michigan revote (even if he loses) is more important for Obama than he realizes. Michigan is a conservative state, even if it tends toward Democratic presidential candidates. And its brand of conservativism is of a type that works in favor of a candidate like John McCain. Obama needs to convince Michigan's substantial political "center" (it's center-right) that might otherwise float between McCain and Clinton that he, also, is deserving of their votes.

    Looks like (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    Obama has given up on Michigan for the general... cedes it to the Rs.

    Parent
    Proposal by Rep. Stupak of MI: (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan congressman proposed Monday in a letter to Dean that the state's delegates be awarded based partly on Michigan's primary results and partly on the popular vote in all the nation's presidential primaries.

    Stupak endorsed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in the primary and has remained neutral since Edwards dropped out of the race in January.

     {AP]


    Parent
    Stupak (none / 0) (#99)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    Doesn't get a vote. All the Michigan and Florida superdelegates won't be seated either (unless the suit by a Florida SD is successful, based on the reading of the DNC charter which states that SD's shall be seated at the convention....)

    Parent
    Conservative? (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    I'm a lifelong Michigan resident and I challenge that assertion.

    A bit off topic maybe but my home's honor is challenged and it is related to the general political climate as it applies to this thread.

    First: in my lifetime 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans have served as governor.  Two of the Republicans were possibly as liberal as any Democrat either opposed.  (That's when there were liberal Republicans a Looong time ago)Ideologically that makes it 7 to 3.  Republican presidential candidates carried the state 8 times, Democrats 8 times, the last 4 in a row. There've been 5 Reublican Senators and 7 Democrats.  Democrats serving more years by a wide margin.  Until Republicans gerrymandered congressional districts in 2001, Democrats had a majority of the state's US House seats. Democrats owned the elected Attorney Genral's position for 42 of the last 47 years and the Secretary of State position for 23 of the last 37 years. The nation's first consumer protection division and first environmental protection division long before Ralph Nader and the Environmental movement. Michigan is not right-of-center.

    Like many other industrial states Michigan has pockets of political ideology in several areas.

    If Obama is nominated without legitimately including the Michigan delegation: The 1st Congressional district that Stupak (D) represents will go overwhelmingly McCain. The western lower peninsula, traditionally GOP, but becoming steadily more Democratic in recent years will revert to form and go heavily for McCain.  The north and probably west Detroit suburbs will go heavily McCain. Wayne county will do as always but may get a heavier than normal turnout.

    If Michigan's delegation is excluded from legitimate participation, McCain could win the state.

    Parent

    I think that Dean is simply saying that (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    FLA will be allowed to vote as soon as Clinton drops out or it is otherwise determined that, with FLA and MI excluded, she cannot get enough superdelegate votes to win the nomination.  In other words, FLA will be seated only after it has been determined that FLA can have no impact on the result.

    Because it is in "everyone's interest" for the DNC to be able pretend that it is not disenfranchising Florida voters, while not actually enfranchising Florida voters.

    Sadly (none / 0) (#17)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    I think you're right.

    Dean wants to give the appearance of enfranchising the voters while not enfranchising the voters. Might work on some, but all the press that they continue to generate by going over and over the issue ensures that it will not work on all.

    Parent

    I just feel like (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM EST
     a huge win in PA and a couple of other states will have their heads spinning.  If anything, I want her to win big for that one reason.

    It defies logic that they are doing their level best to tear down Clinton.  Can you imagine how unstoppable she would be right now if the DNC had gotten behind her rather than putting up a straw candidate to take her down?  McCain would be irrelevant and we'd all be waiting for Jan to roll around so the dems could take back the White House.

    Why, oh why, do we consistently refuse to back the winners who will roll up their sleeves and fight in favor of the elites who wouldn't know how to govern if Jesus Christ Himself was pulling their strings?  I am sick and tired of the New England elite stranglehold on my party.  They are so out of touch with their core that I fear even a SECOND resounding loss will not teach them.


    Parent

    It might work (4.50 / 4) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    The MSM continues to bleat about THE ROOLz more than it acknowledges the disenfranchisement of Florida voters.  Even when they talk about seating the delegates, no one ever presses about whether the delegates will be seated only after they no longer matter.

    Worst of all, a lot of the MSM -- including most especially MSNBC -- frames the issue entirely in terms of "when will Hillary get out."  As if her continuing presence in the race is forcing the DNC to continue the disenfranchisement.

    Howard Dean is an ass. I can't understand how Dean got as far as he did in 2004.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#143)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    Yeah - I don't understand that.  Isn't it good for the MSM to have the "horse race"?  Then they can bloviate for hours. If she gets out now, won't they have to do their job and actually start doing things, like looking at Obama's record and stuff?  Tweety and Olbermann will literally cry through their broadcasts....

    Parent
    No Rules? (none / 0) (#183)
    by HGillette on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    The MSM continues to bleat about THE ROOLz more than it acknowledges the disenfranchisement of Florida voters.

    How are you going to know who the nominee is without rules? In any contest, whether it be a presidential nomination or a game of "Chutes and Ladders", there have to be rules that are followed, or you don't have a legitimate winner.

    Again, the rules were set before Florida (or Michigan) changed the date of its primary, so they were not set to help or hinder any particular candidate. Which is fairer: to follow the rules that were set before the campaign, or to change them in the middle in an attempt to help a particular candidate?

    If you see a sign that says: "U.S. Government facility. Authorized personnel only. Violators are subject to lethal force.", ignore it, and get shot, who's at fault? The government, who warned you of the consequences, or you, for thinking the rules didn't apply to you?

    Parent

    Aright, I've been defending Dean until now, but, (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    calling on Obama and Hillary to agree on something is ridiculous. The DNC should determine what's fair and in accordance with the rules and carry it out and take their lumps. It's like a judge saying he'll only make a ruling if the prosecutor and the defendant agree on the outcome. Hillary and Obama's are both in it  to win, not to make judgments on how delegates should be determined and seated. While it might be nice if they both put principle above all other considerations including their own campaign's fortune, the DNC certainly shouldn't be depending on them to do so.

    That's been ridiculous all along. (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:59 PM EST
    I don't much like Obama and the others pulling their names off the MI ballot--saying "I want everyone to vote for me, just not you guys" is bad manners and poor long-term politics, no matter how much it helps you in the short term.

    But Obama is a candidate and is supposed to try to limit the bad consequences of his actions and maximize the positive. It's not his job to ensure a fair solution to this mess, it's Howard Dean's job to look out for the Democratic voters and the Democratic Party. Leaving it up to the candidates themselves to try to solve it and/or trying to game it so one candidate gains an advantage over the other is shirking his duty. I'm ashamed that I supported him for chair.

    Parent

    From the beginning (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    this has been about the primary calendar, the will of the DNC, and now the candidates - about everything except the voters.

    Parent
    But it's not up to the DNC (none / 0) (#28)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    The final decision will be made by the convention delegates on the floor.  Obama and Clinton are the only people who can exercise effective control over the delegates.

    Dean's not a judge; he doesn't have that power.

    Parent

    I agree with you, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    and that's the position Dean has taken until now, and I've defended him (and he's gotten a tremendous amount of flack for it). I'm criticizing him now specifically for calling for Hillary and Obama to craft a solution; that's not their roll.

    I don't think it's up to the DNC or the candidates to craft a solution; it's up to the states. Or at least that's how it ought to be. Neither Obama nor Hillary ought to be able to "veto" any proposed revote either state comes up with, and the DNC's only roll should be to ensure such a revote is fair and accords with the party rules.

    Parent

    It's not a question of whether he's a judge (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    It's a question of him being a leader. He's the frakkin' chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He's being entirely passive about an issue that potentially threatens the ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, to be successful in the fall, leaving the resolution up to the two people who can't be expected to agree.

    There are only two reasons for Dean to do this, and neither of them are good reasons: (1) ego ("I am the boss of you, Florida and Michigan"); and/or (2) favoritism towards Obama/animus towards Clinton.  Assuming that Dean does indeed want Obama to win, if Dean were smart, he would convince Obama that it is in his own interest for FLA and MI to have a meaningful voice in the process, and that the longer Obama acts like he's afraid of FLA and MI voters, the weaker he becomes.  

    But I don't think Dean is that smart.

    Parent

    I'd agree with that. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    He has been too passive. Even if there isn't much formally he could do, he could certainly at the minimum give louder voice to the calls for Florida and Michigan to work out an an alternative before the convention. Obama could as well, and I've defended him otherwise for the most part.

    Parent
    Dean (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlatusTheElder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    The problem with the Dean's not a judge thesis is that Dean caused the problem and is now asking the candidates to fix it. Neither candidate can solve the problem to the satisfaction of his/her opponent. Anything other than a Clinton win and seating the delegates as is is unsatisfactory to the voters and should be unsatisfactory to Democrats.

    Parent
    Yes to this part: (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    The problem with the Dean's not a judge thesis is that Dean caused the problem and is now asking the candidates to fix it.

    That's 100% on the money. He did not have to allow the Republican legislatures to have this power over the Democratic primary process. He did not have to pick and choose which rules to follow in this manner.

    And to think I was a Deaniac!

    [hangs head in shame]

    Parent

    Judges Do That (none / 0) (#181)
    by HGillette on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    It's like a judge saying he'll only make a ruling if the prosecutor and the defendant agree on the outcome.

    Judges have been known to tell the two sides to work out an agreement (or plea bargain) instead of going to trial.

    If Hillary and Obama cannot come to an agreement, the National Committee or the credentials committee at the convention will probably make the decision. Hillary will be better off coming to some agreement, since neither will give the two states full representation based on the invalid primaries.

    Parent

    I live in Florida... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by kc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    and most of us believed that our vote would ultimately count. Suicidal if it didn't. So, we voted in good faith.

    My question now is-when will the Obama charm 'the old ladies' offensive begin?

    Ha! Is the Kool-aid truck (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    coming to Florida?  Can't wait for my sip.  Ah, sweet, sweet Kool-aid!!

    Parent
    Well, this old lady is not going to be (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    charmed.

    Parent
    What did he say? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by reality based on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    Does this mean we can now include the Florida popular votes and delegate totals on our scorecards?
    Nevermind.

    He must have missed my checks. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    And a few others I am sure. I feel sorry for the person who cheerfully calls me. The one guy said, "All right, all right, I hear you". I was not being rude, just you are not getting a cent until you straighten up the Florida Michigan mess.

    Yep. I have been emailing.... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:03:08 PM EST
    every high powered Dem...saying just that.

    For years I have voted a straight Democratic Ticket in every election.  I have donated money to Democrats across the nation and given time to Democratic candidates going door-to-door to get out the vote and phone-banking.  

    I want the Florida and Michigan votes are counted (fully) as stands.  I am unbelievably angry that voters are disenfranchised by the Democratic Party.

    The DNC has work to do if they want my money, time, and votes again.

    Reverse the stupid decision to penalize early voting.   Shame on The Democratic Party and shame on Barrack Obama for stopping the new vote in Michigan.  

    Parent

    Voters (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Naked Politics
    "Most of those critics are people who have a particularly partisan angle to play," he [Dean] said. "They want Michigan and Florida seated, as voted, because that would benefit their particular candidate. They don't want them seated because that would benefit their particular candidate. My job is to enforce the rules equally and fairly so that both candidates are treated fairly and that's what I intend to do...

    Problem with Dean is he continues to fail to recognize that it is even more important to be fair to the voters.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    This isn't a war where the vicorious gets to write the history, this is an election where everyone will have a historical perspective.

    And history will show that every single one of Dean's decisions (or non-decisions) helped Obama, and none of his decisions (or non-decisions) helped Clinton.

    Parent

    We don't need to wait for history (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    to see that. Dean has clearly had his thumb on the scales all along. He just refuses to see that he's actually harming his favored candidate by denying him the legitimacy he needs in the general.

    Parent
    He said superdels are free agents (none / 0) (#62)
    by bumblebums on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    who needn't defer to any metric.

    "They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said in an interview at party headquarters. "That's what the rules provide for."

    LA Times

    Parent

    Of Course (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    That's what he says.


    Parent
    What, he should tattoo it on his forehead? (none / 0) (#68)
    by bumblebums on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST


    Parent
    He can (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    It wouldn't change anything.


    Parent
    Pathetic. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    Howard should stay off television.

    Or resign.

    Dean: Gross Leadership Failure (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    Basically he has empowered the Florida GOP to dictate whether Florida will participate in choosing the Democratic nominee. Now, he's trying to throw the hot potato into the laps of Obama and Clinton. He created the problem, now HE needs to fix it.  

    Political malpractice (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by reality based on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    If Dr. Dean practiced medicine with the same care as he does politics, no insurer would have touched him.

    Snippet from Nagourney piece on Dean: (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    Still, senior officials in both campaigns said they had heard rarely from Mr. Dean on matters like the tone of the contest and how it might be concluded and what to do about the Michigan and Florida delegates, the subject of a bitter and potentially debilitating debate between the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

    The chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, Karen Thurman, said she could not recall the last time Mr. Dean had called her to try work out the dispute. She and other Florida Democrats are to meet with Mr. Dean on Wednesday to try to persuade him to agree to a compromise.

     [NYT; italics added.]

    more proof (none / 0) (#74)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    that Dean is incompetent!

    Parent
    Oh Jeebus... (none / 0) (#75)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    are you kidding me?!

    IF that's true (Nagourney is not the most reliable source), it's worse and worse. We have always been the party that governs better, but we're sure not doing a good job of governing ourselves!

    Parent

    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#153)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Nagourney NYTimes Link (none / 0) (#173)
    by jen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:52:46 PM EST
    Democrats' Turmoil Tests Party's Low-Key Leader

    Reminder: Nagourney has no problem spinning things to fit his opinion...

    Parent

    Prediction: once Obama campaign's (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    internal polling suggests FL and/or MI likely Dem. voters will not vote for Obama if there votes aren't counted in the primaries, Obama will favor revoting.  

    How cynical of you! (none / 0) (#112)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    Why, that almost suggests that Obama will Do Anything To Win!!!!1111!!!!

    Where are my pearls and fainting couch? ;-)

    Parent

    He should have learned that before now ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    ... considering the well-documented anger of the voters in those states at being disenfranchised.

    Parent
    But, the polls indicate about 25% (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    are concerned about their primary votes not counting.  

    Parent
    So Obama really (none / 0) (#147)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    doesn't care about the voters.

    Occam's razor.

    All the more reason for Dr. Dean to step in and make a decision that honors the voters of FL and MI.

    Parent

    Obama's corrupt greed (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by chopper on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    I don't see how there will be an agreement between Hillary and Obama.

    I hope Hillary doesn't give in - she shouldn't.  She won all those FL votes and delegates fair and square.  Obama spent $1.3 Million on ads, she didn't.  She won with a handicap and deserves every vote and every FULL delegate.

    I don't think Obama will change his tactics.  He will do anything to win. He stole TX delegates away from Hillary with his corrupt caucuses.  She won the primary fair and square, then he has his people going to caucuses with threats, fraud, and breaking every rule in the book. He blocked the re-votes in FL and MI. Now, he won't agree to anything unless she GIVES him some of HER delegates.  That is wrong, undemocratic, and un-American.

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    You are more than a little over the top here.  I'm not sure you're even for real.

    Parent
    Center for Responsive Politics (none / 0) (#101)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    says otherwise.

    Yes, Obama spent $1.3 million. That, BTW, is $500K more than any other candidate.

    A poster from FLA told me on another board she was mainly ticked that the media didn't cover it, especially since the ads run by his proxies were so negative.

    Parent

    Well, he's running push polls here in NC. My (none / 0) (#154)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    husband, who was torn between Hillary and Obama, is now for Hillary because he answered the phone.

    Parent
    Good a reason as any (none / 0) (#159)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    I suppose.

    Parent
    I realize now that my comment left a lot (none / 0) (#164)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    of questions open and sounds a bit absurd. Sorry.

    My husband picked up the phone instead of me and it turned out to be a pushpoll. He had been torn between Hillary and Obama.   The fellow asked him if he'd be willing to be polled and he said okay. The questions started out neutral, but then began to be slanted towards Obama. My husband asked about it because it wasn't totally obvious at first, but he began to be suspicious.   The guy denied it. So he answered a few more questions and they got progressively more anti-Hillary. At that point, he asked who this guy was working for. The guy refused to say.   At that point, he kept trying to finish the poll, but my husband got angry and told him that he HAD been torn between the candidates but that this poll made him decide to vote for Hillary and hung up.

    Maybe that's more clear. I hope so. I'm rushing.

    Parent

    Chopper (none / 0) (#186)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    isn't over the top, he's on the money.

    Parent
    He's essentially saying nothing (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    He might as well just say "we will have a nominee."

    Almost but not quite (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    He's actually saying "we will have a nominee before the convention."

    Because if it goes to the convention, there is a possibility that FL and MI would not be seated.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    He is praying for that. But actually I think he would be better off being forced to deal with FL and MI BEFORE a nominee is chosen.

    Yes, a revote is the solution.

    Parent

    That's what I was thinking... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    seems he's mastered the art of saying nothing while looking like he's saying something.

    We already know that the delegates are going to get seated. What we don't know is when they'll be seated and what impact those delegates will actually have on the nomination.

    Parent

    Learning its lesson (none / 0) (#16)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:12:33 PM EST
    Florida won't be learning that important lesson about NOT moving up its primary that some Obama supporters insist is important.

    I think that they've definitely learned their lesson now. If they'd held their primary in the middle of March, they'd have had weeks of undivided attention from the candidates and a much greater impact on the national contest. Instead, they get no attention at all from the candidates until after the vote, got overshadowed by Super Tuesday, and will only have a delegation seated when a compromise is reached between the candidates -- all exactly what they were warned would happen. So, yes, I think they have learned their lesson.

    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    I think the DNC actually is the one learning a lesson.

    In a way, Florida and Michigan have proven their point. This is very likely to break the Iowa NH stranglehold for good.

    Of course, the Republicans in Florida who did the primary date change got what they wanted because the DNC is populated by incompetents.

    Your reading of the situation strikes me as hilarious frankly.

    Parent

    to be fair (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    the Democratic Party has a long history of "learning their lesson."  It's why Gore and Kerry were so successfu...oh, wait.

    Parent
    You take always strikes me as hilarious (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    Only reason I come here.

    Parent
    Glad to be of service (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM EST


    Parent
    if the IA/NH stranglehold is (none / 0) (#182)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    really broken, this may be worth it.

    Parent
    The Republican legislature sure has (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    learned its lesson in Florida - if we really want to mess up the Dems, move the primary.  Our RNC will understand and not punish us that badly.  We can take one for the team.

    Parent
    You don't know Florida (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    What lesson do you think our state legislators learned?

    Let me help you out with that. Nothing. They aren't impacted by this. Do you think the DNC is going to withhold money from their campaigns? Are they going to run primary challengers against them? Are the Repubs in control of the state legislature thinking they shouldn't move up the primary even earlier next time?

    The only lesson learned is by Florida Dem voters who learned the Dem party cares less about the right to vote than the Repub party.

    Parent

    Yes, the republican Florida legislature (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by macwiz12 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    has sure learned its lesson. Change your primary date and you can really screw up the democratic party. Here's what needs to happen and the first part needs to happen soon.

    1. The Obama campaign needs to say that they support seating the delegates from Florida based on the January primary. That act would do more for Obama in Florida than just about anything else. It would earn him my support and just might give him a chance to win Florida in November. For the record I am not a Clinton supporter, I voted for Edwards in January.

    2. The democratic party needs to get rid of Howard Dean. His actions have been the most effective force for the republicans in Florida this campaign season.

    3. We need to establish a series of regional primaries about two to three weeks apart. The order of the primaries would be determined by lot for 2012 and rotated after that. These primaries need to be closed. Voters should be required to declare their primary party choice at least several weeks in advance of the primary.

    4. Caucuses should be abolished as they are discriminatory to many people and really not democratic. I cite Texas as a case study. Clinton won the primary by about 4% but ended up with fewer delegates.

    5. Super delegates need to be abolished. Let the voters decide, not the political hacks.


    Parent
    FA and MI (none / 0) (#25)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    will be seated after Obama has secured the nomination.  Perferably half so that we don't end up with states voting in November of 2011.

    And if Obama doesn't secure the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    except by excluding FL and MI? What then?
    Hope is not a plan.


    Parent
    Hello! (none / 0) (#70)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters seem to feel that if he wins without FL and MI he's still won.

    Not in this primary cycle. Every vote and state counts because it's so close.

    We've got to think long-term here. Wouldn't McCain be able to use a questionable win by Obama in the GE? Hey, McCain won his party's nomination by a landslide AND they were able to resolve the FL/MI situation without alienating their base.

    Obama, if he continues on this course and becomes the nominee, will not be able to say the same.

    Parent

    By the way, I think word has come down from (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    the Obama mountaintops that it's time to mend fences. I saw several diaries at DK and MYDD from Obama trying to do just that. Even Kid Oakland gave it a shot.
    It's better than what was happening before, but it's a bit too much like the "Hillary is WELCOME to stay in the race" message we also are hearing. The tone is off.

    Parent
    Don't they realize (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    that Hillary supporters don't go to their blogs anymore?

    I guess not. The echoes are too strong in their little chambers.

    That's what happens when you win support by dumping all over half your voters.

    Parent

    Dem Blogs (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlatusTheElder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    I used to go to a list of blogs that included Kos, AmericaBlog, TPM etc. No More. After being told over and over to shut up cause you're a stupid troll and bow down to the new messiah they can kiss my wrinkled old ass.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Indeed.

    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#156)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:10:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Triple that for me, too! (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    I will never return to those unpleasant sites again, because I've never been treated so badly in my life -- Every time I hear those sites mentioned I promise myself I will never vote for Obama.

    It's not necessarily him in this case, it's his followers that repulse me.  I want to ask them, 'What is your plan here?'  As in, 'How do you plan to bring all the alienated Clinton supporters back on board in time to win?'

    No, I take that back; I don't want to ask them anything -- I just hope I never get stuck on a trans-Atlantic flight next to one of them . . . I might become a Kathleen Turner 'Serial Mom'.

    Parent

    Hope is not the plan (none / 0) (#85)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    I really think it won't be an issue after April 22.  If it not obvious by the end of voting, you'll have a huge mess anyway.

    Parent
    and if Obama continuues to sink against (none / 0) (#92)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    McCain in the polls, things will be even messier.


    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#27)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:22 PM EST
    why this is hinged on the candidates having to agree to a solution?  The candidates did not create this situation and so far they appear to have become more of a problem than part of a solution.  I think this should be between the state party and the DNC to bring this to a resolution that will be fair to the voters and what is best for the party.  

    You're right, asking the candidates is silly ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    ... and was guaranteed to introduce more conflict into an already messy situation. I doubt that it can be justified by anything in the DNC's rules. It seems to be just an example of Dean (and/or other Democratic Party insiders) not having much clue about management.

    Parent
    Because if they can't come to an agreement... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM EST
    Dean can say he tried, but the candidates weren't able to come to an agreement...

    Parent
    Right. It's all their fault. (none / 0) (#157)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Nothing new here IMHO (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    He has always thought they would eventually be seated, because he has always thought the numbers would be such that seating and counting them would not change the outcome.

    He's probably right about that.  I don't see Clinton doing well enough in the remaining states to sway the superdelegates.

    I agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    He's still picking up Superdelegates on an almost daily basis (one so far today). I'm guessing they will be nearly tied in Supers by the time PA votes.

    Parent
    Dean, the subject of this thread, cannot .... (none / 0) (#120)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    ... be "picking up superdelegates" -- unless he's operating a taxi service in his spare time.

    Parent
    This is in a new context (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    I was wrong earlier.  According to Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic these comments from Dean pertain to the Ausman challenges to the punishment of the Florida delegation. The challenges will be heard in April, and, as I see it anyway, may give the DNC a face-saving way to get Florida seated.

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/some_florida_delegates_could_b.php

    Parent

    Maybe now is a good time for BTD to remind (none / 0) (#35)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    us of his compromise?

    Didn't it give some weight to both the January elections AND a revote in both MI & FL?

    As a compromise, each side gives up something.  But each side gets something as well.

    Some people see the January elections as hopelessly flawed.  But, others thought they voted for someone.  And that their votes should count.

    With BTDs compromise -- those votes count but, they're balanced against the fresh votes.

    The one thing not taken into account is those who voted republican in Michigan.  But, if you're willing to vote for a Republican, I don't know how to unravel that.

    Would the Florida Congressional Delegation be more inclined to support revotes if the January election was given SOME weight?

    Mutiny - we the people (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimbo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    We can put a stop to the FL - MI problem.  Take the pledge:  

    "If MI and FL are not brought into the national picture immediately and their votes counted, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote in the presidential election in November only if HRC is the nominee.  If MI and FL are returned to the national picture immediately and their votes counted, then I will vote for the Democratic nominee whomever it is".  

    If enough of us take the pledge then Dean has few choices.  If he makes the wrong choice then Obama will have no chance to be President.  Period.  The only choice for Dean is to bring FL and MI into the equation, now.    

    I'm not willing to play chicken (none / 0) (#80)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    with the future of the country.

    Parent
    They need to be seated with the current vote they (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    did nothing wrong, and a redo is not appropriate. Mich should be seated as well no revote it was always wrong, I understand the no campaigning which is what Hillary also agreed too and the campaign revenues the States would be denied, but silencing voters is ridiculous for a Democratic Party and Obama and Edwards arrogance of removing their name was just that arrogant.  Not counting them will not help Obama he will always be perceived as a pretender nominee if he were nominated and another stolen election for the Party Base will be unacceptable and turnout for Nov diminished I believe upwards of 30 percent.

    If Obama did violate the rules with (none / 0) (#83)
    by ivs814 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    regard to not campaigning in Florida, what was the punishement?  And when will it be imposed?

    Ha. The nomination? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Where did he break the rules? (none / 0) (#102)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    If you are referring to the ads that were run on cable tv, he requested and received clearance from the DNC prior to running them.  I don't think there is anything to support Obama breaking the rules.  And if he did, Clinton was probably just as guilty of pushing the envelope on campaigning there too.

    Parent
    I didn't see that (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    You are the first person (in my experience) to mention that Obama had clearance.  Do you have a source I could check out please?

    AS for HRC - she didn't break any rules or even push the envelope - she went to Florida AFTER the voting was over, and I believe even timed it so she wasn't in Florida airspace until the polls had closed.

    Parent

    There's no source (none / 0) (#109)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    Standingup is mistaken.  It didn't happen.

    Parent
    You sure? (none / 0) (#124)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    I think I've read the contrary, with supporting context.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#125)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    maybe I'm thinking of the info from #106.

    Parent
    Replying here instead of to each (none / 0) (#160)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    comment individually.  

    I was not correct in stating they had requested clearance from the DNC.  They asked the Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.  

    "The DNC has not weighed in on the pledge because it was a pledge with the state party chairs from the four early states, not the DNC," DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton told ABC News.

    While the Obama campaign has not been defended by the D.N.C., his campaign was told by Carol Fowler, the chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, that she did not consider a national cable buy to be in violation of the pledge made to South Carolina.

    The Democratic Party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada have not weighed in on Obama's national cable buy. Having already held their contests, the state party chairs in those three early states are deferring to the South Carolina Democratic Party.

    Second, this was a voluntary pledge that the candidates agreed to abide.  There is no DNC rule that imposes any penalty for breaking the pledge.

    Clinton visited Florida two days before the primary.  Her campaign claims she abided by the terms of the pledge but others disagreed.  Others raised eyebrows over a statement that the campaign released on Jan 25        "urging Dem convention delegates -- and her primary rivals -- to support seating delegations from Florida and Michigan."  

    In the end I don't believe it really matters since both sides are going to cry foul at the other.  Instead, the focus should be on doing something now to get the votes counted in Florida and Michigan.  

    Parent

    so on Jan 25th (none / 0) (#169)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    was it Obvious she "needed" those 2 states to win?

    Parent
    The pledge was between the candidates (none / 0) (#187)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    It was actually a binding, legal contract, because each candidate made a promise and provided valuable consideration consisting of forbearace from campaigning in the involved states.  The breach of this contract could actually be sued upon in a court of law--although it would never be, of course, because no political benefit could be gained by that.

    Neither the DNC nor the South Carolina Party was a party to the contract, because neither provided either a promise or any consideration.  Although the SC Party was, at least arguably, a 3rd-party beneficiary to the contract, a third-party beneficiary does not have the power to release the parties from the obligations they owe to each other.

    Obama clearly breached his promise to the Edwards and Clinton campaign by running those ads that reached Florida households, and the permission granted by SC's Party Chair--who, coincidentally enough [not], has since pledged as an Obama superdelegate--was a mere fig leaf without legal or moral value.

    Of which our ever-vigilant news media has provided you with not even a hint.

    Parent

    As I understand it, Florida TV (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    was SATURATED with Obama ads for weeks before the election---across the entire state, and not just in the north, as some people suggest.
    No other candidate felt it necessary to make multi-state ad buys that included Florida. It is quite obvious that Obama was flouting the rules.

    Parent
    D'OH! (none / 0) (#115)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    I didn't realize that. Thanks for setting me straight.

    He still lost after all that, eh? And Hillary did not campaign at all? And everyone was on the ballot?

    No wonder he doesn't want a re-vote.

    Parent

    I do not know how many ads and for what (none / 0) (#121)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:01:53 PM EST
    period of time; however, I know the ads were across the whole state, and one commenter told me they ran for weeks, many times per day.
    I would like to know the actual numbers

    Parent
    I always thought it was just a week or 2 (none / 0) (#132)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    He claimed they were Super Tuesday national ads or some BS like that. Do not know what proxies did though for either candidate.

    I remember the ads running here and it wasn't until after Fla that I saw any Clinton ST ads.

    Parent

    One person told me it was about a month, (none / 0) (#135)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    several times a day. I think the actual numbers should have a bearing on how to judge the FL question.
    I guess I'm done for the day, which is good, because I have lots of grading to do!

    As we Anglos say, "Hasta la vista, baby!"

    Parent

    I live in FL, and it was most certainly NOT (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    saturated with Obama ads. I saw one ad (obviously played more than one time) on CNN. It is the only ad I saw.

    Parent
    It depends on your viewing habits (none / 0) (#188)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:27:58 PM EST
    I have also read that they ran quite a few times.

    CNN and MSNBC don't have the highest Nielsens, but they are widely watched by opinion leaders.

    Parent

    Clinton did not campaign in FL or (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    run TV ads there.  She did announce prior to the primary that she would go to FL after the primary and she did so on the night of the primary after the polls closed.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    You are mistaken.  He received permission from the SC party chair, a superdelegate who now supports Obama, and no one else.  Not the DNC.

    Parent
    No, she did not campaign in Florida. (none / 0) (#107)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    I don't think Obama broke "the rules" either.

    I really think the best solution is a re-vote in MI and seating the delegates as they are in FL, simply because all the candidates' names were on the ballot there. In MI, the result should not be accepted.

    But I'd also support a FL re-vote. Anything to destroy the meme that Democrats don't care about their own voters.

    Parent

    They both campaigned through proxies (none / 0) (#117)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    and spent money (Obama spent more money through proxy than she did).

    Was within the rules, except there was one meeting Obama held with supporters I know of. Minor infraction, but there was probably a meeting Clinton held with her supporters under the cover of fundraisers.

    There was an active campaign there, but it was done through proxy, and therefore was done "within the rules".

    Parent

    SMJ, this is (none / 0) (#123)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    OT but, that Yoo torture thread is still running without any discernible oversight from TalkLeft managers. More disturbing comments today.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#140)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    I'll pop over in a minute.

    Parent
    Fundraising in FL (none / 0) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    Was allowed (as it was in Michigan). They both attended fundraisers.

    Obama had a short impromptu press conference "by accident" (don't know if was accidental or not) and ran national ads that he could have had black out in the Florida markets.

    Parent

    Again the breach was (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    "technically" allowed. He bought ads through cable and the SC air market, and ran other ads through proxies.

    Letter but not spirit of the law.

    I heard it was nasty. BTW: He lost NV because his unions ran negative campaign ads in the Hispanic market.

    On the one hand, Latinos had D Huerta from the UFW (a legendary figure from a legendary union) saying vote Clinton, and the Obama unions ran ads saying B Clinton didn't want people to vote.

    The politics of hope went overtly negative, and that the one thing they cannot afford to do (don't think they quite learned that lesson).

    It really just must bite Obama he was so creative, and spent so much money, and still lost.

    Parent

    Sen Obama received permission (none / 0) (#118)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    for the ads from the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, not the DNC. He also answered press questions after a fundraiser in FL early on and apologized after he was told it broke the pledge. I don't hold it against him, but facts are facts.

    How do you see Clinton pushing the envelope? She flew down for fundraisers, just as Obama did, and gave a speech after she won the primary. The agreement was that they wouldn't campaign there for primary votes, not that they couldn't thank the voters after the primary was over.

    Parent

    The more I read this, the funnier it gets. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    Obama received permission from SC Dem. state chairman to run national ads reaching FL? That's like asking your sister if you can eat a slice of chocolate cake b/4 dinner.

    Parent
    See my reply (none / 0) (#161)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    to all the comments above.  

    Parent
    Maybe, Dean FINALLY looked at the 2004 (none / 0) (#103)
    by zyx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    electoral college map and did some counting.  I was looking at it last night again.  Kerry had 252 votes.  That included Pennsylvania, 21, and Michigan, 17.  I'm not sure Obama could win either of those.  That would give him 214, other things equal--losing Ohio, FL, etc.

    Maybe that isn't what will happen.  But it very well may.

    2004 came down (none / 0) (#110)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    to whether Kerry would pick up enough "battleground states". There were 7 of them, as I recall. PA was one of them. So was FL.

    He lost Ohio and one other, and that was all she wrote.

    The thing is though, MI was classed as a "must win" state, not a battleground. If MI moves to the "likely GOP" that changes the metrics entirely.

    Parent

    Looking further ahead (none / 0) (#122)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    By 2030 estimated changes in the electoral college:

    Florida +9
    Texas +8

    New York -6
    Illinois -3

    It'll all change so much more soon enough.

    Parent

    The one thing you can say (none / 0) (#129)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    about the horse race, it's an interesting horse race and promises to be even more interesting.

    Parent
    For those interested, here's the link ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    ... to the study that Step Beyond is quoting. But discussions of 2030 do seem a bit far OT for this thread.

    The Electoral College Moves to the Sun Belt

    Parent

    They like Dean at KOS (none / 0) (#116)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    They have a little poll going, out of 13,000 91% think Dean is doing a great job.  Okay, what does that tell us?  I guess Dean really is helping Obama with his non-decisions and they are quite happy about that!

    They don't censor on kos (none / 0) (#158)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    like they do here. If they don't agree with a posting they simply post recipes in response. If this is a strictly pro-Clinton site the mods should make that clear. It is farcical to put on airs of neutrality.

    Parent
    yeah. Those recipes are really great. They allow (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    bullies to hijack a thread and keep people who want to talk to each other from being able to have a conversation.

    Parent
    This is not a strictly pro-Clinton site (none / 0) (#162)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    The censoring follows the comment policy and Notice to new readers and commenters at TalkLeft.

    Essentially the difference is that commenting here is treated as a privilege. Comments on any of the candidates are welcome as long as they are civil, rational and honest.  The moderators have been open about their personal choice of candidate in the primaries.  There are probably more Clinton supporters commenting here because so many of the other political sites have become very uncivil toward them.  

    Parent

    Do me a favor (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    If you like daily kos so much, go comment there.

    If this site is so awful why must we be graced by your presence?

    Do yourself and us a favor, do not comment here anymore.

    Parent

    This is not a neutral site (none / 0) (#192)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:04:54 AM EST
    and has never held itself out as one. In fact, it's clearly stated in our "about" page.

    That said, BTD favors Obama while I support Hillary. Until Edwards dropped out, I supported both Hillary and Edwards.

    The commenters do not relect the views of TalkLeft, as is also clearly stated on the front page (lower right).

    The site's commenting policy has not changed since 2002.

    Parent

    you obviously don't know... (none / 0) (#170)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:12 PM EST
    ...much about the history of DailyKos.

    Back in '04 it was even MORE for Dean than it's currently for Obama.

    A lot of Deaniacs were and still are at that site.

    it's not surprising they hold favorable views of him because quite frankly, they always have.  

    It has nothing to do with whether Dean is helping one candidate over another. (and frankly I don't think he is).

    Parent

    National Primary (none / 0) (#148)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    This complicated primary process needs be tossed out. We need a national primary, winner take all for each state, and it needs to be early.
    I hope that is the good (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    that comes out of this mess.

    National primary.
    On a weekend, all weekend.
    Instant runoff voting - winner takes all.
    No delegates.

    Done.

    Parent

    I have a hard time believing (none / 0) (#155)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    these polls. If they are correct and the race in Penn. is close, then I was wrong and the wright issue does not matter to Dem. voters there. Unfortunatly it WILL matter in the general.

    I see (none / 0) (#166)
    by Fredster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    it's already been mentioned but he didn't say at what point they would be seated.  Like maybe after all the voting is done?

    can someone explain to me why... (none / 0) (#168)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    ...the candidates even have a say in this?  They have an incredible conflict of interest in the outcome of this situation.  This should be between the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party.
    subtle, but poignant... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Joe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    BTD,

    Dean said the DNC want to seat "a" delegation, whereas your statement was based on seating "the" delegation.

    I think Deans choice of words is relevant, meaning "a" delegation could be a compromise.

    I also think that the DNC needs to seat the delegates independent of any opinion of the candidates, they are not impartial, they have a vested interest in this, and  after all, the DNC got us into this mess, they should damn well take responsibility to move forward out of this mess.

     

    Dean: FL Delegates Will Be Seated | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment