The Buzz

Does the popular vote in Florida count for anything, we asked Sen. Barack Obama on the ride from Tampa to Orlando: "Look, I think it's fair to say that in all these races if I didnt campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee. That's true in Iowa, that's true in practically every state we've won. It's pretty hard to make an argument that somehow you winning what is essentially a name recognition contest in Florida was a good measure of electoral strength there. It"s even tougher to make that argument in Michigan where my name wasn't even on the ballot.

Obama also said splitting Florida's delegation in half based on the Jan. 29 result - which was the GOP penalty what many see as the most likely outcome of the DNC rules committee on 5/31 - would be "a very reasonable solution."

I would like to inform him after reading this:

He made no apologies for signing a pledge to boycott Florida: "Everybody signed that. It was voluntary in name only. Had we not agreed to that we would be in a position where on the one hand the DNC was telling you this won't count, on the other hand you've gone out of your way to offend the first two states where you know that it will count. I would hardly call that voluntary."

Not to mention other states like Arkansas or West Virginia, which could be pulled back into the "D" column by Clinton, but not by Obama (I don't think I'm going out on a limb by observing that).  Or, of course, the big swingers of Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Then, once again, it was obvious the Obama campaign is doing two things.  1  do not count the votes as is, in FL/MI and 2.  blame their loss on Hillary.

So glad they have that great vision to change America!

I feel like I'm in flashback to 1968 and have been the minute I heard they were doing that to MI/FL.

Clinton and Obama agreed that the unsanctioned primaries in MI and FL would not count; they agreed that they would not yield pledged or Super Delegates barring a DNC sanctioned revote or a settlement amicable to both sides arranged through the DNC.

Obama, simply by attaining the 15% threshold in the remaining contests and winning his share of the additional At-Large delegates yet to be assigned to him will soon arrive at a Pledged delegate total that will make a Pledged Delegate majority possible even with seating MI and FL on terms favorable to Clinton.

That is a position of negotiating strength. And these are negotiations. That is a significant reality.

How can Clinton claim to hold the moral high ground in those negotiations when:

a) She is going back on her own agreements?

b) She has decisively lost the Pledged Delegate Totals, and, for that matter, the Popular Vote in the states where all the candidates campaigned?

c) Finally, where is the talk of the preogative of the Super Delegates to make up their minds for the good of the party now that Senator Obama has decisively passed Senator Clinton in the Super Delegate total as well?

What is Senator Clinton's Super Delegate argument now?

Polls? (You've got to be kidding.)

Or...and this is very serious...that the popular vote in two unsanctioned primaries where no one campaigned and which she agreed would not count should overturn the clear and certain results in Pledged Delegates and the Popular Vote from the states that followed the rules and where all the candidates competed on an equal footing?

That's her argument?

It is no surprise that Super Delegates are not persuaded.

Senator Obama has always pledged that MI and FL would be seated. He is committed to the voters of MI and FL and to the voters everywhere else. He has not grandstanded on the issue. In fact, he has conducted himself in this dispute in EXACTLY the way that we hope a candidate would conduct his or her self in a General if this type of situation were to arise.

Obama has competed in an excellent and forthright manner on behalf of all his voters and his supporters.

That is what we expect a candidate to do.

Even if Obama plays nice now with Florida, his campaign may believe they've lost Florida in the GE already. Nobody is really going to be fooled by a sudden change of heart. So the only effect seating Florida has is to make Hillary's case stronger...she'll claim the popular vote anyway, but then she would also eat into his pledged delegate lead. They're not playing for advantage in the GE, they're still just trying to secure the nomination.

The state knew that it wanted to challenge both parties' rules. It demanded the respect of an Iowa or New Hampshire. Great. But, in doing so, it took a risk. It took a risk that the parties would actually hold Florida accountable for breaking their rules by not counting the votes.  

Hillary even said as much in October in New Hampshire. There is always a choice and a consequence. Florida should not have had a primary if it wanted to hold it in advance of the Feb. 5 deadline. It should have said, "we disapprove of the process." Instead, it held a primary in which the votes won't count.