The DNC: WWYD

[Venom'sDad]

The Democrat National Committe: What Would You Do

Serious consideration are being toss around concerning MI & FL Delegates, given the closeness in Pledge/Super Delegates. The DNC is trying to avoid a show-down on the Convention Floor in Denver, concerning whether or not MI & FL voters are being disenfranchised.

What are your feelings or opinions on a few scenarios:

1) What is your opinion of the possibility of a Caucus being held in MI & FL.

2) How would you feel if that happen?

3) Who do you think would benefit from a Caucus in MI & FL?

4) Is it fair to have a Caucus in MI & FL after those states officials fully understood, that if they choose to defy the DNC in moving up the Primary Date, their delegates would not be seated/counted?

5) What would be your solution?

[Malice]

My only feeling on this is that if Hillary needs some votes, she may pull out the lawyers and start a lawsuit...

This seriously could split the Democratic party.
I am not sure how this all will come down and how it will be dealt with.

Quite interesting though

[The Senator]

1) I support allowing caucuses in Florida and Michigan

2) I support it, so I would be quite happy

3) Hillary will benefit from a caucus in Florida, Obama will benefit from one in Michigan

4) It is fair for both states to hold caucuses. They were barred from holding either a primary or a caucus before February 5. Since they held primaries before that date, they were stripped of their delegates. However, if they hold caucuses between now and the convention, they won't be breaking the rules at all. That would allow Obama to actually campaign in Michigan, where his name wasn't even on the ballot.

5) I would allow both states to hold caucuses in mid-June if there is no clear nominee.

[souvlaki]

1) What is your opinion of the possibility of a Caucus being held in MI & FL.
I have no problem with it at all.

2) How would you feel if that happen?
No problem with it at all. If it's still an issue after March 5th, hold them.

3) Who do you think would benefit from a Caucus in MI & FL?
Obviously it depends on what happens in the next few weeks. Given that they would be caucuses, Obama.

4) Is it fair to have a Caucus in MI & FL after those states officials fully understood, that if they choose to defy the DNC in moving up the Primary Date, their delegates would not be seated/counted?
I personally have no problem with the delegates as is not being seated. If it becomes an issue though, I have no problem with a caucus being held. I personally think after March 5th it will be a moot point one way or another.

5) What would be your solution?
In my opinion they should wait it out through Pennsylvania. See where they are at that point. If Obama is still in the lead delegate wise, take Clinton aside, ask her politely to step aside. If she refuses, or threatens to sue to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates, offer to hold caucuses in both states within weeks of the Pennsylvania primary. If Clinton still doesn't want to accept this, so be it. She can look like a fool for turning down an option to hold caucuses. Obviously, if Clinton wins by a significant margin in the March 5th states, retakes the lead in delegates, etc., they should do the same with Obama, take him aside, and ask him to get out of the race. If they are smart they will pressure Clinton to make him a running mate, but something tells me it wont happen.

[Matt]

The Democrat National Committe: What Would You Do

Serious consideration are being toss around concerning MI & FL Delegates, given the closeness in Pledge/Super Delegates. The DNC is trying to avoid a show-down on the Convention Floor in Denver, concerning whether or not MI & FL voters are being disenfranchised.

What are your feelings or opinions on a few scenarios:

1) What is your opinion of the possibility of a Caucus being held in MI & FL.

2) How would you feel if that happen?

3) Who do you think would benefit from a Caucus in MI & FL?

4) Is it fair to have a Caucus in MI & FL after those states officials fully understood, that if they choose to defy the DNC in moving up the Primary Date, their delegates would not be seated/counted?

5) What would be your solution?


1) I don't believe they should hold ANOTHER caucus. There was already one. If you are going to do anything, let those votes stand. The candidates chose not to put their names on the ballot. It was their choice, they shouldn't have a redo because candidates thought the states were a waste of time.

2) I wouldn't care much either way.

3) Probably neither as Obama would win Michigan and Hillary would win Flordia, and when you factor in delegate sharing, they would just about cancel each other out.

4) Not really.

5) Let it stand as is.

[Excel]

You cant change the rules in the middle of the game, everybody knows that.

[The Senator]

1) I don't believe they should hold ANOTHER caucus. There was already one. If you are going to do anything, let those votes stand. The candidates chose not to put their names on the ballot. It was their choice, they shouldn't have a redo because candidates thought the states were a waste of time.


Both held primaries, not caucuses. They're two completely different things, though the objective is the same.

[Addendum]

Both states knew what would happen if they moved their primaries up. They did so anyway, and the DNC took away their delegates.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[hippie_hunter]

I feel that the Democrats should allow the Florida and Michigan delegates. What they did to those states was unfair and completely undemocratic. Plus it could help prevent another undemocratic thing from occuring: having the superdelegates decide.

[Addendum]

It was completely fair. Michigan and Florida wanted to move their primaries up. The DNC said "if you do, then you will be stripped of your delegates". Michigan and Florida went ahead and moved their primaries up and the DNC stripped both states of their delegates.

What part of that isn't fair?

[hippie_hunter]

It was completely fair. Michigan and Florida wanted to move their primaries up. The DNC said "if you do, then you will be stripped of your delegates". Michigan and Florida went ahead and moved their primaries up and the DNC stripped both states of their delegates.

What part of that isn't fair?

I feel that it's the states right to set up an election on the day that they want to. It shouldn't be the right of a party to do so. If they wanted to punish Florida and Michigan, they should have done it the way the Republicans did so by halfing their delegates, not taking them all away and taking away the voters voice in the convention.

[Addendum]

The Democratic party doesn't have to set it's rules like the ones the Republicans have, and vice versa. The parties have the right to set their rules. Florida and Michigan were made aware of the consequences if they moved their primaries up. So both states have to live with the results of their actions.

[Matt]

Agreed. Parties are for better or worse private entities. They could set whatever absurd rules they want for their primary and people would have to abide as long as it does not prevent people from voting (Which it did not. People could still vote on the Democratic ticket).

[Venom'sDad]

I have to agree completely with all of Addendum assessments... they knew the consequence, they chose to defy and proceeded anyway. The fact of the matter, all 50 states and commonwealths Delegations, for decades, agreed to allow the DNC & GOP to approve/disapprove primary dates. They all understood the traditions and the process, and agreed to the Parties Rules. Voters should have urge their officials not to defy the rules, if they wanted to maintain their voice. Instead the voters were apathetic.

This is why the American People should stay vigilant with the political process, in order to prevent being caught in the middle of a situation. Voters should have held their elected/unelected officials accountable and express their concern. It was not like local & national news networks and print media didn't discuss these issues on a regular basis, leading up to actually picking a date.... even there after. Voters were apathetic, now they want to cry foul.

I'm very disappointed. :(

[Rated-X]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?ei=5065&en=6866c9b35cbe72c6&ex=1203829200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1203288072-Zrn3yfCBYCKDneqOMXdJ6g

Former Vice President Al Gore (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Senators Christopher J. Dodd (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/christopher_j_dodd/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.
“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.

Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama’s strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.

Some of Mr. Gore’s allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton’s Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse “feels like the right thing” and that he remained optimistic the race “is going to tip at some point,” the friend said.

Another close ally of Mr. Gore’s, however, said: “He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.”

Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he “has no present plans to endorse a candidate,” though she added, “He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention.” Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore’s private conversations with party leaders.

But four close associates of Mr. Gore’s said senior party officials had actively consulted him for his advice about what the superdelegates should do if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton amassed the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7.

Party leaders described Mr. Gore as a potentially crucial mediator because the putative head of the party — and the man who chose him as his vice president — Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), is hardly a neutral observer when it comes to his wife’s candidacy.

“Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker,” said a close associate of Mr. Gore’s, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “He’s probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this.”

Several allies said that because of Mr. Gore’s bruising defeat in 2000 presidential voting in Florida, he would have the credibility with Democrats to carry the message that the will of the people should be respected.

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/john_lewis/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.

The Clinton camp has Mr. Clinton making frequent calls, and Mr. Obama’s surrogates are pushing for superdelegates from states where he won primaries or caucuses to pledge their support to him.

But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.

“If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” Mr. Clyburn said. “So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.”
But the role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama’s campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters’ will.

Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.

At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.

A senior associate of Mr. Gore’s said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president’s endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor.

[The Senator]

I have to agree completely with all of Addendum assessments... they knew the consequence, they chose to defy and proceeded anyway. The fact of the matter, all 50 states and commonwealths Delegations, for decades, agreed to allow the DNC & GOP to approve/disapprove primary dates. They all understood the traditions and the process, and agreed to the Parties Rules. Voters should have urge their officials not to defy the rules, if they wanted to maintain their voice. Instead the voters were apathetic.

This is why the American People should stay vigilant with the political process, in order to prevent being caught in the middle of a situation. Voters should have held their elected/unelected officials accountable and express their concern. It was not like local & national news networks and print media didn't discuss these issues on a regular basis, leading up to actually picking a date.... even there after. Voters were apathetic, now they want to cry foul.

I'm very disappointed. :(

But if Obama won both contests, you'd want those votes counted, wouldn't you?

[Addendum]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.

[The Senator]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.

But, if Obama won both states, I can guarantee that VD would throw a huge fit about how the Clinton Machine wants to deny MI and FL their say, because they knew Obama would come out on top months in advance. He and many other supporters would complain that this system is undemocratic, and would demand that their delegates would be seated. He'd say the DNC is still controlled by the Clinton Machine, and that Dean wants to escape their clutches but they just can't.

For the record, I don't want the delegates seated... but I do have to wonder where everyone would stand if the tables were turned.

[Matt]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.


Agreed. It should have nothing to do with who won what. Michigan and Florida knew the consequences but they called the bluff anyway and they lost. If I am playing poker, and my opponent tells me "I have a royal flush" and I go all in, thinking its a bluff, but he actually had royal flush, should I say "Oh, I thought you were bluffing, can I have my money back, please?"

[Matt]

But, if Obama won both states, I can guarantee that VD would throw a huge fit about how the Clinton Machine wants to deny MI and FL their say, because they knew Obama would come out on top months in advance. He and many other supporters would complain that this system is undemocratic, and would demand that their delegates would be seated.

Thats true.

[Matt]

Just for the record though, I doubt the extra delegates would make that much of a difference.

Florida has 210 delegates, if I'm not mistaken. Michigan, 151. Hillary would take Florida. Obama would take Michigan. When you factor in delegate splitting, they would probably cancel one another out, with Hillary getting a slight edge, albeit, not enough of one to make a REAL difference. If the goal of this is to find a clear cut winner...this will simply add to the confusion.

[rdh007]

I thought it was cheap and petty of Clinton to keep her name on the Michigan ballot when everyone else (except Dodd who never stood a chance--which also sucks) had gotten theirs off. It seems like it's sort of a trump card she's got in case they decide to seat those delegates. :down

[Venom'sDad]

^ Exactly :up:

[Matt]

So she was the only one smart enough to keep it on there, can't really hold it against her. Hell, every candidate should've kept their names on the ballots to protest what the DNC was doing and show that they wouldn't just ignore these people. I'm sure Clinton's intentions weren't so noble...but still.

[The Senator]

Didn't Obama keep his name on the Florida ballot? So he's not exactly the purveyor of noble intentions...

[Venom'sDad]

Here is a transcript from Tim Russert's "Meet the Press", that I think everyone should read. Plus, this transript gives an example or a little insight into which of the three major candidates remaining, appear to have better Fiscal & Executive experience, given all three are Senators.



MR. RUSSERT: Besides superdelegates, another important issue is Florida and Michigan, and this is what happened. Back in August of '07, Howard Dean wrote this letter to all the candidates:

"As leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 delegate selection rules. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. ... The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire," "South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, '08. The [Rules and Bylaws Committee's] finding of noncompliance included a 100 percent loss of pledged and unpledged delegates."

If you tried to move your primary up, you've lost all your delegates. Florida and Michigan did it, they lost all their delegates. The Clinton campaign put out this statement:

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


That was the Clinton campaign in September. Here's the Clinton campaign in February.

"With regard to Michigan and Florida, our position is clear. We're going to ask our delegates to vote to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. We do not think that" "many Americans should have" had "their votes and their voices and their preferences denied."

"We had an enormous turnout, particular in Florida, the largest turnout in the history of the Democratic primary in Florida. And we believe that it is critically important that those delegates have an opportunity to express their preferences at the convention."

"I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks we're going to have a national convention in which the delegations of Florida and Michigan are not going to have a say. So that is our position."

Now it's obvious, this could equate to fraud if billary succeed in getting the rules overturn. She made a PLEDGE when the feeling was she was inevitable. It was good for then, why isn't it good for her now. I can not support a person who lacks Integrity. I said it before, I say it again... she will spilt, divide, destroy the party and cast citizens, members, and the will of the people, to reach and grasp her ambitions. Pledges means nothing to her.... so keep in mind when she's pledging to pull the troops out, to fix healthcare, LISTEN to you the American people, that she's the hallmark of real change, to reform lobbiest, fix the education system and "no-child left behind", Bill won't have any scandles while she's Prez, address environmental issues, fix immigration and DL for illegals, reducing budget, etc, etc, etc.... remember this, Pledges from her is just a 7 letter campaign slogan.

Now, from the "Capital Gang" members, a little insight on who is possibly best prepared on Day 1 dealing with the greater task Strategics & Fiscal challenges. Just a little insight mind you, into the three remaining candidates psyche, judgement, foresight, management, planning, and strategic intellect.... qualities of a good effective Leader. Not taking away from anybody; but, a small example.



MR. RUSSERT: Joe Klein made this observation, Albert Hunt. Let me see what you think of it.

Joe Klein writes, "If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining - Obama, Clinton and John McCain - and Obama has proven himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility."

MR. HUNT: Oh, I think that's absolutely dead on, Tim. I mean, there's a wonderful piece by Josh Green in The Atlantic that talks about the total disarray of the Clinton campaign. The biggest enterprise that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama have ever run in their entire lives are these campaigns. And you--one just looks at the result. Whoever wins, and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion, David Axelrod and company at that Obama campaign have run circles around the Clinton campaign.

They(Clinton campaign) weren't prepared for a protracted battle, they weren't, weren't prepared for a money fight, they weren't prepared for caucuses, they weren't prepared for a tough alternative. And what happened, Tim, every smart politician, every smart political strategist comes in with a game plan. But the really good ones are able to adjust. They're able to throw out some stuff, tweak some stuff, the Stu Spencers, the James Carvilles. These people couldn't adjust.

MS. CARLSON: she's campaigned on experience, and neither one of them have much experience, and senators never do.

MR. HUNT: Wait, wait, wait, Kate. Let me just say, the reason I think that Josh Green piece, which I alluded to, to a minute ago is so important because what it--the point it makes is not just there's disarray, not just a campaign in trouble always has backbiting, but the, the decisions that were made of who to put where and why Senator Clinton chose various people.

Why she picked people for loyalty rather than for competence. And I think that's a far more important question, at least, than, than anecdotes about a losing campaign.

This illustrate a reflection of the candidates themselves, the psyche and judgement in decision making..."had I known what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for the war in Irag".... the ability to manage and adjust to situations on the fly.... the foresight to see problems or situations brewing ahead... her & McCain could not see that their campaigns was going broke, until they went broke.... poor planning, judgement, and assumption, now billary is trying to open offices in Ohio & Texas, one cannot assume circumstances won't occur.... finally, no strategic intelligence what so ever, she does not no how to deal with little ole, inexperience, nieve, Barack Obama; talking about having no exit plan to get the troops out of Iraq.... Thank GOD she's not running the country.

This is what we got to look for. This is a reflection of the type of leader, lack of ability and tact, and polarizing she will be. The lady has the Clinton name... her competence speaks louder than her words or perception.

Here is the link if you want to read the whole Transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23209237/).

[redfirebird2008]

Yep, if the campaign is a referendum on each candidate's ability to build an organization and lead people in that organization, I think it's pretty obvious that Barack Obama has kicked the everloving crap out of everyone in this campaign, even if he loses to Hillary. Never forget how powerful the Clintons are in American politics and how remarkable it is that Barack was in the TEENS in nationwide polls as recently as November 2007. The fact that anyone was even able to overcome the sense of inevitability that existed before Iowa to turn this into such a good race is proof of how much he has out-strategized and flat out beat her in this campaign.

[R0rschach]

You cant change the rules in the middle of the game, everybody knows that.

I concur.

[The Senator]

Again, if Obama won the Florida primary, he would actively fight to have those delegates seated, especially if those delegates meant the difference between winning and losing the primary. All of his supporters would be on board with him, too, because they want him to win. So, I don't see why Hillary is automatically evil because she wants to win the nomination. Yeah, she made a pledge, but if the DNC wanted Florida's votes to remain irrelevant, then they should have made it against the rules for either candidate to campaign there.

But since VD turned this thread into the Great Moral Crusade between Clinton and Obama, I feel I ought to add my two cents:

There seems to be a whole lot of discrepancies between what Obama says and what Obama does. If you want to talk about pledges candidates have broken this election cycle, Barack Obama broke the unofficial pledge he made at one of the first debates to not campaign negatively against the other Democratic candidates. Obama is also in the process of breaking a pledge he made with Sen. McCain to accept public financing, and he's receiving widespread scrutiny for it. Next, Obama pledged not to campaign in Florida, but he made several stops there prior to the beginning of the primary season, and also remained on the ballot. Finally, He says he hasn't taken a single dime of lobbyist money, which may be true depending how much less than a dime means to a politician of his stature. Regardless of that, his campaign is chaired by lobbyists across the country, so for him to say that he isn't influenced by lobbyists in the least bit is a bunch of phooey. The influence is still there, even though the money isn't.

So, to hold Obama as the epitome of moral integrity doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Marx]

Florida mail-in primary plan "gaining traction"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

[\S/JcDc\S/]

The only way imo to have any votes count is to redo it. As for the mail in primary for Florida, CNN is covering that to death... and I think it's either 1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

Obviously Hillary doesn't deserve to have votes handed over to her where Obama didn't even participate. The Clinton camp wants those votes badly thinking it will get her closer, imo she won't be nearly as far ahead with a redo and I welcome it so hopefully the party will feel all votes were counted and he won.

[Marx]

The only way imo to have any votes count is to redo it. As for the mail in primary for Florida, CNN is covering that to death... and I think it's either 1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

Obviously Hillary doesn't deserve to have votes handed over to her where Obama didn't even participate. The Clinton camp wants those votes badly thinking it will get her closer, imo she won't be nearly as far ahead with a redo and I welcome it so hopefully the party will feel all votes were counted and he won.

Regardless of who comes out ahead, in a contest this close, all of the states need to weigh in.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I agree with that. It's making the party look idiotic after the Bush/Gore situation that disenfranchised voters. Now we are throwing away votes. It is true they may not affect the outcome and cost more, but the votes still should be in for the sake of the party imo.

[Addendum]

But the Democratic party, as well as the Republican party (I'm aware that there are other political parties in the US, but they honestly don't make a dent) has the right to set up the rules for the primaries and caucuses. The states follow the rules. The candidates agreed to the rules in place last year, before the first debate started.

I have no sympathy for Michigan and Florida. They knew exactly what the consequences were if they moved up the date of their primaries and/or caucuses. It's not like the rules and consequences for breaking them were locked in a filing cabinet in a broom closet in the basement of an abandoned building in Washington DC that just happened to burn down a few months ago.

[Marx]

But the Democratic party, as well as the Republican party (I'm aware that there are other political parties in the US, but they honestly don't make a dent) has the right to set up the rules for the primaries and caucuses. The states follow the rules. The candidates agreed to the rules in place last year, before the first debate started.

I have no sympathy for Michigan and Florida. They knew exactly what the consequences were if they moved up the date of their primaries and/or caucuses. It's not like the rules and consequences for breaking them were locked in a filing cabinet in a broom closet in the basement of an abandoned building in Washington DC that just happened to burn down a few months ago.

The party's leaders broke the rules Addendum, not the voters. I understand where you're coming from, but it isn't right or fair to silence the voices of the actual voters in those states.

[Addendum]

The voters in Michigan and Florida have no one to blame but the party leaders in their states, not the DNC.

The states were the one that "silenced the voices". The DNC simply enforced their rules

[rdh007]

^I agree.

[Rated-X]

Florida mail-in primary plan "gaining traction"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble
This will get even more worse very quickly. Mail Fraud is written all over this idea. Blocks of people or certain areas either not receiving ballots or ballots appear missing, incorrectly filled out, not re-submitted in a timely fashion, ballots kickout for various reasons. I can see fraud is written all over this. And we are talking about Florida too.



1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

I say #2

[Rated-X]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Revote_picture_clouds.html

[Marx]

This will get even more worse very quickly. Mail Fraud is written all over this idea. Blocks of people or certain areas either not receiving ballots or ballots appear missing, incorrectly filled out, not re-submitted in a timely fashion, ballots kickout for various reasons. I can see fraud is written all over this. And we are talking about Florida too.





I say #2

My co-workers and I were talking about the exact same thing. I just don't see how you can stop the kind of fraud that this idea could potentially have to deal with.

[Marx]

Florida Democrats reject "mail-in" primary plan

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/13/floridas-dems-reject-mail-in-primary-plan/

[Marx]

Michigan Democrats closer to primary resolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

[redfirebird2008]

Good to see Michigan is moving forward. Looks like Florida is kind of stuck in gridlock on this at the moment. Hopefully they can come up with something.

[Marx]

Good to see Michigan is moving forward. Looks like Florida is kind of stuck in gridlock on this at the moment. Hopefully they can come up with something.

While they may be gridlocked now, I have confidence in the states to get this worked out. If they truly want their voters to matter, they will come to some kind of a compromise.

[Marx]

So Florida is now refusing a "do-over" and Michigan may be following suit. This is going to be quite interesting.

[Venom'sDad]

So Florida is now refusing a "do-over" and Michigan may be following suit. This is going to be quite interesting.

I am completely shock that both states are now not considering a re-vote. Understand, I think it would be unfair to change the rules after the fact; so yes, I'm glad to see the idea of a re-vote falling apart; but I was sure the DNC would bow under pressure; being view as controlling and disenfranchising votes.

It's not a done deal as of yet; but I am shocked neitherless. :eek:

[Marx]

I am completely shock that both states are now not considering a re-vote. Understand, I think it would be unfair to change the rules after the fact; so yes, I'm glad to see the idea of a re-vote falling apart; but I was sure the DNC would bow under pressure; being view as controlling and disenfranchising votes.

It's not a done deal as of yet; but I am shocked neitherless. :eek:

I still think the DNC will cave at the convention. They do not want to risk disenfranchising that many voters in a general election.

[Addendum]

The thing about Florida is that they'd first have to change state law to allow mail-in votes. It's illegal in the state of Florida

[Marx]

Again, if Obama won the Florida primary, he would actively fight to have those delegates seated, especially if those delegates meant the difference between winning and losing the primary. All of his supporters would be on board with him, too, because they want him to win. So, I don't see why Hillary is automatically evil because she wants to win the nomination. Yeah, she made a pledge, but if the DNC wanted Florida's votes to remain irrelevant, then they should have made it against the rules for either candidate to campaign there.

But since VD turned this thread into the Great Moral Crusade between Clinton and Obama, I feel I ought to add my two cents:

There seems to be a whole lot of discrepancies between what Obama says and what Obama does. If you want to talk about pledges candidates have broken this election cycle, Barack Obama broke the unofficial pledge he made at one of the first debates to not campaign negatively against the other Democratic candidates. Obama is also in the process of breaking a pledge he made with Sen. McCain to accept public financing, and he's receiving widespread scrutiny for it. Next, Obama pledged not to campaign in Florida, but he made several stops there prior to the beginning of the primary season, and also remained on the ballot. Finally, He says he hasn't taken a single dime of lobbyist money, which may be true depending how much less than a dime means to a politician of his stature. Regardless of that, his campaign is chaired by lobbyists across the country, so for him to say that he isn't influenced by lobbyists in the least bit is a bunch of phooey. The influence is still there, even though the money isn't.

So, to hold Obama as the epitome of moral integrity doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I completely agree.

[Marx]

Dean weighs in on Democratic race; tells campaigns to "cool" rhetoric; convinced Michigan and Florida will be seated at convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/dean.democrats/index.html