Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Winning the War on Drugs | O-Drama »

Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Florida and Michigan Solution

posted by on May 31 at 16:40 PM

Full delegations seated with half votes for each delegate. Harold Ickes is not pleased and reserves Clinton’s right to take this to the ceredentials committee. Protesters scream of betrayal and shout: “Denver! Denver!

RSS icon Comments

1

Nice to see that the McCain campaign is out in full force at the RBC...

Posted by demo kid | May 31, 2008 4:47 PM
2

Ickes has lost every ounce of respect that I once had for him.

This is a disaster. It was staged to mollify the Clinton campaign and her supporters. But, they will not be mollified. They came to this committee meeting feigning an interest in reaching a solution. But, the only solution they'll settle for is full-seating. They'll now take this result and harangue the world from here through the Convention about how unfair it is.

All the while, it's a crock of shit. Florida and Michigan should not be seated, period. The votes taken in those states are irredeemably tainted.

Opening this up for discussion in the hopes of uniting the party was foolish and will have the opposite affect.

...finally, this circus is being orchestrated by the Clinton campaign, and they have lost every last bit of respect I had as well.

Posted by Timothy | May 31, 2008 4:51 PM
3

It is truly a disgusting spectacle.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | May 31, 2008 5:05 PM
4

What? Sinking Florida beneath the waves is off the table?!?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 31, 2008 5:12 PM
5

The thing is, it makes the Democrats look like they can't run anything. Holding a primary isn't really all that complicated, yet they fucked it up, twice, and then ignored it until now. There is no good answer to the problem; yes, voters in Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised, and yes, the votes that were held are worthless. Nothing changes, but everybody gets pissed off -- and it is possibly going to cost Obama those two states, which should be his in a walk.

The behavior of Ickes and the Clinton campaign has gone well beyond the bounds of decency, that's for sure. It's shocking to hear Democrats attacking their own nominee. Frankly the Clintonistas are more damaging than McCain's campaign is at this point.

Man, I can't believe I spend my Saturday watching the DNC Rules Committee. If I end up watching Credentials at the convention, shoot me.

Posted by Fnarf | May 31, 2008 5:17 PM
6

I'm quite thankful that Obama encouraged his supporters not to come out. The screeching Clintonian hordes did all the talking.

Anyways, that was pretty much the result everyone should've expected - giving MI and FL some semblance of a voice without telling every state that all party rules are breakable.

Posted by tsm | May 31, 2008 5:21 PM
7

It does make an interesting contrast to Clinton's contention that Obama did better in caucus states because of his rabid, activist base. According to the NYT, a Clinton supporter shoved an Obama supporter after the ruling, and others chanted 'McCain in '08'.

Given who McCain will put into the Supreme Court, I hope none of these people's kids or grandkids are gay, need abortions, get drafted, or want to become evolutionary scientists in the next 40 years.

Posted by Ziggity | May 31, 2008 5:32 PM
8

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Why would FL be Obama's in a walk? He's down by 10% and only Clinton (Bill) has had a win there in the last 20 years - Gore tied.

HRC is ahead there by 7% - so it's not just anti Dem thing.

Posted by McG | May 31, 2008 5:33 PM
9

A point that I feel is too-often forgotten in this debate is that Florida and Michigan voters effectively disenfranchised themselves via their own elected representatives. They have no right to be pissed at the DNC.

Meanwhile, here's hoping that the uncommitted delegates and superdelegates break for Obama to at least give this debacle some semblance of fairness.

Posted by Aislinn | May 31, 2008 5:57 PM
10

How exactly did the Dems in FL control the Republican legislature and governor? Since at the time most everyone thought that the vote earlier would be of more weight, it would have very hard for the FL Dems to say they wouldn't stand up for making their primary more relevant when the Repubos were. How would they have held a primary later?

If we finally get rid of the Iowa/NH hegemony because of FL and MI, we owe them great deal of gratitude.

Posted by McG | May 31, 2008 6:09 PM
11

Even if the full delegations were seated-- which as we all know would be completely unfair since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan-- Hillary couldn't overtake Obama on delegates. She only wants them to count now so that she can claim a popular vote win. Is this really what Clinton plans to do? Does this mean there's going to be protests at the convention because Hillary's supporters feel their candidate's technicality argument to superdelegates wasn't properly handled? If Clinton doesn't drop out in June and throw her full weight behind Obama, I can only conclude that she's letting this go on to either a) bully her way onto the ticket, or b) ruin Obama's chances and run again in 2012. What other conclusion could you come to? Hillary supporters?

Posted by Mr Me | May 31, 2008 6:16 PM
12

@11 - at this point, at the convention i expect hillary to split in half as a giant demon* crawls out of her lifeless corpse and proceeds to devour the entire DNC.

*an _androgynous_ demon, so take that fingers off the "sexist!" macro

Posted by skye | May 31, 2008 6:20 PM
13

McG- You can put up all the tainted and flawed numbers concerning the electoral map that you want, it still doesn't change FACTS. Obama is the nominee. Deal with it and start supporting our candidate. Play by the fucking rules or don't play at all. Clinton should consider herself lucky to get any delegates from those tainted elections. Clinton is scum and should be booted from the party.

Posted by ss | May 31, 2008 6:23 PM
14

@10, pinning this on the GOP is bullshit. The FL Democrats voted largely in favor of the change as well:

On Jan. 23, 2007 Rep. David Rivera (R-Miami) filed HB 537, a bill to move the presidential primary to the first Tuesday in February or the first Tuesday immediately following the New Hampshire presidential preference primary, whichever occurs first. ... The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 37-2 on April 27 and the House put up a vote of 118-0 on May 3.

The state party also rejected other alternatives as a last resort, like running a caucus.

Posted by tsm | May 31, 2008 6:23 PM
15

I fucking hate Hillary Clinton and what she's doing to the democratic party in the name of preserving her ego.

Posted by Justin | May 31, 2008 6:32 PM
16

#9 was me.

Posted by w7ngman | May 31, 2008 6:53 PM
17

I became disgusted with the Clintons months ago and I voted for her back in January (though my vote didn't count because I was bed ridden in the hospital).

I thought Hillary has been acting like a jackass these past weeks, but her supporters took the cake. (and they say Obama supporters are in a cult). I can't wait for Countdown with Keith Obermann and here his take on the spectacle.

Posted by elswinger | May 31, 2008 7:10 PM
18

Given that HRC initially agreed with the DNC's decision, I would guess any challenge on her behalf would be dismissed out of hand.

This could be a good thing. Bill and his legacy is poisonous. He's as guilty as Bush of killing Iraqi children. He's the one who first started talking about regime change. It would be a nice clean break if the entire Clinton clan were bannished from the party. This is a great year to take that chance too given the overwhelming shift of opinonion against the GOP. Plus McCain looks like death. Only really old pale people will vote for him.

Posted by kinaidos | May 31, 2008 7:17 PM
19

What horrible result is being wrought on the Democratic Party by this primary competition? It's a primary people. It goes till it's over. It's over when only one candidate is left, for whatever reason.

Truth is that this primary has energized the party, involved thousands of passionate new voices and all of our states in the process, and given all of us an opportunity to get to know the candidates and make informed choices. If Obama is your candidate and you're worried about all the shit you think has been slung at him - it's was going to happen anyway. Be glad it happened early enough for him to learn from it and ready for it times two when the R's come after him.

Horrible. Just Horrible.

Posted by watcher | May 31, 2008 7:18 PM
20

Any Clinton supporter who can't see this was a more than fair compromise to her side is a pathetic fool or an opportunistic liar. And such folks can go to hell and take their votes with them.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | May 31, 2008 7:23 PM
21

Re #9, apparently they are ignoring the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan and splitting delegates 69-59 for Clinton-Obama?

Say what?

Posted by w7ngman | May 31, 2008 7:44 PM
22

Oh, these terrible post-menopausal women and their mood swings! The good news is that they probably won't protest that much in Denver because their feet will hurt.

Posted by The loss of Estrogen is tragic | May 31, 2008 7:45 PM
23
How would they have held a primary later?
The same way other states with separate primaries did it?
Posted by Fnarf | May 31, 2008 8:32 PM
24

CLINTON UNHAPPY? I'M SHOCKED!

Posted by The Baron | May 31, 2008 8:33 PM
25

This is why I'm an Obama supporter that wouldn't be caught dead registering with the Democratic Party.

The Democrats: Finding new and exciting ways to lose every election!

Posted by Steve | May 31, 2008 8:38 PM
26
Posted by tsm | May 31, 2008 8:38 PM
27

#23, I think the point was that the Florida primary still would have been moved up due to a Republican legislative majority and a Republican governor, even if the Democratic legislators had voted against the measure, except, you know, they didn't.

Posted by w7ngman | May 31, 2008 8:43 PM
28

I almost wish we went back to the smoke filled rooms of pre-1968, I mean it gave us FDR and Truman; not really all that bad. But it also gave us Buchanan so, you know.

I agree that the spectacle was VERY much like the Brooks Brothers protests during the Florida debacle in 2000. VERY VERY similar......

Expect several TV spots to come out around the time of the convention claiming that Hillary was robbed of the nomination etc.: Ads that will seem too well produced to be a grass-roots effort. But not totally out of the preview of a national political party...... The GOP is going to exploit this EVERYWAY they can.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | May 31, 2008 8:52 PM
29

I was angry about not having my vote count back last October. I eventually accepted the decision, and stayed home on the day of the primary.

I've been watching this debate for months now, and have not once seen Hillary or a Hillary supporter give even a cursory acknowledgment to the fact that she was not interested in Florida voters until it was suddenly advantageous to do so, let alone a convincing rationale for it. I have also not heard one word about why my opinion does not matter at all to them, seeing as how I made my decision not to vote, trusting the party to keep its word.

McG, you appear to be the only Clinton supporter left here. Do you have an answer for me?

Posted by Chris in Tampa | May 31, 2008 9:51 PM
30

Oh, I take that back. Big Sven did actually acknowledge that my opinion would not count when the delegates were seated, but neither of us could think of a successful alternative.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | May 31, 2008 9:54 PM
31

The remaining superdelegates will go to Obama as soon as the last primaries are over on Tuesday. Then maybe we can put all this behind us and unite against Grandpa McCain in time to win in November.

Hillary's only chance to save herself from going down as the sorest loser in history is to campaign for Obama as hard as she can in Ohio, PA etc among the rural and blue collar people who voted for her in the primaries. The Democrats (truthfully) haven't done a whole lot for this population in the last 40 years other than write them off as uneducated hicks, but the Republicans haven't done much for them either. Hillary has at the very least brought them back into the party that should have had them all along. In return, President Obama could reward her by putting her in charge of reforming health care. Since this is an issue Hillary genuinely cares about and has knowledge of she would undoubtedly do an excellent job.

My only fear is that her diehard supporters will storm the convention in Denver this summer wielding torches and pitchforks...

Posted by RainMan | May 31, 2008 11:24 PM
32

The voters of the two states did not choose the days in which the primaries woulld be held..Failed leaders did..the voters did their duty and voted...but greater numbers than ever before..1 person 1 vote..the dnc should except the current votes as they are or stop crying about the costs and show they really care about every vote and hold new primaries no matter the cost $$$$...they can afford it..the two candidates can have time to give their messages..this is america..anything is possible..3 wks to speak..vote june 30th..if not a failed rpc&dnc will both give rise to the libertarian party. people will be sick of failed rep amd dem. there will truly be a change oterwise. the dnc does not supersede the rights given to the people by the constitution.

Posted by real americans | May 31, 2008 11:48 PM
33

The constitution does not guarantee a right to vote in a primary any more than it guarantees one's right to vote for their prom king and queen.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | May 31, 2008 11:57 PM
34

I'm glad this issue is fucking settled. And settled in a way that both (a) lets Clinton withdraw next week on a "high note" and (b) gives Obama a better chance of winning those two states in November than if they had been locked out of the convention.

Chris in Tampa, your *next* vote is sure going to matter!

Posted by Big Sven | June 1, 2008 12:19 AM
35

#33 if you don't want to take this seriously and act like it is really important..than no one will care what you have to say..this is about principals..these votes lead to the final election by which we all have a right to vote in..and the principal fact here are that the voter did not pick those days to vote in a primary in fl. or mich... they went when they were told.. or maybe they didn't because they knew it wouldn't count by dnc rules.. it doesn't matter..the dnc can spend the $$$$ to have a new primary in both states with time to spare before the convention..

Posted by real americans | June 1, 2008 12:26 AM
36

How ironic. Florida Democratic legislators, confronted with the choice between vetoing a bill calling for a paper trail on electronic voting to which Republicans added a provision moving up the primary, which veto the Republican governor promised to overturn with the help of the Republican legislature; or vote for paper ballots and trust the Democratic national party would understand and, in accordance with the exception provided for in DNC rules, withhold any punishment. These starry-eyed Florida legislators failed to foresee the zealous advocacy these otherwise law-abiding attorneys on the Rules and By-laws Committee would demonstrate to make Senator Obama their candidate, so enamored of him that they would disenfranchise Florida voters. As for Michigan... Who could imagine these movers and shakers of democracy would allocate the votes of our citizens from "Uncommitted" to any candidate or, adding insult to injury, argue that exit polls provide a sufficiently accurate picture from which to determine how many votes should be taken away from Senator Clinton and given to him? Sad. Just sad.

Posted by jbjd | June 1, 2008 3:24 AM
37

Its a lot like the Democratic convention of 1860. A minority (representatives from slave holding states) insisted on the inclusion of a "federal slave code" in the party plank. When they couldn't get it they walked out. They found their own candidtate and split the party. In the fall the Republican Candidate- Licoln, won easily.

It looks like history may repeat itself- the Democratic party will be split over how fairly to treat a black person.

Posted by mikeblanco | June 1, 2008 7:29 AM
38
Who could imagine these movers and shakers of democracy would allocate the votes of our citizens from "Uncommitted" to any candidate or, adding insult to injury, argue that exit polls provide a sufficiently accurate picture from which to determine how many votes should be taken away from Senator Clinton and given to him?

Who could imagine that Clinton partisans would actually try to argue that the Michigan primary results were a remotely accurate and honest portrayal of the will of the Michigan people?

Oh, yeah - anyone could imagine them trying to argue something so ridiculous.

Posted by tsm | June 1, 2008 9:47 AM
39

SO Obama is only 48ish away from victory now? what changed?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 2, 2008 8:52 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.