Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Facts, Fairness and Fraud - History of a Scam
For about a month now, I have been researching the genesis and history of the current debacle involving Florida and Michigan. I did so out of a desire to know the true facts and how much coming out of the media and both camps was actually spin, or to what extent was the media playing for their own self interest.
This post is a concise history of the events that led to our current train wreck and includes links to all the sources so you can easily verify the information.
Before I get to the full history, I would like to make one point - the United States of America, and all political sub-components within it are DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS. This means in simple language, that we vote for representatives at various levels of government to represent our individual interests collectively. The representatives then vote on the myriad issues that must be settled so that 'effective' government can be managed.
How did the rules get to be as they are?
In 2004, Terry McCauliffe, by order of the 2004 National Convention, nominated 40 leading Democrats from around the country to form the 'Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling', in pdf form, here is a link to the roster of members, notice that Nine of the names there belong to current Clinton superdelegates. Additionally, Rep. Dingell and Senator Levin of Michigan sat on the commission.
March 12, 2005: The commission meets for the first of five times, the last meeting occurring on December 10, 2005. There are links to the details of each meeting on the Commission's page that is linked above. Note that the commission interviewed and took input from dozens of other Democrats. A report was then published to significant members of the party and made available to the public in pdf form found here.
Note that at this point, the Party has already exhausted a good sum of money to set the rules.
Just before the Commission began its work, Howard Dean was ELECTED Party Chairman.
In the summer of 2006 nearly 450 Democrats from across the country voted unanimously to accept the rules as defined by the Commission and allowed for further amendment, with the final rules ratified in February of 2007.
In March of 2007 the Florida House voted 118-0 to move their date in violation of the rules. In this article, there is no denying the democrats of the state are boastful and defiant in their statements. You'll notice in the article referenced in the last paragraph, that they were even warned by the former leader of the Florida Democratic Party that they were delusional to think the DNC would budge on its rules. The Florida Senate affirmed the House by voting 37-2 in favor of spitting in the DNC's eye.
So you see - the Republicans did not shove the thing down their throats, they invited the trouble. It's curious that a state with more registered Dem.s than Republicans doesn't manage to get more of their own elected. Dysfunctional family?
So, five days after the DNC ruled against Florida, on August 30, 2007, the Michigan House voted 57-34 to move their date, followed shortly thereafter by a vote in their Senate that went 34-0, see same link as the house.
So then in September, Hillary, Obama and some of the others sign a pledge to honor the rules. In October she re-affirms her intent to honor the pledge when responding to a New Hampshire Public Radio caller.
On January 26th, Howard Wolfson issues a memo stating that regardless of the S. Carolina outcome, 'the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats'
And thus the flames were fanned.
Gotta ask yourself, how do you allow renegade states and candidates over rule the will of the greater body after rules were thoroughly vetted and ratified at great cost and over such a prolonged period of time? How do you do that and still say you have a spine?
I encourage all who stand for principle to write their Newspapers and the DNC and state the obvious - rules are rules. Call Hellary out for what she is - treacherous and cold and calculating.
Comments (61)
Thank you for this. It's good to have a simple, concise, and sourced record of how the mess got started.
March 20, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the remarks, I was hoping it might help people who want to know for sure, and to give some sources for their own debates elsewhere.
I do have the links spelled out in
this post along with some commentary.
March 20, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two small corrections:
1.) The Michigan House vote was 67-34 not 57-34
2.) this is a repair for the link to the closing comments noted above
March 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for ignoring New Hampshire's roll and cherry picking the details that fit your spin.
Here's a few more details you omit:
A Caucus Race
Main pertinent parts:
New Hampshire didn't just move its contest up, it leapfrogged from the 3rd to the 2nd contest (after Iowa, skipping ahead of Nevada) in violation of an earlier 2004 DNC agreement.
Michigan actually didn't move its contest until after Florida, then South Carolina, then New Hampshire had moved theirs.
Primary Hopscotch
As an op-ed piece by Sen. Levin states today, Michigan broke the rules after New Hampshire broke the agreement where it would be the 3rd contest. Instead, New Hampshire hopped to 2nd again and wasn't punished.
Levin Op-ed on Michigan
And as a bonus, proof that the problem with underrepresentation in caucuses was well understood last summer, not just a new thing post-Iowa, with Hillary on one side, Edwards on the other.
Michigan Primary Moves
March 20, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all understand the difference between New Hampshire moving its primary date earlier and getting approval and Michigan trying the same and failing.
The party strongly desires some smaller states to precede larger states in order to grow the best candidate. Jimmy Carters, Bill Clintons, and other come-from-nowhere candidates cannot raise the money to compete in big states until they are known and can't be known unless they can do well in early elections.
Look at the Democrats who have been elected on their own in the last 50 years: Clinton, Carter, Kennedy -- none of them were establishment candidates. They had to be grown.
I think we all understand why there are so many caucuses. Primaries are expensive and usually cannot be run without formal state approval and financing. Voting machines, all-day polling places, and the such cost big bucks. Caucuses are cheaper. Caucuses also help to grow unknown candidates because more knowledgeable and more committed voters show up for caucuses -- exactly the voters who would tend to learn about unknown candidates.
Forgetting about individual candidates we might favor and looking at the Democratic party primary system, I think the current system, with its blemishes, best serves the party as a whole. One blemish I would like to see removed are the so-called superdelegates, at least those who are not current senators, representatives, and governors.
March 20, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not "the party desires". The "DNC desires".
All this game to blame the FL state party avoids one question: what is the motive for the state party to risk breaking the rules?
It's certainly nothing to do with the silly "publicity" or "advertising money" - the risk simply isn't worth it.
You cannot answer this question without taking into account the GE results from Florida in the past elections.
You also cannot asnwer this question without taking into account the redistricting done by the Republicans under Tom Delay and the amount of Congressional representation given to Republican state and Democratic states as a result.
So, nice cherry pick, as John Edwards would say.
March 20, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to address another piece of bullshit - the unknown candidates.
Bill Clinton was an uknown candidate until the DLC offered him a role. DLC was the party way at the time to get money for campaigning, think tanks on positions and issues as well as on ground support.
DLC put Clinton on the map. It has nothing to do with smaller states crap you are talking about.
March 20, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly which part of knowingly violating a sworn pledge and fanning flames against her very party is CHERRY PICKING? Dishonorable is Dishonorable. Or, are you going to try and parse that word, now, too?
Which part of Nine Clinton superdelegates helping to set the rules - sitting on the commission that set the template for future ratification do you not understand?
March 20, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Hampshire did not get "approval". New Hampshire just "did it". They had signed an agreement in 2004. They were supposed to be the 3rd contest of 2008.
March 20, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually - they did get it approved. "With a vote of 28-2, the committee granted New Hampshire a waiver to hold its primary on January 8th, 2008, the date recently set by Secretary of State Bill Gardner."
Incidentally, they also worked in concert with South Carolina to arrange it, switching positions in the pecking order.
THE GREATER POINT is - we have an elected leadership in the DNC, the voters of those two states elected their representatives. Hundreds of Democrats were involved in the setting of the rules.
Tell me now - who is being arrogant?
Is it too much to ask someone to follow the rules and not then break a pledge and try then too, to vilify the person who followed the rules?
March 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, truly outstanding grasp of the facts. South Carolina moved its primary in early August at which time it was known New Hampshire would do theirs August 8. But New Hampshire didn't make this official until November 21, and then 10 days later the DNC "approved" it.
So let's try this - the DNC didn't "pre-approve" it. It way late and in an unbalanced fashion "post-approved" it. Leaving Nevada in the lurch shoved back from 2nd to 3rd place.
But rule #1 is "it's okay if it favors Obama". He wasn't going to win in Michigan or Florida anyway.
March 20, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "grasp" of the facts gets more desperate as you are confronted with truth. Are you trying to fool yourself as well as all of us? Or are you just into self-delusion?
tpartier has done his/her homework. You have talking points, as usual.
March 20, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule #1 - has everything to do with playing by the rules. I didn't get active on this board until I became so incensed with the dirty tricks of Hillary.
Further - you must think I am totally stupid - the Four early states all started jockeying their dates when they began to fear the impact of having Florida too close. YOU KNOW THAT.
The New Hampshire/SC switching came as a result of New Hampshire having a state law requiring them to have the first 'primary'. Iowa and Nevada are caucus states. South Carolina negotiated with New Hampshire and agreed to let them avoid the legal hassles in their state. They then petitioned and held their breath.
The DNC, seeing that they were all designated early states, and that they (NH & SC) were somewhat rightly concerned about the forward thrust of Florida and Michigan. The DNC voted to not sanction those states. But - they had to draw a line somewhere.
Again - the DNC (including your beloved H Ickes) ruled, Florida and Michigan lost. Hillary didn't care until she was sure she had blown SC.
She violated promises made directly to several voters in the early states and also the pledge.
certainly in spirit if not to the letter.
But when you get down to it - there were rules established and sanctions pre-known, she now just wants to toss those.
March 20, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Desidero's head just exploded.
March 23, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just having a smoke and enjoying the sight of people grasping for straws.
March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The diary is about Michigan and Florida, the decisions made by each state's party, and the candidates' pledge to honor the rules as they were at the beginning of the primary season. What other states have done before or since then is entirely irrelevant -- the other states are not an issue. I'm truly sorry that Michigan and Florida don't benefit your candidate, but she agreed that they should not count. Trying to obfuscate that fact by referencing other states -- an apples and oranges comparison -- isn't working on the national party, and it isn't working here.
March 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with my candidate. I would be just as angry if the roles were reversed. To too easy to blame the state party when you don't know the full story. In this particular case, it's also very convenient to blame the state party.
March 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who, if not the state party, was responsible for moving up their dates?
For the record, I do agree that the situation was poorly handled and punishes the wrong people (ie, the actual voters in those states). But the fact remains that there were rules, those rules were broken, and that people began trying to change the rules mid-contest when it became evident that their candidate would not win as easily as was assumed.
March 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - well said Demosaur. It is this issue among all others that has me more steadfastly for Obama than Hillary. I started out pro-Edwards followed by Obama. When she started pulling the this punch right before SC, I became incensed. I truly was giving her the benefit of the doubt on a number of things.
I had thought the perfect candidate would have been closer to the ideology of Edwards and with the potential of keeping people involved AFTER the elections.
my moniker is what it is because it became painfully obvious 6 years ago that a total shake up and turnover in Congress and the Whitehouse were long overdue. Hillary did not, in my opinion - go far enough in that direction.
Her tactics of late, however - have damned her in my eyes.
March 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I whole heartedly agree -let's not seat the New Hampshire delegates either.
I'm sure the Clinton camp will back this 100%. It's only fair after all.
March 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, tomjuarez,
That's a thought... Will she jump on it?
(Hey, you're goood!)
March 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
All points taken. Now, explain me this:
How can we scatter 44 electoral votes to the wind, and have any expectation of prevailing in November?
March 20, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get brainwahed, wilson. This issue is a million times more complicated than what this helpful digest insinuates.
March 20, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats won't lose Michigan. Especially after McCain said that the jobs are never coming back.
Survey USA, in their fifty state poll, had both Clinton and Obama beating McCain. Clinton did it by winning Florida and Obama did it without winning Florida. Now let's play a what-if game.
If Clinton wins the nomination, she must have gotten Florida's delegates. Then in the general, she will win Florida (as Survey USA says) and the presidency.
If Obama wins the nomination, then he can win the presidency without Florida (as Survey USA says) by taking purple states like Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia. We should keep in mind that the Electoral College system favors small states because each state gets two additional votes over and above what its population would indicate. The ideal states, the ones with the most bang for the buck (literally, dollar), are the mid-sized states.
Let's not be so down.
March 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point here and I am sure someone will find fault, is that good rules, bad rules these were rules signed onto by all parties. I also think (emphasis on think) that the DNC probably felt we will punish, but it won't matter because we will have a candidate after Super Tuesday....oops.
Let's face it this is a contest and all contests have rules. If you didn't like the DNCs rules try to change before the game starts, not in the fourth quarter. However I am not so naive to think that given the nature of politics if someone is doing poorly under the current rules, they will try to get them changed. However, it doesn't help my opinion when they try.
To the MI and FL voters who feel disenfranchised and are angry. I get it. However, you should direct your anger where it belongs at your elected officials, not at either of the candidates. For those who say that if my primary vote doesn't count well, don't count on me voting in November. Let me see if I get the logic, first your state leaders disenfranchise you now you are going to do it to yourself. I'm not sure I get the logic here, but OK. For those who say they are going to vote Republican, this your absolute right. However, when the war is still going on and on, when the dollars in your pocket buy less and less and the US role on the world stage becomes just a member of the chorus.... no whining.
March 20, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
jsfox,
You said it very clearly.
March 20, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any voter in MI and FL who feels disenfranchised ought to take it up with their own state legislators who defied the the rule making commission and cost them their delegates. We shouldn't reward politicians who break the rules and we sure as hell shouldn't reward those like Hillary who break their word.
Hillary signed onto the plan and assured voters in IA and NH she supported their position in the process until their contests were over. As soon as they were she started flipping her position 180 degrees. Before IA it didn't look like she'd need FL and MI no matter when they ran their primaries.
But with her failures in IA and SC and near win in NV suddenly she did. That's why she's thrown up so much smoke trying to obfuscate this issue. She's behind with no way to catch up unless she breaks the rules and that'll wreck any chance of putting a Dem in the WH. Let's nominate the candidate that played and is winning the game fairly and who actually can win in the fall: Barack Obama.
March 20, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quote someone we all love - this is the "biggest fairly tale" of all.
All the state who moved the dates had a very specific motive to do this. This motive is related to Republican redistricting, amount of Congressional representation of a state and the past presidential elections.
The DNC acted in the way it did, because they were "showing leadership" and beating the states back into their lunatic 50-state strategy. It was all about showing who's the boss. It worked for some states, but not for MI and FL.
March 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
It is indeed a "fairy tale." The time to disagree or agree with the DNC and the nomination rules has come and gone.
In that time Hillary, of her own volition, agreed.
What she is trying to do is change the rules in the middle of the game. And she is doing it with a lot of spin, so much that you ended up believing her.
March 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever you say, Big Brain.
I can see that you prefer to stare at at tree and not see the forest behind.
March 20, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
Your words don't speak about me, but about you.
You and your name calling are indicative of your qualities and your thought process.
March 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thought process is simple - you can't dump an overriding blame on state actions unless you learn the motives behind them and the benefits of those motives.
March 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lunatic 50 state strategy? How bizarre.
Anyway, perhaps you would prefer states continuing to leapfrog in front of each other until the campaign begins the day after the inauguration?
March 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If leapfrogging creates huge voter turnout, intense campaigning, growth in Dem representation in the Congress in a swing state like FL (~500 votes Bush/Gore 2000) - then HELL YES, I'm in favor of leapfrogging.
March 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - we'll JUST WASTE the energy of hundreds of other Democrats who tried to find balance over a long period of time and set rules well in advance of the votes of the states that decided to abandon the party. Which part of the chaos that would have ensued if the DNC did not draw a line - can you not imagine.
When New Hampshire and S Carolina switched dates - they did so in concert and their respective Secretary of States announced the plan nearly simultaneously. Finally, they both were in the same early window.
Your argument is frankly, unfounded.
I am from a swing state, too - Ohio. We did not clamor - though we did discuss it - to jump ship.
Let's not forget Hillary signed a pledge and told others in public that she would honor it while campaigning for their votes.
Also - you can see that Harold Ickes (not to mention other Clinton superdelegates) VOTED TO STRIP the delegates - but now - they say something different.
March 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah what is wrong with a 50 state strategy?
I think it terms of representation the 50 state strategy simply put, makes it immportant to campaign and try to win all 50 rather than just the traditional blue states and the swing states. Don't we all want representation?
March 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very informative post; thanks for all your work!
March 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I was at your other blog (http://technically.us/eat) the other day - it looks really nice, clean but colorful.
March 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing is clear: Dem voters in MI and FL should throw their own state reps out on their asses and replace them with responsible people.
And the nomination process needs to be fixed by 2012. Rotating regional primaries any one? And no caucuses period - even though they have benefited my candidate this year. They're just too convoluted.
March 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how this diary completely glosses over Florida politics (despite the mini civics lesson about "democratic republics").
I love how it says nothing about how the Florida bill to move the primary date (amendment to a bill, actually) came about.
I love how it leaves out that Florida has a Republican governor, it leaves out that the Florida House has a Republican majority by 34 votes and the Florida Senate has a Republican majority by 12 votes, it leaves out Democratic (or, minority) objections to moving the primary date to January, it leaves out the lawsuits and countersuits. Hell, it leaves out most of the facts altogether. (I love that!) That's because the diarist does not know the facts. Nor would he want to because some of the facts do not fit his Republican-troll hypothesis. Unfortunately for us, he didn't research to learn the truth at all.
This is a lazily researched and stubbornly ignorant article, meant not to inform but to fit the following concluding smear:
Of course, this diarist doesn't prove at all that Hillary Clinton is treacherous and cold and calculating. He only proves that he is a biased moron.
But wait. Aren't I being a little harsh and unfair in my name-calling because of my own biases? Well, let's look at another utterly unproven and essentially false conclusion presented in the OP:
The number of registered Dems in Florida slightly edges out the number of registered Repubs. Of course, the diarist doesn't mention the significant number of independents or unaffiliated voters:
And thus the flames were fanned, ad infinitum.
But, hey, who cares about Florida and Michigan anyway? Obviously this fraud of a pro-John McCain diarist doesn't.
March 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What - you didn't read the quotes of boastful and openly defiant Democrats as they voted along with the Republicans there - 118-0 and 37-2? Hardly sounds like a lot of protest there.
What state of denial are you in?
So - in spite of having more Democrats to choose from, to field candidates, they can't come up with stronger campaigns and candidates? Yeah - the margin is only 400,000 and yeah there are a number of independents there, too. But guess what - there's independents everywhere, I think any reader would know that.
The record number of Democrats voting still was shy of the number of Republicans voting too.
And, lets not forget - there were other reasons to vote that day too in many precincts they varied. Local issues, stuff like that. So - you are telling me the Democrats there are less passionate than their Republican brethren - or - were maybe a whole bunch of them not bothering because they couldn't count on their vote being counted? How would they have voted? Guess we'll never know.
Finally - the over riding thing is this - HILLARY made a promise - she broke it. And not only that - either she was pandering to to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa when she repeated her commitment, OR, she is in fact dishonorable and treacherous.
Hundreds of Democrats from all over the country decided the rules - Fla. and Mich. broke the rules.
Hillary now wants to vilify Obama FOR FOLLOWING the rules - wow - what sense of righteousness do you have?
March 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way - pretty bold of you to call me pro-McCain, if you only had half a clue. Rather than recognize that someone is just trying to call for a stance on principles, you go try and fog things by pulling what used to be exclusively the domain of Karl Rove and BushCo. Try to be a patriot and get called un-American.
Call me a fraud? I'll bet I have given more of myself in more ways than you can imagine to the pursuit of equitable treatment and adherence to American principles.
I have spoken truth to power - not talking about here, but in a court of law, and I gave up several hundred grand in income over an eight year period to do it. Maybe this explains why i am so aghast with people who would just throw the rules of a greater body away for their own self-serving gain.
Maybe - because I fought that demon, personally myself.
Maybe I once swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
pro-McCain - in your wildest dreams and cop-outs only.
March 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpartier said:
You're right. I read that article three times, and I can't find any boastful and openly defiant comments by state Democrats. Unless you count this comment:
"When we're done Florida will be relevant."
But I'd hardly call the word "relevant" boastful or defiant.
Perhaps you meant a different article?
First of all, the current numbers of registered Dems, Repubs, and unaffiliateds do not reflect the numbers from each party/category in previous years (say, in 2000, etc.) that put the current House and Senate members into office. You didn't do any research to support your complaint.
But anyway, 2.2 million independents in 2008 (up from 2000) is certainly nothing to sneeze at. It's more than the edge the Dems currently have over the Repubs in the state. Correct? If the Dem-leaning independents get pissed off at the Dem party over the primary, how will they register their dissatisfaction with the Democrats? Maybe by voting for the other party in the GE?
Primary turnout for Dems was 1.7 million; turnout for Repubs was 1.9 million. Not bad for a "beauty contest." So Dems did turn out to vote. Would turnout have been higher if the Dem presidential vote counted? Undoubtedly!
From the Times article you cited:
Do you have a copy of the actual wording in the "pledge"? Both Clinton and Obama managed to get around the "pledge" (as described by the Times) not to campaign in Florida. How does that make Hillary Clinton the "treacherous" and "dishonorable" one? You haven't proven that her actions have been worse than Obama's. And, lobbying to seat the delegates is not the same as campaigning in the state before the primary, nor is it breaking the pledge (again, as described by the NYT article you cited).
March 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you didn't get the memo from Mr. Limpballs, who has gotten his "dittoheads" to vote for Hillary in the primaries so they can knock her over in the general.
They are foaming at the mouth to take on Hillary. She has so much dirt, and so many scandals associated with her that they KNOW they can win against her.
My objections to a revote are:
1. The rules were agreed to before these primaries, and BOTH Hillary and Barack signed on to them. Why should they change, except that Hillary thinks she might be able to cheat her way in?
2. It allows the Republicans to do their dirty tricks, which doesn't seem to bother Hillary since it is (in the short term) going in her favor.
If we want to give the republicans what they want, figure out a way to throw; manipulate; cheat the system to get Hillary the nomination. It will not only bring the repubs out on election day for McCain, but it will also dispirit the Democrats and Independents who (so far) still believe in HOPE!
March 20, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh - you mean the lawsuits that keep getting tossed out of court?
Another one bit the dust today in the Appeals court.
Hmmm, maybe the judges down there KNOW a thing or two about democracy, perhaps?
March 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. If it was Clintons doing then she just kicked her ownself in the ass. Its a stupid way to nominate anything.
March 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify. Neither Clinton nor Obama were involved in the decision by the Rules Committee to void Florida's delegates (curiously, the only member to dissent, Allan Katz, is now an Obama superdelegate - go figure). Neither campaign protested the decision. The pledge the candidates signed, however, only stated that they would not campaign in Florida. (Clinton claimed Obama violated the pledge by running nationwide ads that aired in Florida.) Wolfson's memo supporting the seating of the delegates was not a repudiation of the pledge and the Clinton campaign says they never agreed that the delegates should be stripped.
Of course, if Clinton were as omnipotent and calculating as you claim, she would have manipulated her lackeys on the committee not to strip the states of their delegates since Florida and Michigan are both states that would have appeared to favor her demographically.
In any event, the Superdelegates should take into account the popular vote totals (at least in Florida) of such important states in deciding who would make the stronger nominee.
March 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you still are not answering as to why rules that were established over many months of deliberation, ratified by hundreds and agreed to by all - should now just be tossed out the window.
I mean really, no matter how you cut it - they were broken.
But worse to me - even still - is Hillary out there cheerleading to change them and vilifying Obama to make her point. Lets see - one guy is trying to follow the rules - so let's smear him.
Funny how she swore she would respect the rules - yeah - she swore to do that. Then she told others on the trail that she would also honor the pledge and the DNC and re-iterated they wouldn't count.
Then there was Harold Ickes actually voting to strip the delegates but now things are different - yup ever since about January 26th, when we all know - she was looking disaster in SC square in the mouth.
March 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What rules were "broken"? So far, the "rules" are still holding: Florida has 0 delegates.
Clinton is allowed to talk all she wants. Talk does not = breaking the rules. She hasn't succeeded in changing ANY rules.
March 20, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I see - going out of your way trying to shame the judgment of hundreds of Democrats, vilifying your opponent and lying to voters is only TRYING to change the rules.
Well, you know what happens when you get caught TRYING to rob the bank - you're still a villain.
Here's what one of her bigger name supporters, Bob Kerrey, had to say back in February:
“You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period,” said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, The New School’s president, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoopy ran into Kerrey on Sunday at Chelsea Piers, where Kerrey had taken his young son and a friend bowling. “No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to,” Kerrey said firmly.
March 20, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some additions:
Still, senators of both parties have indicated support for an earlier primary. State Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Parkland, the Senate sponsor of an earlier primary, said the state would benefit by forcing presidential candidates to cater to Florida interests on issues such as windstorm insurance the way they traditionally cozy up to Iowa farmers on ethanol.
“The only leverage that we’re going to have with the presidential candidates is when they come to Florida and campaign here, and not just campaign for our money. They’re going to have to campaign for what’s important to Florida,” Ring said.
That’s why state Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach, voted for an earlier Florida primary.
“God bless everybody in Iowa, but I don’t think they have the same issues that we have,” he said. “Our concerns are different and we need to have them addressed.”
Doesn't sound like they were hard nuts against it.
The time to change all of this was long past when they voted to try and change the rules.
March 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpartier,
You have done a terrific job of documenting and responding to the fallacies thrown your way.
Thank you.
March 20, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Lookingin,
I began to regret almost right away not having filed every single link that I found starting about a month ago - I've been filing them in my free time (I also have been working on some animations with some new-to-me software, normally - I'm a programmer) for a couple of weeks.
I didn't want to bloat the original post.
But some people don't want to look at the central point I guess - so you get dragged into the minutia.
March 20, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so no rules have actually been broken or even changed in the middle of the game. Period. That's what I thought.
March 20, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broken or changed by Hillary, I mean.
Of course Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and they are being punished accordingly.
So there's no real problem here.
I mean, except for We the People who don't count in two states of this imperfect Union.
As long as you don't live in Florida or Michigan, who cares about them?
March 20, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we do care - but that critical threshold where everything would have been fully fair to everyone else - was passed sometime ago.
There is no way - since Hillary had jumped the gun that there can be a fair re-vote now. Don't you see the problem?
I think we all would have been a lot more receptive to resolution if a certain person had not tried to game the system. You see at this point, she'd begin advertising how she saved 'their voting rights' - which they forfeit via their representatives.
It was not her position to make their case as she is a contestant, so to speak. Rather, it is her responsibility to encourage the following of the rules, to not lie and be deceptive (see New Hampshire voters) in order to gain advantages. The DNC might have been more prone to resolve the issues that existed between IT and the STATES.
But please - don't even try and suggest that she isn't trying to game the situation, and in a very ugly way. Insinuating Obama is un-American, for pete's sake - grow up - would she?
March 20, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still the voters in Michigan and Florida who are being punished, tpartier, not the state legislators (many of whom are Republican). The punishment is not meted out to the proper criminal. The voters had no say about disenfranchising themselves. Go ahead and be a hardass about rules, but that's what it amounts to.
Luckily, Democratic voters in Florida, especially minorities, are used to being disenfranchised. This is the third consecutive screwed-up national election for them.
But while the Democrats are in a public lather about their own unfair rules, the Republicans are working quietly on winning in November.
That's what I care about: needlessly punishing Dem voters, and then forfeiting the GE because of it.
In my opinion, honoring direct participation of voters in a free election trumps honoring the DNC's bizarrely harsh rules. I'm not saying I have the solution, but I think that should be the focus for coming up with one.
March 21, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, there are many, many laws on the books that I can take issue with. That I think are short-sighted, or over-reaching, or draconian - but guess what - I didn't get a chance to vote on those laws.
I did, in the case of laws that were engrossed while I was a resident of the jurisdictions in which they had effect, have a chance to voice my concerns in a variety of ways to my REPRESENTATIVES. Get it? These are representative governments we are talking about. So to say the voters didn't have a voice is utter bullshit. Got that? Utter unadulterated bullshit.
If the majority of Democrats in the state of Florida felt the change was a bad idea - or that tying it to the voting system is was unfair - gues what? They should have been raising a stink while THEIR legislators debated the merits of the bill. They had that chance. it isn't like we don't have e-mail. Paperless, no travel required, nearly effortless ways to express our concerns to our lawmakers.
What - you're saying we need to change the rules of our very democratic republic now?
AND - which part of the FLORIDA BILL to move the date was actually introduced in both their house and their senate by DEMOCRATS. The Democrats there started it!
AND here you have the opinion> of Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor:
"Are we going to uphold the rules or just have open season on the entire process?" DNC rules committee co-chairwoman Alexis Herman said after the vote. "Florida's a very important state to the democratic process, but we have 49 other states that we also have to take into consideration."
Get the picture? One of my biggest points about this whole sordid affair and the media coverage: Everyone is worried about two states - what about the rest of us who followed the rules? What about all of us - and trust me - there are millions like me - who think this is pure treachery to have Clinton out there encouraging a toppling of long vetted and firmly set rule to benefit herself. If you think she is fighting for the voters - you are SADLY mistaken and the evidence fully supports that.
March 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we please deal with what is, not with what hasn't happened?
What is:
1) Florida and Michigan broke the party rules by moving their primaries before Feb. 5 and have been punished. Their delegates have been stripped.
2) There will be no revotes in either state.
3) Hillary Clinton has not convinced the party to seat the delegates at the national convention.
4) Hillary Clinton did not break her pledge to not campaign in Michigan and Florida per the party rules. If she had broken the pledge or the rules, she too would have been sanctioned. Guess what? She hasn't been sanctioned! Therefore, no treachery has been committed!
If Clinton succeeds in changing the rules in the future, then you can freak out. But she hasn't changed them. This falls into the category of what hasn't happened.
I'm saying what I'm saying and no more than that. I haven't proposed half of what you are imagining me to say, and I have been consistent in my comments.
I think the party power struggle is insane, unfair, and self-damaging, and has already divided the electorate (just look at our dialogue). And I'm not the only one who thinks it's a train wreck of an election strategy.
March 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No sense commenting with you anymore - several of her big supporters have dumped her or chastised her for this. Only a freaking moron would think what she has been doing is appropriate behavior.
She has no business even trying to fiddle or otherwise game voters into thinking they should be able to break the rules. That is dishonest to the core.
If you think that is ok - YOU ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT too.
March 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey - as for the party power struggle - why is that so large now - who trumped it up? Hillary!
I never said - and in fact have said I think the whole deal needs re-worked but I am talking about what IS. I think there should be rotations every four years of various regions of the country. This way, the same states are not always first.
And what is - is this the rules were worked out over many many months by many different people.
And you make these claims about how the voters are getting screwed. They are not being screwed. We in the other 48 states did not elect their representatives - they screwed themselves.
Don't think for a minute that I DON'T CARE about the other two states. But this business of fomenting fervor and calling the other guy un-American or uncaring because the rules are what they are is patently dishonest.
I believe I have not said she has broken rules but she is trying to break the pledge. She accepted that there will no delegates - if you have read the documents - by participating in the campaign and agreeing to abide by the rules.
My whole point is this - How can anybody trust Hillary after this?
Don't kid yourself - if she does get nominated, not only are there millions of people who won't vote but you can bet the Republicans will be all over her with replays of her dirty tricks on video, in ads, the whole nine yards. "She tore the party asunder - don't let her tear the country too" that kinda crap.
March 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment