Why aren't more people on either Clinton or Obama side angry at the STATE parties for MI and FL?

[Political Heretic]

This is something I don't understand.

It seems like the issue of MI and FL is being painted as, Clinton supporters want those states to count, which is only partially true, and Obama supporters don't want those states to count, which is totally false.

What I don't get is why so many people are blaming the DNC for state party leadership breaking its party rules and then suffering the consequences from the national party in a national nomination process.

I don't understand this.

If I lived in MI or FL I would be angry and in the streets demanding a change of leadership in the STATE party! But there seems to be a good number of people here who act like these state parties did nothing wrong.

I am angry that MI and FL voters are getting disenfranchised! I care about their voice. But my anger is appropriately directed at STATE officials who stupidly went against the rules, knowing the consequences in advance and for no good reason other than they wanted more of the limelight. Why is there not agreement about this?

[Writer]

1. Regardless, be sure to treat each state differently.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules under different circumstances.

[Political Heretic]

2. Can you give me, or point me to a refresher on that?

I don't remember what the differences were between MI and FL in this.

[Writer]

3. Well from what I understand Michigan broke the rules outright.

Florida's legislature, on the other hand, voted to pay for their primary at an earlier date. The Florida Democratic Party had no say in how and when the state opted to pay for their primary election. The legislature is Republican controlled.

[Political Heretic]

5. The bill was introduced by a democrat.

[Writer]

10. So this is a plan that the entire state party decided on and sent it to the Florida state leg.? n/t

[Political Heretic]

12. I really need madfloridian to answe r that.

This is getting beyond my knowledge level. :(

[Writer]

13. I found an explanation below.

[Writer]

11. Nix my previous. I found a full explanation.

It's a far more complicated matter.

Initially, before a specific date for the primary had been decided upon by the Republicans, some Democrats did actively support the idea of moving the date to earlier in the calendar year. That changed when Speaker Marco Rubio announced he wanted to break the rules of the Democratic and Republican national committees.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/apr/04/letter-florida-democrats-did-what-they-could/

I really do believe that Florida is a separate case from Michigan.

[Political Heretic]

14. I would suspect that you're right - but I don't have the knowledge to know.

All I know is that in both cases, it seems to be a problem that originated with the states. So I'm just not sure why the DNC is now the bad guy to some people.

[Writer]

15. I don't think anyone should be the "bad guy." It just needs to be worked out.

[napi21]

4. I don't know about the diff. between the two, but I've been saying

all along that it was the State Party leaders who decided to break the Party rules. They KNEW what the rules were in advance and decided to break them anyway. The residents of those two states shouldn't be angry at the DNC or the Dem Party in general for what their leaders did.

Now I do understand that it was the Pubs in Fl. who initiated the bill to establish the primary. I know the Pubs are the majority so they won. What I don't understand is why the Dems couldn't have just had their primary on a different day. There are several States who have their Pub primary one week and their Dem primary on a different week. It looks like there were a number of Party leaders who just didn't think this thing through.

[davidpdx]

6. It doesn't matter

because it's all Dean's fault. :sarcasm:

[maximusveritas]

8. Probably because they don't want to be accused of attacking the state

which is how those local state politicians would have tried to spin it.

[rocktivity]

7. You're right to blame the state leaders, of course. But they're not going to blame themselves.

Bad for business, especially since most of them ALSO have to re-apply for their jobs in November.

The real bottom line is that this is a DNC/DLC war between the progressive and corporate-backed wings of the party--Hillary is a DLC officer, and Obama has harvested the fruits of DNC chairman Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy. Blaming Dean for the voter disenfranchisement is a twofer for the Dems who voted to break DNC rules--undermining him and DNC while diverting blame from themselves.

:headbang:
rocknation

[cliffordu]

9. Yep, Absolutely.

[graycem]

16. I agree that

they should be mad at their state leaders. They tried to tilt the game in favor of Hillary and it's not working out for them, now they need someone to blame other than themselves, so it must be Dean's fault. How dare he enforce rules that everyone agreed to. How dare he do the exact same thing that Terry M. did in 2004.

[yewberry]

17. I find it so frustrating that this is seen as a 'candidate' issue here.

FL & MI made these decisions and my opinions were formed long before this became a two-candidate race.

I'm with you--I really feel for the voters in FL & MI. Voters didn't do this; the state parties did. Regardless of what is claimed, the FDP was absolutely behind the move, but they've gotten a lot of press with their claims that they weren't. And I still can't understand what the MDP was thinking. The FL Dem party had a lot of popular support for the move (so they said) and went forward. So, why did MI move? Was it the influence of Levin? I guess I'll never know.

It's a hard thing to work through, though, because the state parties have refused every compromise that has been offered to them, and then blamed Dean and the DNC for not finding a solution.

I think that something that some people don't get is that if Dean & the DNC were to agree to the demands of FL & MI, the Dem voters in the rest of the country would see that as a slap in the face. Yes, it would set a precedent that the national party has no power to control the calendar and might set in motion a massive disregard for the calendar in later elections, and that is a real issue. In this election, though, if the DNC goes along with the demands of those two state parties, all of the other Dem voters in the country will get the message that FL & MI really are more important than the rest of us. After all, we played by the rules. FL & MI didn't, even after they were warned about sanctions. The impression is, from the FDP and MDP, that they are SO important that the DNC wouldn't dare not seat their delegates, because we need them in the GE. And that's sort of blackmail.

As a Dem in a state that followed the calendar agreed to by ALL of the state parties, that's a little hard to swallow. I want to find a way to include the voices of Dem voters in FL & MI, but at the same time, I don't want to allow those two state parties to bully the rest of the nation's voters.

Haven't figured that out completely, yet. I agree, though, that the issue is being used by some of the campaigns and that the voters are getting screwed by their own reps. I wish they all understood that.

What a mess.

[newmajority]

18. Basically, it was a case of DLC'ers in both states, trying to buy themselves a big piece

...of the planned Hillary coronation which they all thought would be wrapped up by February 5.

In Michigan, it was an outright DLC operation. In Florida, the Repukes were also playing games, but the DLC run "Democratic" party went along with it.

Their plan backfired, their candidate lost, and now they are desperate to hold on to power, so they lash out at their favorite scapegoat, Howard Dean.

Just another pathetic chapter in the story of the "Wreck of the HMS Hillary Clinton".

[ruby slippers]

19. I live in Florida and....

I am not feeling disenfranchised. I just feel invisible.

Nothing is happening here anyway. No candidates are paying attention to us except Rudy who held traffic up for nothing. I don't think our voices should count because our state broke the rules anyway. Not fair to us but that is the way the game is played here a lot. And, I hear the Democratic leadership here is in bed with the Republicans anyway.

There are no yard signs, no bumper stickers, no discussion in the streets, etc. McCain has been here already and besides unfortunately this is prime RED territory where I live anyway. (UGGHHHH!) It will go for McCain for sure.

It is hard to get upset and excited about something you know you don't have any say in anyway. We tried to tell them that Gore won, but they did their own thing anyway. So, why would a little primary make any difference to the powers that be?

Florida doesn't exist unless or until a candidate actually comes here.....then you might hear some eruptions about being counted!

[johnnydrama]

20. if i'm right

didn't Michigan break the rules in 2004 too?

[newmajority]

21. Not only that.

But none other than then-DNC chair Terry McUseless (known Clinton tool) was caught on tape telling Senator Carl Levin that THE DELEGATES WOULD NOT BE SEATED if Michigan broke the rules.

So the Hillbots need to listen to their own guy. It's probably the first and last time Terry said something logical.

[johnnydrama]

23. yah, i like it

According to Wolfson & McCaulife:

1. States that violate DNC rules absolutely should not count, no questions asked.
2. It's a delegate race, and only a delegate race.

I have an idea for the Obama camp. Do an ad based on all these flip flops by the major Clinton staffers.

[AZ Criminal JD]

22. Count every vote

Obama only wants the votes of 48 states to count.

[stillcool]

32. Obama?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.
State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.
The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates
By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.
The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.
The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[AZ Criminal JD]

41. Thank you for making my point.

Obama does not want 2.3 million votes to count.

[stillcool]

44. Rogue states...

do not care if their citizens vote.

[CTLawGuy]

50. I don't think obama is opposed to

both states having legitimate contests and having THOSE delegates count. But the state parties won't pony up for their own arrogant errors.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Because the DNC had no intention of ever changing

the unfair advantage given to Iowa and New Hampshire. The states took the lead. Good for them.

[newmajority]

26. They went about it the wrong way.

Those are the kind of things that should be debated in the years between elections. Of course when you're the DLC, and you're wanting to start the Hillary 2008 campaign on January 20, 2005, there really aren't any "off" years anymore.

I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should always make the call either. But let's go about changing that the right way. First we have to get rid of the DLC and the electro-fraud machines, or none of it matters anyway.

[stillcool]

33. Why did they agree to the rules..

in August of 2006?

[VotesForWomen]

25. i don't blame them for wanting to move their primaries up; what gives other states the right to go f

first all the time?

[dbmk]

27. Well, in this particular case: The rules

[newmajority]

28. That's not the issue.

You don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them.

I'd like to walk into a certain residence on a certain street named after a state which had a primary last week, in a city which has the same name as a state on the west coast, and punch the individual who lives there right in the mouth. He certainly deserves it.

But the rules say that if I did so, some men in suits would drag me away.

It sucks, but it's reality.

[SoCalDem]

29. Several reasons

1. BOTH states were told "Don't DO it"
2. Party bosses in both states (Hillary allies) DEFIED the warnings
3. Both states were "pleased as punch" about their decision
4. Obama had NOTHING to do with ANY of it.


There are rules for a reason, and 48 other states and Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam figured out a way to comply with those rules..
The rules were in place MONTHS before any real campaigning began

the people in charge of deciding to break the rules were elected party officials, state representatives/senators and ven a governor.

It did not just "happen"... That's a George Bush excuse.

EVERYONE IN BOTH STATES WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER...

The people in each state who care so deeply should be sure to write down all the names of all the people in charge of the bonehead stunt, and be sure to VOTE THEM OUT of office at the earliest possible opportunity..

and YES, I DO know that the evil republican governor and the equally evil republican statehouse in Florida controlled the vote, but if I recall correctly, the DEMOCRATS in that same governmental body went right along with the plan.

It's regrettable, but rules are rules, and we all live with our mistakes, and yes..even the mistakes of others, sometimes.

And as for the scheme to hold a "make-up" election..that's not a great idea either, since the whole purpose of the punishment was to PUNISH..not to reward by giving an even BIGGER profile in the process..and especially by having Carville Rendell & Corzine pay for a "private election" for their girl..well... that really REEKS of Banana Republic electioneering. and only an IDIOT would agree to the opposition "sponsoring" an election....

[DrDan]

30. I am from Florida and I am angry. I am angry to the point of

probably not voting for the Party's candidate. I will certainly vote D, but probably not the party candidate.

I see it a bit differently (and am once again ready to be lambasted).

Yes - I think the state leaders screwed up. But . . . I do not believe the rule - or more appropriately the "punishment" - should have even gone this far.

The charter of the policy CLEARLY states that all party members will have equal rights in selecting a candidate. That said
- how can the DNC decide to punish the voters for the action of the party leaders?

Punish them in other ways - withhold funding, deny nat'l roles with the party. But - DO NOT DISENFRANCHISE voters! This is just wrong. (and please - no more "thems the rules" responses - those are just too lame)

[stillcool]

31. The 447 members of the...

the Democratic National Committee agreed to the rules in August of 2006. In August of 2007, the Democratic National Committee, including Harold Ickes voted on what the consequences would be for these 2 rogue states. Where was the 'outrage' back then? Did you speak up back then? Why did the top adviser to the Clinton Campaign vote to strip the state of the delegates back then?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

[DrDan]

35. so does that make it right??????

I think it means 447 members of the DNC do not care a twit about my voice as a many-decade Democrat.

So guess what - I will listen to their recommendation for candidate as much as they listened to mine. I shall be voting for my choice at the GE.

[stillcool]

37. 48 states don't matter?

Hillary Clinton's decision to abide by the rules doesn't matter? Hillary Clinton's campaign adviser voting to strip Florida and Michigan of it's delegates in August of 2007 doesn't matter? The entire Democratic Party doesn't matter? Guess what...it matters. If Florida and Michigan do not want to abide by the Democratic Parties rules, maybe they should start their own party. Actually, I think they already have.

[DrDan]

39. I certainly never said I was going to vote for Hillary, now did I?

and if the Democratic party wants to treat me like a second-class citizen, then they should not expect too much loyalty - imo.

[stillcool]

43. and where did I say that you were..

voting for Hillary? It seems like blaming anyone else but those that broke the rules is very much in vogue. ..And holding the Democratic Party hostage for their own arrogance.

[DrDan]

45. well - as you stated here - it certainly sounds like you have me pegged as a Hillary supporter

"Hillary Clinton's decision to abide by the rules doesn't matter? Hillary Clinton's campaign adviser voting to strip Florida and Michigan of it's delegates in August of 2007 doesn't matter?"

Why else would you make that statement. Barack also decided to abide by the rules, didn't he? Why not mention that. And what does Hillary Clinton's campaign advisor's support? Why mention that unless you thought I was a Hillary supporter.

Holding hostage? Seems to me that is exactly what the party is attempting to do with the voters of Fl and Mich.

And I do blame the state leaders. I said that before. The only difference, is that I also blame Dean and the DNC. They are both power-grabbing politicians at best.

[stillcool]

46. The Clinton Campaign...

alone, has been asserting that the rules they themselves agreed to do not matter. The reason why I do not mention any of the other candidates, is that the other candidates have not been insisting that the rules no longer matter. The voters residing in these 2 rogue states have known since August of 2007, that their votes would not count. Where was the "outrage" then? Why allow your representatives to defy the rules, knowing what the consequences would be? When you blame the DNC, and it's members that represent all 50 States, you are blaming the "Democratic Party". Why be a part of the National Party, if you can not respect the rules you agreed to? Howard Dean does not have the power to wave a magic wand and make the rules go away for 2 states out of 50.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

[DrDan]

47. I agreed to?????? hardly . . .

I have NEVER agreed to that. It was a power-play by the DNC and a flouting of the rules by the state leaders. I was never asked. C'mon - give me a break.

Because these power-grabbing politicians decided to test each other - the voters of Fl and Mich do not get their voice heard. It really surprises me that there are so many on this site that are ok with a rule that disenfranchises voters - even though the charter is clear that is not to happen. I happen to completely believe these same people were ok with a "step to the back of the bus" in Alabama and Miss in the '50s as it was an unwritten rule. "Obey the rules! Obey the rules!". Even though the rules are not fair.

Where were you on the draft in the 60s? I am sure you were squarely behind it (if you around then) as it was the rule.

You and others on this site are more interested in the rules - regardless of their fairness - than in whether everyone has a right to be heard. Why are YOU a member of a party that espouses equality - your actions certainly suggest otherwise.

[stillcool]

48. Where was I in the 60's?

In diapers. But I did have a brother return from Vietnam in 1970. Does that count? As far as "rules" and "fairness", why did Florida and Michigan agree to the rules in August of 2006? Wasn't that the time for your state party to speak? I am amazed that some think the 'rules' do not apply to them...well..I guess I am not really surprised at all.


my dad is the one on the left. They say he was a helluva guy.

[CTLawGuy]

52. if the right of voters should trump..

then why should the party leaders follow the rules? if they know they won't be punished because of the poor voters, then why should they not just do what they want? How else would you suggest enforcing the rules? Or should there be no rules and just have a national primary on Jan 3rd as everyone rushes to get to the front?

[UALRBSofL]

34. OMG you don't know the pin heads of my county democratic party

I spoke to the chair of my county yesterday and he doesn't have a clue. Now granted he is older then Moses and speaks like he had a stroke so he gets a pass for that but you would think in a county that is registered majority of democrats we would have representation in our county, but, no, they are not motivated. They are nursing home representatives and because of that we don't have a chance against the republican machine in my county.

[Kaleva]

36. While I'm not very pleased...

with the party leaders here in Michigan, I'm still going to vote for several of them in upcoming elections. I don't recall a year when Michigan had an important impact in a primary election and this year turned out to be the same.

[mmonk]

38. Well, there's more to blame than state parties such as state legislatures.

[AZBlue]

40. Clinton is lying and saying it's Obama's fault and her supporters don't check out the facts to

see that she's lying to them.

[madfloridian]

42. Floridians should get rid of all their state leaders who messed this up.

They should be forced out and should apologize.

[CTLawGuy]

49. I am

I blame the state parties completely. I am fine with giving them ZERO delegates if they don't hold legal contests before the convention.

It's like if you murder 5 people you will still be sent to jail even if you are the sole provider for a wife and 3 children. You should have thought about them before you committed murder.

[mdmc]

51. FL and MI wanted to be in the spot light - they got their wish

Now they can sit outside with the antiwar crowd