Millions of dems will be angry and disappointed today, and I've come to the conclusion

[cali]

that yes, the DNC screwed up. They should simply have initially punished MI and FL by reducing the the delegate value by 1/2. I think that still would have been a deterrent and we would have avoided this big mess.

[JVS]

1. What makes you think that the Clinton campaign wouldn't have appealed a 50% reduction?

They need the delegates.

[cali]

2. I don't know that, but I still think taking all the delegates away was

a mistake. Had the DNC done what the repukes did, I think there would have been far less of a brouhaha.

[mamalone]

5. I do agree with you...

I think there would have been people who would have been disgruntled with a 50% loss, obviously. But the 100% penalty was so severe gave them room to claim they had been unfairly treated. The nature of our party is to abhor unfair treatment, so this brouhaha is not surprising. And as it now looks pretty certain that the original penalty is going to be scaled back anyway, it makes any future penalties appear to be subject to negotiation (particularly if those penalized are talented at tantrum throwing:eyes:)

So yes, I do agree it was a mistake, but you live and learn, right? And hopefully they'll correct themselves today and we'll move ahead... unified. (hey a girl can hope can't she?;))

[dansolo]

13. The DNC probably felt like it wouldn't matter

No one expected this to be dragged out as long as it has, so MI and FL could be sanctioned, and then quietly reinstated after the nominee was selected. The reason that it was an issue is because Hillary has been desperately pushing it.

[mamalone]

15. You're right.

From the vantage point of now it looks like a rather foolish decision, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen this primary to play out as it has. Hindsight is 20/20, right?

[kennetha]

17. Well, true

but a little thinking about alternative possible outcomes and not just making the easy, unquestioned assumption, would have been useful too.

[AZSlacker]

26. Speaking of alternative possible outcomes, imagine if your candidate hadn't assumed that she'd

have the nomination warped up on Feb 5th. Had they not only drawn up one plan (which was to declare "Mission Accomplished") on that day, she might not be in this tenuous position. Too bad she wasn't "ready on day one" to win ALL of the primaries.

[karynnj]

31. Even if they did, it would at least have been a valid election

where every candidate would have participated. This is because had they initially said that they would retain half their delegates, it would have been ridiculous to insist on no one campaigning. I think that another possible solution is to have let them have ALL their PLEDGED delegates, but NO superdelegates. That would put the pressure on the superdelegates to push for staying in the rules. (They could let them attend, only NO vote or they could even deny them seating unless they won as pledged delegates.)

This year, had it been a valid election - Obama would have likely gained a higher percent than the amount he got in the what if exit poll - which would have resulted in at most a small net for HRC. In every (or nearly every) state that Obama actually campaigned in, he closed the gap at least to some degree. Had this happened in FL and MI, even arguing for re-instating the whole thing would not work.

I agree (as usual) with the OP - this was mishandled by the DNC. It is really not good to have the Clintons out there arguing that we are not "counting all the votes". It is despicable of them that they created the idea of a "popular vote" in the primaries. It makes no sense to compute it over a mix of caucuses and primaries. It is the equivalent of adding apples and oranges - and it completely destroys the weights that should be given to the states. They floated the idea first in February after they really knew they might well lose and the media bought it. It was an attempt to win when by the rules of the game they lost. While it is true that HRC is closer to Obama than any previous runner up in the last several decades, that does not mean it is a tie or that she deserves anything special.

[Barack_America]

35. Good point.

Given that they're already asking for 100% of the delegates to be restored to both MI and FL, I think you're probably right.

[curious one]

3. DNC should not be blamed. FL and MI did know and were ready for the

consequences. There was no problem until HRC started "every vote should count" just to promote her agenda.

[cali]

4. It was simply too draconian

and MI and FL would still have fought the decision.

[VotesForWomen]

6. are you 'ready for the consequences?' i.e. losing FL and MI in the GE? you've heard of the GE, haven

haven't you?

[cali]

9. The FL and MI problem will be solved today.

The likely outcome will be halving the delegates' votes and giving Obama some portion of the MI votes and delegates. It's not perfect but it brings the dem consequences in line with what the repukes did. I realize that Hillary supporters are pushing for Obama to get NO votes out of MI, and many Hill supporters are even pushing for him to get no votes or delegates out of FL. That's patently punishing the voters, and the RBC obviously won't go there. If Hill supporters pitch a fit about a compromise, well, there's not much that can be done about it.

[kennetha]

16. Why should a guy who wasn't on the ballot

who, in fact, deliberately took his name off the ballot, now be awarded votes? Seat the uncommitted as uncommitted and let them make up their own minds. Why should the party dictate from above who uncommitted votes go to?

[cali]

21. Who the fuck do you think those voters were voting for?

lying hillary? Not a chance. And Hillary agreed not to participate in the MI "primary". She lied. Putting your name on the ballot is de facto participation. Period. Obama abided by the rules. Hillary did not. And those votes were for either Obama or JE. It's not hard to figure that out. Hill should be punished for participating in an unsanctioned primary.

And get used to it, the RBC is VERY unlikely to give the cheater Hillary what she demands.

[Dr.Phool]

27. You mean, a guy who was following the rules?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

You're right. Don't give Michigan or Florida any delegates.

[kennetha]

7. This was a blunder of huge proportions

Clearly nobody foresaw what a mess this would turn into.

I think it's very, very unlilkely that we will win Michigan or Florida, especially if Obama is the nominee, because he's been backed into a corner of basically saying that Florida and Michigan just shouldn't count. THat's not a posture a candidate should have.

[cali]

10. Why do you just make stuff up? It's reprehensible. Truly.

Obama has NEVER said that MI and FL shouldn't count. Never. Disgusting to just make it up. And we have an excellent chance of winning MI with Obama. FL is iffier, but I wouldn't count it out entiresly. And hilly's about face is emblematic of her hypocrisy.

[kennetha]

14. He (or his surrogates) have talked about a 50/50 split

which is the same as not counting them. He wants to seat them in a way that has "no effect" on the nomination. Same as not counting the votes.

[cali]

19. No, they have not ever endorsed a 50-50 split.

And it's hilly who has strongly advocated for disenfranchising Obama voters in MI. Hypocritical, desperate and pathetic sums up the hilly camp and its supporters. they'll lie about anything.

[kennetha]

22. You're wrong. They have

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12cnd-delegates.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Clinton and Obama Split Over Florida and Michigan


Here's the money section of the article:

Obama advisers declined on Wednesday to say what a fair distribution of delegates would look like but have floated a plan to apportion the delegates 50-50, wiping out any advantage that Mrs. Clinton might have gained from the votes in January and essentially making the two states meaningless in the nomination fight.

David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said on Wednesday that the campaign was open to a party-run caucus in one or both states, a format that Mr. Obama has dominated this year. That is a nonstarter with the Clinton people

[cali]

23. .......

Mr. Obama’s did not spell out his Plan B, but he said that any revote would be problematic, particularly if conducted by mail in Michigan and Florida, two states that have never conducted a mail-in election. He said he would like to see the Michigan and Florida delegations seated in an “equitable” way, without spelling out what that would mean.

[shaniqua6392]

18. Obama has a fair chance of winning here in Michigan.

But he had better hurry up and convince our desperate state that he will ACTUALLY do something to help us when he gets into office. John McCain has been doing television ads here for quite some time because he knows this state will end up being important. Michiganders are desperate for change. We need help to diversify our interests. Our Governor wants to create energy sector jobs and training and we will need federal funding for that. If he can come here with a specific plan I think he can win people over. I sure hope McCain does not win this state. How depressing. I am interested to see what Obama has to say when he comes here on Monday.

[CakeGrrl]

11. That is NOT Obama's position regardless of how Hillary tries to frame it

And I hope, after the primaries are finished, that the DNC makes it clear who was responsible for the invalid primaries in the first place.

And they should also make clear the Clinton Camp's absolute backtracking and hypocrisy on counting these votes. Hillary didn't care one damn about them until she needed them.

If you think she would have cared about ANY remaining primaries had she won Super Tuesday like she assumed she would, you're dreaming.

[dbmk]

8. Do you honestly think

.. that a loss of representation would have hurt them?

Its the publicity they were after. No campaigning was the only way to punish them. And as a consequence you can't have it be about any delegates.

[Political Heretic]

12. Millions of Dems are angry and disappointed every primary.

[Hola]

20. No.

The punishment was fair, given the circumstances. IMO the DNC should have insisted on a fair and equitable revote, and the state parties should have been forced to pay for it.

[glowing]

24. Well, the DNC didn't think the process would look like this 2 yrs ago.

I think most assumed, like Hillary, that she would be crowned our Golden Girl.... I don't think anyone thought this year would look like this when the DNC decided to take on the DLC and push their power back.

[Skwmom]

25. The CLINTON camp, NOT the DNC is to blame for all of the

anger and disappointment b/c they are the ones stoking the fire.

[AngryOldDem]

38. Someone on CNN made an excellent point.

The question was asked, why not just give everything to Clinton and be done with it? Move on, finally. This guy's answer was, "Sure. And there would be peace in every household in America if parents just gave in to everything their kids wanted. Sometimes you can't get everything you want."

How true.

[H2O Man]

28. It was a strange

situation. I would say that part of it is because the democratic party has a structure that is prepared for "business-as-usual," and this primary season has been anything but that. In the normal circumstances, there wouldn't be any serious problem; today is by all definition unusual: a woman and a black man are the last two candidates for the nomination.

The solution reached today will be unlikely to fully satisfy anyone, but that is what finding a compromise solution is all about.

[Tatiana]

29. I don't think the DNC intended to permanently strip MI and FL of all their delegates.

Surely they knew people from those states would appeal the decision.

The point was to deny them what they wanted: to steal the the thunder from the traditional early states. They lost all opportunities associated with candidates campaigning in the states: rallies, revenue for local vendors (schools, park districts, universities, caterers, direct mail and television advertising, radio spots, etc.).

They literally lost millions of dollars that Ohio, Texas, Indiana, North Carolina and Pennsylvania were happy to pick up. In the case of my neighboring state Michigan, this is very sad, because they really could have used those revenues. I hope Levin and Granholm are proud of themselves.

RBC can restore half their delegations now. The ultimate punishment has been achieved. And let's not forget, it was the majority of Hillary supporters that voted for this draconian measure. The lone voice of dissent was an Obama supporter.

[grantcart]

30. Well the blame then would be with the Clinton camp

They had by far the largest group on the committee and they were the ones that wanted the hardcore rule so as to create a near national primary - Super Tuesday.

They continue to lie about the reasons for it, or the fairness of it, in a reckless attempt to play Chicken with the party's General Election interests.


Members - Clinton supporters (13)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)

Members - Obama supporters (8)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)

Members - no known endorsement (7)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)

[frickaline]

32. I think the big problem is the fact that the GOP can mess with these dates

There needs to be a proper deterrent on the dates agreement that would impact the republicans as well as the democrats. Perhaps something monetary held in escrow that would be taken away if the agreed rules were not upheld.

Also there should be better, stronger language in the candidate's signed agreement stating that no dem can put their names on the ballot in one of these broken states. "participate" alone is just way to vague and requires augmentation.

[lastliberalintexas]

33. I have loved Dean since I first discovered him

I think it was back in 2000 or 2001, even before he came out in opposition to the Iraq invasion. I like most of his policy positions, the fact that he balanced the budget even without a state constitutional mandate to do so but that he did it without slashing social services in Vermont. I like the fact that he in fact helped expand social services in the People's Republic, that he was once a practicing physician and had a fresh take on certain issues we faced, even if I disagreed with him. I like the fact that I can disagree with him on a few policies and still support him because he is pragmatic and stays open to different ideas and will actually change his approach to a problem if the first attempt at solving it doesn't work.


Having said all that, Dean allowed this to get too far out of hand. The primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire has been a problem for many, many Democrats for many years, and it shouldn't have come as any surprise that 2 states finally said enough was enough. Ironically, minorities had long been one of the groups that had argued against 2 small, mostly rural, overwhelmingly white states deciding our nominee in the past. There were actually flame wars in the prior life of DU over this issue, and it's quite funny to me to see the defense of the status quo here now.

I think far too many posters have lost sight of the REASONS that Florida and Michigan did what they did, and have allowed candidate support to blind them to the idea that there is more to this issue than just Clinton and Obama. Indeed, this fight isn't going away, so the DNC needs to find a resolution, and soon.

[IsItJustMe]

34. Should of, Would of, Could of, makes no difference now. Easy to be a arm chair critic. They did

what they thought best at the time. I don't think they had a crystal ball.

[AngryOldDem]

36. Word on CNN is that that may be the solution to Florida.

That came from someone in the HRC camp.

[stillcool]

37. Perhaps...

but maybe the harsh penalties were so no other state would move their date up as well.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Why is that good?

Why should IA and NH continue to have inordinate power over the primary process? Granted, this year other states have actually influenced the decision, but far too often in years past, our nominee was decided long before larger states with urban populations, sizable minority populations and millions more Dem voters than IA and NH even have residents even held their primary.

Again, I just think far too many people are approaching this from the side of their own candidate. This scheduling battle isn't going away, and I for one would rather us find a solution now rather than going through this kind of crap again.

[stillcool]

40. This has nothing to do with a candidate...

If you want the process to change, the time and place to do it is before your state votes on and agrees to the nominating rules of that primary season. Why did these 2 states approve of the calendar and the rules in 2006? A year ago, Florida knew what the consequences would be to pushing up the date. And they did not care. Like so much that happens in our elections in this country, no one cares until after the voting has been done. When it's way too late.