I disagree that this is the best option. Obama pulled his name in good faith that this was not a state that was ever supposed to be seated, so why should anyone be rewarded for essentially rule breaking? If MI & FL need to be seated, just split their votes down the middle and be done.

I can imagine Hillary right now, thrashing around on the floor clutching her pearls and screaming "I am inevitable damn it!"

I will not sign such a petition.

The race to move up State delegate selection processes to one-up other States is a disaster for the Democratic party. The result is that political insiders like Hillary Clinton can capture many votes early on, without their being tested by the campaign process. This gives them an almost unsurmountable advantage over newer people, regardless of the strength those new people may show. This is how we ended up with the pathetic Kerry, and this is how we have nearly ended up with Clinton, whom the Republicans will tear to shreds, rather than the much more electable Obama.

If Democrats are going to field credible candidates in the future, this race to the earliest date must be stopped. We must at least hold firm on already agreed-upon rules. The chance to run as our candidate is not an entitlement.

>>It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterf**k. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January.<<

Shouldn't this be the other way round? All the other candidates except Clinton did the right thing and removed their name from the ballot and she should get rewarded?

Cheers,

tell hillary there's a sack of cash from exxon-mobil up in the north pole, about 3 miles from santa claus's house.

she'll go up there and look for it, while the rest of america has an actual election.

This is a horrible idea. MI and FL simply do not count. They knew it before hand, why act surprised about it now.

If you can't stand the heat, redesign the kitchen.

AbsolutTBomb @ 10:

Penalize Obama for following the DNC....

Yeah.. GREAT IDEA.

Here's a better one: MI and FL can go **** themselves for breaking the rules.

Exactly! Stamped & co-signed! :)

True Brad, but the kitchen is on fire.

No
There is no telling how the vote would have come out IF Michigan was to count in the beginnign AND if everyone had left their name on the ballot.

Thems the rules and along with HIllary's ever shifting goal posts Hillary should be ashamed of acting like those who have kept the glass ceiling for women alive. Keep changing the rules or what it means to succeed so that someone who has earned it cannot claim it, good job Hillary.

Bovine Scatology!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are trying to shine a cow patty.

I know people in Michigan who voted for Clinton because they didn't want to vote for uncommitted and their guys name was not on the ballot (sorry Kucinich). We were told that our votes wouldn't count, it was just for show.

We were told it meant nothing. That is what it means.

It is a mess, there is no denying it. The tally as it appears, with Clinton winning over uncommitted means nothing. The whole thing was skewed and must be thrown out. PERIOD.

I knew the Barbarian attack machine was going to be in full swing on this, and they were.

Here is the Arch Kriminal Karl Rove going after Clinton, saying that 'she barely won even though she was running against no one", or some such crap.

Get over it!

What a mess. Maybe we should just hibernate until November.

How does Nicole Belle have the balls to ask us to sign a petition that says flat out that Obama should be penalized for following the rules and Hillary should be rewarded for being an out right liar?

And one more thing…

James Carville is going around talking about how Obama was against having a recount in MI, even though he (Carville) offered to pay for it.

In truth, the Michigan legislature nixed the idea because it would have conflicted with the special elections we already have scheduled this year.

Being local to the situation, we in MI know how full of s**t the Clinton campaign is concerning Michigan.

If Obama was on the ballot, he would have wiped the floor with Hillary (Detroit determines the state, and Detroit would have gone for Obama had they been given the opportunity)

What about the people who wished to vote for John Edwards? Clinton should not benefit from the aptly titled Clusterfuck.

If you take them, 50/50.

Then broom Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell for forcing this decision on us. They are the reason I am not a registered Democrat (well, them and the Clintons).

Horseshit. I will not reward Clinton one delegate for being a pain in the ass. Compromising with the annoying loser sets precedent that the democrats will regret forever. The condition of contest was that the two states were not seated. All candidates signed off on that. To change the rules after the fact, to favor one candidate, especially one that is trying to destroy the party is insane. Whatever the final outcome of Mich and Fla must be done after the primaries. Personally, I'd seat them as nonvoting on president but voting rights on other stuff. I'd give Clinton a one vote edge in Fla and Obama the same in Michigan

Obama followed the rules and now he may get stabbed in the back by the same weaked kneed Democrats who don't have the balls to enforce their own rules?

Sounds about right I guess.

Ruthless, it does sound about right, and it's depressing. The Dems always shot themselves in the foot. If McCain wins, we better get used to bread lines.

I love marcy's body of work, but agree that this is not a good solution. Obama should not get penalized for following the rules, nor should Hillary reap the benefits. She didn't win anything in MI, there was no primary, it happened against all the rules. Personally, I think Hillary reaps an unjust reward even if they decided to just split the delegates (and leave the supers SOL), but that's a better plan than this.

I also don't think that not seating the delegates at all is not a bright idea. The election that truly matters is in Nov. so MI and FL must be brought back into the fold somehow, just not in a way that hurts those who followed the rules.

As a Florida resident whose vote (for Obama) didn't count, I'm more pissed at my state's Democratic Party than anything. Yeah, it sucks not having my vote count, but hey, we're kinda used to it here by now. Last thing I want to see is the rest of the country having to puss around with errors made by FL (and MI) politicians. FL and MI residents--suck it up. You got F^&*@D by your own elected officials; take the appropriate steps and deal with them. Save the rest of the country the grief!

And Hillary, shut the F*^K up about claiming FL and MI voters and delegates as yours. At least Obama and the other candidates were playing by the rules of your party. If you get your name on the ticket in Nov, I'll vote for you. But you ain't retroactively getting my primary vote!

Unbelievable, and frankly, I'm surprise this was even posted here as a serious suggestion - like everyone else said, Obama followed the rules Clinton didn't. In no way should Obama be disadvantaged by that.

No. Michigan did not have a legitimate primary and should not be seated. if they HAVE to seat delegates, divide them 50/50 and seat none of their superdelegates. Actions have consequences, and Michigan chose to act outside of the nomination process.

L.A. Confidential @ 38:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton
By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: April 10, 1992

http://tinyurl.com/6rl4yl

And here we are again.

The petition has been posted to Digg

way off topic, but i won't be awake much longer...

i just wanted to give a tip of the cap to larry david.

that s.o.b. is one funny, fearless comic. i love jerry seinfeld but i think david's even better.

Personally, I think a better solution would be the one I posted on March 23rd:

http://malcolmrant.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-and-barack-way-out.html

Hillary gets out now in exchange for Obama nominating Hillary to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

It's the only real win-win solution

I would have to agree with the proposal's detractors. I like the intention of giving a voice to the states' respective populaces, who had no say in their legislatures' rule-breaking, while simultaneously trying to prevent those rule-breakers from influencing the process, but I can't see how the ultimate result is fair. To anyone.

I'm tired of hearing all the "ifs" about Florida and Michigan with respect to how the election might have gone had their elections been legitimate. Not only can we never know what the results of a legitimate election have been, but even if we could, so what? They weren't legitimate elections. Hell, if the first primary were held in Connecticut instead of Iowa, I'll bet Chris Dodd would have received a huge boost, and would not have had to drop out so soon. If we had Instant Runoff Voting in all the primaries maybe Dennis Kucinich would have taken everyone's second choices, and ended up a major player at the convention. Who cares? Those aren't the rules by which every candidate agreed to abide.

Does it suck that Florida and Michigan voters won't get a voice in the primary? Yeah. It also sucks for Oregon voters who go somewhere near last every year. How might Florida and Michigan feel if Oregon started saying that it deserves more delegates than proportionally allotted for waiting so long, and that it wouldn't support the Democratic candidate if it didn't get them?

I'll tell you one thing, though. If Florida and Michigan do manage to have their delegations counted in any way resembling the elections they held, the DNC will be no more. Each state will simply do whatever it wants. You think it's chaotic now? Wait until 2012, when each state holds its elections whenever it feels like, even calling do-overs for no reason just to get more influence, and then hoping to strong-arm the DNC into bending to its will.

Sadly, I think the best thing to do is to tell Florida and Michigan, "Sorry, but your votes simply can't count. Next time, wait in line like everyone else." States need to know now that there are consequences, so that the next time a state legislature tries to pull this on its people, the people do something about it before it gets to this point.

From the emptywheel link (and maybe slightly OT):

This is a way to avoid disenfranchising the voters of MI and to maintain the authority of the DNC.

I'm getting tired of that rhetoric. We, the general public here in Michigan, and those in Florida, or anywhere else in the country, are not guaranteed, in any legally binding manner, the right to vote to select the nominees of any political party. Primaries as we know them are, basically, a publicly funded opinion polling system- and not a very accurate one, open in many ststes to the "astroturfing" by members of the opposing parties- as a suggestion to the political parties which may be used in any way they see fit.

Don't believe me? The proof is before us. The governments of both Michigan and Florida moved up their elections against the will of the national organizations of those parties, and now the members of those parties- unelected to their positions by the general public- get to be the arbiters of the fate of Michigan's and Florida's delgates. If there was an appeal to be made to some Federal Court to promise the franchise in the primaries, it would have been made. That appeal has not been made because it cannot be heard.

[One possible exception to this is if the Democratic Party does go back on their own rules and decides to seat delegates based on the primary elections. Seems there might be a basis in contract law on which the candidates might base a lawsuit. But it also seems that the primary results must be set aside in the consideration of selecting the delegates.]

It's this simple- we in Michigan and Florida played chicken and lost. Sorry to the rest of you that the selection process is now so fucked up. I suggest that those of you who happen to be delegates to the convention that you bring some deodorant, mouthwash, toothpaste and snackfood to the floor- you're going to be down there a long time. Hope the AC is working well.

Man this is so convoluted, rules are rules are rules. Clinton and Obama agreed to them and that is the way it should be!
It has to be obvious to everyone that when Clinton agreed to the ruling she thought Michigan and Florida were going to be irrelevant. Her hubris got her into this mess. Serves her right for miscalculating the strength of Obama. Clinton thought that she would sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and so on knocking Obama out before MI an FL were even in the picture.
I think that this once again shows that Clinton does not have good judgment.

Solomon's Baby? That was about a dispute over uncertain claims of motherhood. One mother said yes, the fair thing to do would be cut the child in two.
Even if the situation was actually muddled-- and it's really not, just unfortuanate-- I can imagine which mother Hillary would be.

Terrence @ 57:

I think that this once again shows that Clinton does not have good judgment.

I don't think you can say that at this point. It might work out for her, and I'll hazard a guess that what she perceives as being in her best interests isn't what you perceive to be in yours.

Am I wrong?

Terrence @ 57:

Man this is so convoluted, rules are rules are rules. Clinton and Obama agreed to them and that is the way it should be!
It has to be obvious to everyone that when Clinton agreed to the ruling she thought Michigan and Florida were going to be irrelevant. Her hubris got her into this mess. Serves her right for miscalculating the strength of Obama. Clinton thought that she would sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and so on knocking Obama out before MI an FL were even in the picture.
I think that this once again shows that Clinton does not have good judgment.

it's like i said earlier. just tell her there's a fat sack of cash from exxon-mobil up in the north pole, about 3 miles from santa claus's house, and she'll run off looking for it.

meanwhile, the rest of us can save democracy and usher in a bold new era of world peace.

bullfrog @ 32:

Alice (formerly Hussein, live free of the Borg or die) @ 21:

Bovine Scatology!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are trying to shine a cow patty.

I know people in Michigan who voted for Clinton because they didn't want to vote for uncommitted and their guys name was not on the ballot (sorry Kucinich). We were told that our votes wouldn't count, it was just for show.

We were told it meant nothing. That is what it means.

It is a mess, there is no denying it. The tally as it appears, with Clinton winning over uncommitted means nothing. The whole thing was skewed and must be thrown out. PERIOD.

I knew the Barbarian attack machine was going to be in full swing on this, and they were.

Here is the Arch Kriminal Karl Rove going after Clinton, saying that 'she barely won even though she was running against no one", or some such crap.

Get over it!

but rove's right...

Karl Rove is never right, ever.

On this he was claiming she 'barely' won against nobody when it was 55% apparently for her versus 40% for 'uncommitter' which he called 'nobody'.

He could never muster the intellectual honesty to state the facts correctly, 55/40 let alone interpret them correctly, ie the results were completely meaningless. Worse than meaningless.

He has been wrong from the day he was born.

I am not a Democrat, and I am not a Clinton supporter. This was before she turned to the dark side and revealed her true colors. She is a republican. Let her run with the Barbarians.

I would have voted for Edwards.

craig @ 58:

It's encouraging to see that after eight years of the undoing of the rule of law, some find it foolish to reward those who break the rules.

Hillary had every intention of taking advantage of the Clinton's name recognition and were pulling strings to get the primaries moved up in the first place. It's the only thing that makes sense of Mark Penn's "inevitability" strategy. Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida) seem to have been a lot more involved in getting things straightend out AFTER Hillary fell behind on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th, not at first when the DNC voted to penalize them for moving the dates.

I'm sick of being gamed by the DLC's minions. This plan is like "affirmative action" for political miscreants.

As a concerned Michigander, I didn't perceive the move of our primary to be intended as any kind of rubber stamp for Hillary or anyone else.

I thought it a good idea because we'd have had, theoretically, a broader slate of candidates from which to choose than we did in the past. Ours is a state that's been in economic trouble since '01, ours is more representative of the nation than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. But tradition alone once again kept us from having a legitimized voice.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a truly selfish asshole, but why should the four afforementioned states get to vet the slate of candidates? Had John Edwards not withdrawn his name from the ballot, I could have voted for him in January. Had we our normal primary slot, he would have been gone already.

So why don't we have national Primary Day, or two days, a month or two apart. If we have two, the first to appoint 30%-40% of the delegates- effectively narrowing the slates-and the second , a month or two later to apportion the remaining delegates (and rotating which states vote when, on a rotating basis), we might avoid this catatrophe in the future.

Nope, definitely NOT signing this one.
I've had it with petitions. I've had it with rewarding those who break the rules, while punishing Barack Obama for FOLLOWING the rules.
The squeaky (SHRILL) wheel gets the grease?
"Not this time."

I've about had it with the democratic party. We have a candidate and Hillary and Bill and Carville and the media et al are doing everything to take him down so they can say to the super whimps that he's not electable? FEH!

We're supposed to have a democracy (Diebold aside). Hilary herself says let the votes count, but only when they count in her favor? Uh Uh.
"NOT THIS TIME!"

Lou @ 1:

I disagree that this is the best option. Obama pulled his name in good faith that this was not a state that was ever supposed to be seated, so why should anyone be rewarded for essentially rule breaking? If MI & FL need to be seated, just split their votes down the middle and be done.

i am with you. the votes should just be split. that's fair.
obama complied with the rules and hill did not.
you don't reward those who break the rules to win.
and that includes hillary.

moniker @ 4:

Abolish the electoral college, get rid of the caucuses and super delegates and have a nationwide primary in 2012. End the nonsense.

that seems best for the next election.
the electoral college should have been dropped
yrs ago. this should be a vote by the public
and popular vote should win. the only reason the
repigs don't like this, is because it's just harder to rig.

DD @ 70:

Go ahead and seat them, but not 50/50. Should be 75Obama/25Clinton. He gets the bonus for following the rules. And he would have ended up with Edward's delegates, so it would be doubly fair.

Thye rules weren't that the candidates be required to remove their names from the ballot. The rule was that any candidate who campaigned would be sanctioned.

I am really tired of this the MI and FL delegate issue. Both Obama and Hillary agreed to the rules before they started, but Hillary didn't think Obama could touch her...well she was wrong and now she is whining about the unseated delegates. I believe they should stay unseated and that is that.

I am going to just go ahead and call it now. McCain wins! The way the dems are handling this whole situation is terrible and I am sick of watching it. Saying that I am sick of watching it is huge...I am a political junkie and enjoy keeping tabs on everything. This one though has taken me over the edge.

Why break the rules for hillary's benefit?
Why allow hillary to set the rules in her benefit?

Sorry, no one can go back in time to correct this error. Voters and candidates were told that the votes would not count. You cannot count them in any way now except maybe, take half the delegates away and split them 50/50 to give them a voice. Listen to how McAliffe threatened Michigan in 2002 or 2003 when they tried to move up. I don't get this 'penalize Obama for taking his name off' business. This sounds alot like Hillary 'he didn't have to take his name off'. Why did anyone leave their name on or off? This sounds odd to me. Either all on or all off. You cannot go back because people did not go to vote because they were told it would not count. Those 2 primaries are invalid, you cannot base anything on them, they are tainted beyond repair. Look at the statements of Ickes and McAliffe in the past. I saw the snark from the guy from Florida when they moved up the primaries. Dean needs to keep his foot down on this. Fix it for next time, but this crap is DONE!!

If hillary is so concerned about seating MI and FL why didn't she so from jump street?

hillary is looking more like a big fat lying clown.

If she undermines the process she is no better than her husband.

She needs to buck up and take her medicine.

Yeah, I have to agree. Any solution that rewards Hillary for breaking the rules means every candidate now always has to leave his name on the ballot just in case. Plus, it's gross.

While it isn't the fault of the person proposing this solution that the is, in fact, a Clusterfuck, but this idea is inherently flawed. The fact that Obama is penalized, even slightly, for complying with DNC rules and removing his name from the ballot is simply a non-starter. You can't make up a new rule that penalizes the only candidate that complied with and continues to support the rules that were in place in the original contest.

Michigan and Florida made choices, and choices have consequences. We are not the GOP, we can't run away from our mistakes.

no way am i signing a petition that advocates penalizing Obama for following the rules while rewarding Clinton for breaking them.

ezpz @ 90:

How quickly we forget how well Jon summed it up for us (starting at appx 2:00 in):

http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166850

(I couldn't get the C&L link to work, that's why I posted this one.)

A MUST SEE (again).

http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166850

Just to add: this is about all her "ifs" and moving the goal post to favor her with the final "if" being that *IF* she were (running as) a Reptilian Republican, according to her and Bill, she would have already been the nominee (another lie).

But the real bottom line "IF" is:

If the numbers were reversed between hillary and Obama, everyone would have been clamoring for him to withdraw, and he would have done so graciously, and we wouldn't be having this conversation now. It would have ended after Super Tuesday.

Sorry, but I'm not rewarding the DLC's game plan, and Hillary specifically, for not playing fair and by the rules.

I will not sign this petition.

I will not sign, period. It's unfair to Obama and it rewards a blatant rule violation. They went into the primary with their eyes wide open and got burned. Live with it.

Split the delegates down the middle if nothing else.

Once you seat the MI delegates, no matter who it favors or even 50/50, it opens the door for the popular vote to be counted - Hillary thinks if she can count those votes she can win over the supers on the basis of winning the popular vote. Remember that Obama got no votes in MI.

Hey ezpz!

Flashback:

"It's clear, this election they're [Michigan] having is not going to count for anything."
~Hillary Clinton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

That was back in the day when she (and many of us) thought she was "inevitable".

Lou @ 1:

I disagree that this is the best option. Obama pulled his name in good faith that this was not a state that was ever supposed to be seated, so why should anyone be rewarded for essentially rule breaking? If MI & FL need to be seated, just split their votes down the middle and be done.

Actually Hillary wasn't the only one who didn't pull their name. Dodd, Edwards and others were on it as well. Obama pulled for several reasons. One was to use "uncommitted" votes which he and his campaign spent a lot of time urging voters to do.
I won't go into the other reason since I do not want to play attack games, I'm so sick of it, you can look that up on google if you so desire.

@ 98

You said: Say NO to Billary!

Since she's running, shouldn't we now refer to them as Hil-billy?

THis delegate stuff makes me very angry. I want my vote to count. Plain and simple. there should be NO delegates and there should be NO electoral college. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Why do we bother to vote?

What the hell is this crap? How about Clinton realizes that she can't win the election and she drops out? What the hell is up with this superdelegate nonsense? THIS is democracy?

Aiyeeee!
this makes me crazy.
first off. Great for Marcy! This is wonderful. I signed and forwarded it to my mailing list.
I really like her a lot. She did some great liveblogging at the Scooter Libby trial.

I'm assuming she is an Obama supporter though I don't know why except that so many of the Progressive Bloggers are.
Sheesh talk about putting people in a box.
sorry.

the other thing is I am reading these comments about the "rules" the rules, the rules.
Aiyyeeee. No one seems to know what the rules actually are.

Here is a ist that pertains to this issue which I found here:
http://tinyurl.com/3ktlfo

"Have you actually read the rules?"

DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state's delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state's pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state's pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is "changing the rules."

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state's primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state's Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.

Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.

5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.

6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC's Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.

7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.

8) Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.

FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters..." The Michigan ballot included an option for "uncommitted" to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.

9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.

FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.

Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.

10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.

FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.

11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.

12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?

FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

13) Hillary's activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.

FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary's victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.

14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.

FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote "uncommitted," Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.

15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.

FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.

Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.

16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.

FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.

Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job ("I'm like a player on the field. I shouldn't be setting up the rules" ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state's excluded delegates, declaring that he would "Do right by Florida voters."

Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton. .

17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.

FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.

Sources:
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter "DNC Rules"), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/cont ent/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-what s-right/?news-breaking

malcolm @ 51:

Personally, I think a better solution would be the one I posted on March 23rd:

http://malcolmrant.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-and-barack-way-out.html

Hillary gets out now in exchange for Obama nominating Hillary to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

It's the only real win-win solution

hmmm, well I think I'd like to see her more active, maybe head of the Justice Department. Attorny General. Maybe she would go after the criminal garbage running the country right now.

I'm sure she would be delighted after what the GD neocons have put her through.
After all she did the country a big favor during watergate by finding the legal justification for bringing Impeachment charges against Nixon thereby forcing him to resign. He had no intention of doing so until the legal precedence or whatever the hell it was was found by a young researcher on the committee by the name of Hillary Rodham.
Frankly I think we all owe her a debt of gratitude for that one.Plus the fact is that she has been paying for it for a lot of years. Much of the neocon attempts to destroy the Clintons can be traced to that as far as I'm concerned. When HRC said there was a vast rightwing conspiracy she was 100% correct ... PNAC is it. That came from out of the Nixon White House. Not that it was born there literally, but the players in the Nixon admin are the signers of PNAC

www.newamericancentury.org

So yeah, I'd like to see her get these Sons of bitches.
And if anybody has the tenacity, determination and ability to not get pushed around it is Hillary Clinton.

Sometimes I wonder if Pelosi etc won't go after these criminals because they know what they are capable of and they witnessed it with the Clintons.

im sorry but i just cant let this go without saying a word here! a word night all!

I'll be fighting every desire in my body to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, considering all of the garbage Hillary and her unhinged hollerers have been pulling. Giving her special privilege to stay in the race longer and claim special entitlement is not going to help.

Why are Democrats so intent on losing? WHY IS THERE A CLUSTERFUCK TO BEGIN WITH?

"Accountability", your lengthy argument in comment 111 is erroneous beginning at least with points 2 and 3 (I can't say for sure if point 1 is wrong). Point #8 is laughable. I didn't read most of the points very carefully since when I followed your "tinyurl" link I found the site to be a highly biased source. Your only links to objective sites, WaPo and Tampa Bay Online listed at the end of your post, are both dead links.

As a non-Michigan voter in a state which followed DNC rules, I would consider myself disenfranchised if Michigan's bogus election is allowed to count even partially. This is non-negotiable for me--nothing better (for Clinton) than a 50-50 split on all delegates from MI and FL. The MI and FL elections were not legitimate--to include their results would detract from the validity of the Democratic process held in the other states and territories.

Sorry, Marcy, I know you are trying to come up with a good idea, but to penalize Obama in any way for simply honoring his word makes no sense and is not fair. To reward Clinton for violating the rules makes no sense and is not fair. Split them 50/50, seat them. It also neuters them in case they want to break the rules in the future. There has to be both fairness and a message about next time.

This solution accomplishes everything everyone has said they want to do. It would give MI’s voters–the people who will do the grunt work to get our Democratic nominee elected in the fall–a say at the Convention. It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterf**k. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January. And it penalizes MI, 28 total delegates, for having broken DNC rules and moved its primary up.

But it focuses that punishment on those who played Chicken with the votes of MI and lost

Uh, this is completely wrong.

Hillary "won" a contest that was not supposed to count at all. So, she won nothing. Obama should not be penalized for taking his name off the ballot. ALL the candidates agreed to remove their name because the contest was not supposed to count at all... except Hillary. Neither Hillary or Obama should be penalized or rewarded for MI, and the only way to do that is to not count the votes in any way so they are void and have no impact. They both knew and agreed to this in the first place.

If someone is going to be penalized it has to be the MI state DNC committee and MI Governor, and FL too for that matter. Those people have been pointing fingers at Hillary and Obama for this mess, while trying to ignore the 3 fingers pointing back at themselves.
THEY are to blame and the citizens of those states need to hold THEM accountable by kicking them out of office.

That's the only way that those that broke the DNC rules get penalized, and the people of MI and FL are rewarded by getting Representatives in office that hold their interests at heart instead of some political shenanigans.

well, i'm glad to see i don't have to pile on.

i will anyway. f*** that plan.

NO FUCKING WAY.

EOT.

I was a John Edwards man. First, and only political candidate I've ever (or will!!) contributed to financially in a presidential campaign. I intended to write in John as
my vote in the NC 5/6 primary regardless that he has suspended his campaign for the
nomination, as a protest of the choices we are left with in the party. During the past
few weeks I've had to alter that principled stand, and on 4/21/08 as the "Keystone
State" coronated St. Hillary I cast my vote in the NC Democratic Primary early voting
for Barack Obama. I'm a white 47 year old son of a textile mill worker with a ninth grade
education. What is all this talk that a bi-racial American can't get the vote of working
class white males?? Nonsense ,I say, but what do I know? I'm just an ignorant red-neck,
bitter person from one of those Big States that don't count, right??

I just look at some people's comments posted on here and just wonder to myself.

Many of you here are young and first time voters. You are so invested emotionally in your candidate that you fail to see the serious consequences of Disenfranchising the 2.3 MILLION people who voted in those two very important states and the inevitable repercussions of that to the Democratic Party in November.

The one and only solution is that they should respect the results of the first two primaries since the supporters of one of the candidates shamelessly blocked a REVOTE in those two states a month ago. Sharing the delegates between these two candidates as if  it is some kind of bounty is completely unacceptable. They have to have EARNED those votes.

Defeat as a consequence of this will be a SOBERING experience for many of you. The lesson learnt from that  would be that one should always remember that in a Democracy, you should always MAKE SURE the voices of ALL are heard not just your OWN.
 
 

Marge @ 12:

A lot of people from Michigan and Florida are thinking if their vote didn't count for the primary, why show up for the GE. This seems fair.

C'mon, Marge. Anyone willing to sit out the November election because her or his state wouldn't follow the party's rules is probably not old enough to vote (and certainly should be discouraged on intelligence grounds). If my vote didn't count in the primary, it would provide all the more incentive for me to vote in November.

I was already "disenfranchised" by the system when my state caucuses were held, because my candidate was no longer in the race. So, I had to settle for one of the two remaining candidates. Naturally, instead of remaining involved, I stayed home, pouted, held my breath, and swore I'd never vote again.

IT PENALIZES the officials….that’s what should be done.

No, actually it penalizes Obama for abiding by the rules and the agreed upon outcome and rewards HRC for pretending to respect the rules and then when her inevitability cloak failed to work, she decided some rules aren't really rules at all.

I just look at some people’s comments posted on here and just wonder to myself.

Many of you here are young and first time voters. You are so invested emotionally in your candidate that you fail to see the serious consequences of Disenfranchising the 2.3 MILLION people who voted in those two very important states and the inevitable repercussions of that to the Democratic Party in November.

The one and only solution is that they should respect the results of the first two primaries since the supporters of one of the candidates shamelessly blocked a REVOTE in those two states a month ago. Sharing the delegates between these two candidates as if it is some kind of bounty is completely unacceptable. They have to have EARNED those votes.

Defeat as a consequence of this will be a SOBERING experience for many of you. The lesson learnt from that would be that one should always remember that in a Democracy, you should always MAKE SURE the voices of ALL are heard not just your OWN.

Bullshit. One, I am a young voter, though I did vote in 2000 and 2004. Second, I'm a Florida voter. It sucks that FL and MI won't count, but they broke the rules. I'm fine with that. If FL and MI want delegates to have a nice flight and weekend stay in Denver convention weekend, fine. Split 'em 50/50. If not, no big deal, they just won't count.

What I don't like is rationalizing unfair (and I must repeat RULE BREAKING) tactics with the narrative tropes of "young idealistic" voters not understanding the voices of "experienced realists". I think anyone who has lived through the past eight years has had enough sobering reality to last a long time.

Besides is this really the most important selection of the campaign cycle? I seem to recall this old white guy who has the support of big business and the military-industrial complex who just hanging around collecting money for something...

Oh right, John "Walnuts" McCain.

November is the real, actual race we need to be focused on. Frankly Hilary screwed the pooch when her campaign decided to not plan for after Feb. 5 and while that should be all she wrote, like a zombie, or Jason Voorhees this won't die.

I don't agree with the petition either.

I do think that the DNC has to settle this question once and for all and it should go something like this

"Delegates in FL and MI have two options and two options only:
1- Don't get seated.
2- Get seated 50%-50% so their influence is only symbolic
This rule is not open to negotiation, protest, pants soiling, and will not be altered even if space alien invaders threaten to destroy the entire planet."

The only thing the DNC should do is implement a new rule to have super delegates vote before the convention.

As I'm writing this there are 140 comments on this topic. I scanned thru them but didn't find any that supported signing the petition. HRC suporters must be off commenting on some other blog.

While I almost feel bad for the voters of MI and FL, they need to go after their elected and party officials who decided to break the rules. Their votes should not be counted. What if every state decided to go first? That'd be one big primary on Jan-2nd. Not a good idea.

While you don't want to dismiss the votes of people in MI or FL for fear of losing their votes in November, you might also want to consider what kind of precedent that you'll be setting. Because, from now on any state that votes for an early primary will point to this election season as precedent for what should be done with their votes.

The way I see it, there's only two possible fair options for MI and FL:

1) Seat no delegates. No 50/50 split, no convoluted 15 point solution. You broke the rules, you get no say. It would be similar to someone spoiling their ballot and then stating after the fact that they wrote down "Walt Disney" in their scribbling and thus he should get that vote. The people are responsible for their officials actions just as much as the officials themselves are. If they vote against the will of the people, they should be removed. And, if their actions were debated before the primary, why didn't the people take action against these officials?

2) Hold a new primary at the same time as the last primaries of the other states. If someone else pulls ahead in the meantime, their votes would still count - just not as much because other states (and the candidates themselves) had already decided the nomination for them. If Hillary and Obama are willing in stay in the race for every last delegate and it comes right down to it, MI and FL will become the deciding factor in race, just like the officials wanted. Their votes count, just like the people wanted. Everyone walks away happy?

Slaw @ 144:

malcolm @ 26:

As a Michigan voter, I disagree with this plan.

Obama, and everyone (with the exception of Dodd and Hillary) took their names off the ballot because they were asked to not participate by the party leadership.

If anything, they should strip Hillary of her MI delegates for violating what (I understand to have been) a signed pledge not to participate.

It frosts me that she’s walking around talking about “winning” Michigan, while we here know that a) she was nearly beat by “undecided” and b) she won it by cheating.

Either you follow the rules that you are given or you don’t. I see no need to reward people who break the rules.

I'll sign a petition that penalizes Hillary. I won't sign this--your plan takes away my say as a Michigan voter.

And I meant to add, I completely agree with Malcolm.

I'm not sure anyone is going to read this, but I feel like I need to vent.

When Bush won in 2000, i was thought I was having some horrible dream. I waited him out, making websites against him and protesting his actions in DC and New York.

When the Dems nominated Kerry in 2004, I thought, okay, not the best choice, but it would be near impossible for him to lose, and Kerry would make a fine president. Well I was wrong, and four more years of incompetency.

A year ago every major pundit thought the dems couldn't lose this election. I live in New York and when Hillary decided to run I thought, well, she has the personality of a turkey, and she won't win. And when Obama decided to run, I thought, he's part african-american, and I don't think the red states would go for that, and he has no chance. Well someone please give me some xanex, because this is what we are left with, and instead of planning for November, we are killing ourselves and making it so easy for McBush. Why? Why are you Hillary supporters dragging the blood out of this party by trying to keep this election going?

At this point I will support just about anything that gets MI off the "disputed" column without giving Sen Clinton all the delegates so that everyone will just STFU about it.

Sen Obama is far enough ahead that this does not effect the math. He will still be the nominee. The one thing that I would say is that if this was acceptable to both sides I think that it is disingenuous of Sen Clinton to count the popular vote in MI unless she counts all non-Clinton votes as a vote for Obama.