MyDD :: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMATE nominee

Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMATE nominee

by MKyleM, Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barr ett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.ht ml

This is a link to an article everyone interested in the Democratic primary must read.

Howard Dean's handling of MI and FL is an absolute disgrace to the party and democratic principals. Having been an enthusiastic supporter of his in 2004, I am very sad today as I see him embarrassing himself and our party. Apparently, the rules should only apply when they benefit his candidate, Obama.

Without those two states seated and seated in a way that actually reflects the will of the voters there, it is an absolute must in making sure our nominee is, in fact, a legitimate nominee. Hillary Clinton couldn't be more correct when she makes such a suggestion. Not only should we uphold small-d democratic principals, it would be political suicide to shaft two vitally important states months before the election.

Furthermore, how will we know whether or not the will of the people is being overturned by any action of super-delegates? That is a serious question that Obama supporters absolutely refuse to address. If Obama and the DNC reduce the voters in those two states, as the author describes, to "ghosts", there will be no such tally.

Its heartbreaking. The author of the article quotes a FL Republican, mocking Democratic pleas in 2000 to 'count every vote,' going on to note 'how things have changed.' What a sorry situation, that's all I can say.

If Obama depended on FL and MI, his supporters would be on the verge of full scale riot. They would be repeating, until they were blue faced, "let the people vote", "is this communist Russia?", "the establishment is overturning the will of the people", "why don't they want to vote?", "she's scared she will lose." I find the hypocrisy disturbing.

Many will say Clinton is playing politics and that she's only making a big deal because she needs them to win. No one really knows the answer to that, but I do know that she is smart enough to realize we cannot shaft those two crucial states and expect anything short of disaster in November.

I do know that justice is on her side here and it doesn't matter what she'd do on the flip side. I certainly would be calling on her to do the same. Just let the people vote. Let their voices count. We need a legitimate candidate. You simply cannot dismiss 2.3 million people voting as a "stunt." People got baby-sitters, skipped lunch, left work, made arrangements, rearranged their day so that they could VOTE. Disenfranchising them will not only piss off Democrats in those two states, but the GOP will use this against our "candidate" during the general election. "Obama is the nominee because he worked to silence voters", "stole the election." That will work with independents. You know, typical Americans who have silly ideas in their heads about "voting" and "democracy."

Tags: Clinton, Obama, FL, MI, Dean, DNC (all tags)

Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

I agree thats why they will be seated.

problem solved.

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:36 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

This isn't about sending a bunch of people to Denver to have a good time. It is a matter of the delegates being seated in a manner that reflects the will of the voters.

Its a matter of the people of those states having a say in who the nominee should be.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (none / 0)

Yes, just not enough of a say to change the overall outcome. We're cool with that.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (none / 0)

and who exactly makes the rules about how Votes translates into delegates?

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The same people (none / 0)

who decided that caucus goers would be more represented at the national convention than primary goers. How wonderfully democratic if us Democrats.

by linc on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

once he's the nominee. The FL and MI debacle is not his fault. Nor should Dean back down, because to do so is to throw away any control over the next primary schedule. You know who had a big hand in punishing MI and FL? Harold Ickes.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

If the DNC is going to disenfranchise voters because party officials broke rules, then the other states that broke rules (ie Iowa and New Hampshire) should be disenfrachised too.

If this is really about enforcing rules, then they should be enforced, not simply applying rules only to fix the election for Obama.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Given that the rules were fixed before a single vote was cast, it's hard to see how it was done to help Obama.

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Can you read?

NH and IA broke the rules after the rules were put in place. Why aren't they being punished and MI and FL are?

Can you answer that?

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

ask harold Ickes he is in a position of authority with the DNC and voted to strip MI and FL

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Relevance? I asked how a punishment before any votes are cast can be said to favour a particular candidate.

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Because Harold Ickes is a bigwhig in the Clinton campaign.

In addition, NH and IA were not punished because it was MI and FL that started the dominoes rolling. The NH AG waited until the last second of the last court appeal of MI before moving his primary the exact amount of time required by state law. MI and FL knew exactly when the date of NH would be when they kicked over the first domino.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Thanks Travis - I agree. I didn't understand how he could possibly construe it as being biased for Obama from the get go. Still, logic isn't his strong suit.

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn. Obama will seat MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

All good points to discuss with Harold Ickes.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor dead horse (1.50 / 2)

Does it really need any more flogging?

You talk about dismissing 2.5 million people voting (knowing by the way their delegates would not count), well what about the other millions who didn't vote because a) the knew the MI/FL primaries wouldn't count according to DNC rules b) did not have their candidate on the ballot or campaign.

Your idea of democracy has more in common with the plebiscites of the Third Reich, or those Soviet votes in which Stalin got over 90%.

You don't change the rules midway.

Now Loose on the Moose

by brit on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST

Re: Poor dead horse (2.00 / 2)

Oh, please. You are comparing me to Hitler because I think people should vote? Pathetic! Intellectually bankrupt! Plain stupid.

I'm very much in favor of a re-vote in MI, even though Obama and Edwards were idiots for taking their names off the balot. I would support a revote in FL but would also support seating them because all names were on the ballot.

I think voters should have voted. I certainly would. I would have never accepted the DNC telling me my voice wouldn't count. Period. Millions of people did take that position and voted. Their actions should be honored.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Obama and Edwards were idiots" (2.00 / 1)

Oh, and the rest, except Dodd apparently. Idiots all.

Since Senator Clinton was the only one who signed the pledge "not to campaign or participate" yet left her name on the ballot, I don't think it's intellectually honest to call the others "idiots" and portray their not being on the ballot as some sort of odd, voluntary decision. Clearly everyone but Senator Clinton believed that was the intent of the pledge.

by McNasty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama and Edwards were idiots" (none / 0)

Yes, they were all idiots. It is very disrespectful to the VOTERS of the state.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama and Edwards were idiots" (none / 0)

Uh, No. Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot to appease Iowa and NH voters. Even Kos (definitely not a Clinton lover) saw through it in January:

"Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates. So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal."

by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Love the exclamation marks mate (2.00 / 1)

Reread my post. I mentioned plebiscites in the third reich as false appeals to democracy. I hope your head didn't explode or anything messy.

Now Loose on the Moose

by brit on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love the exclamation marks mate (none / 0)

And u think that's any better.

You either believe people should vote or you don't.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People voted in the USSR (2.00 / 1)

But were the rules fair? No. Are the DNC rules fair?

If not, why did all the candidates agree to abide by them?

Now Loose on the Moose

by brit on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is disenfranchising 2.5 million voters (none / 0)

highest turnout in history, he advertised and fundraised there. He cannot win if he doesn't count the votes.

Maybe he could still win, but this will not go away.

2 states will have an uprising, or Obama WILL NOT WIN A GE (looks like he won't be able to anyway)

BY DISENFRANCHISING 2 STATES.

by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is disenfranchising 2.5 million voters (none / 0)

uprising? a little dramatic, no?

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is disenfranchising 2.5 million voters (2.00 / 1)

If it's such a huge issue, why is Obama within 1 point of McCain in Michigan?

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

So, had Clinton won the nomination, as widely expected, but without Michigan and Florida due to their punishment, she too would have been an illegitimate nominee...right?

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Yes! I don't care who benefits. FL and MI must count.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough.

I wasn't on here back when the states were punished or even when those states voted in their no-delegate primaries.

Was there a strong backlash, or did it mostly go unnoticed?

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

FL and MI must not count, and I don't care who benefits. The rules were agreed upon, and allowing them to get away with this will make 2008 look like a ballet compared to the mess waiting for us in 2012 if the national party cannot exercise control over the primary schedule.

The people were disenfranchised by the state parties, not the DNC. Place blame where it belongs...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OF COURSE--AND YOU'D SAY SO HYPOCRITE (none / 0)

"Don't disenfranchise the Culinary Union, you must count everybody's vote"-- Barack Obama in Nevada.

COUNT ALL 50 STATES.

by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (none / 0)

YES. and for the record I am a HRC supporter. This issue is NOT about Advantage =Hillry, Disadvantage = BO.

This issue is about disinfranchising millions of voters. Period. And doing in so in TWO states the Dem nominee MUST win.

And by the way, I think Hillary would have taken her chances on revotes, and just busted her butt to make her case and campaigned to win the states. She has certainly shown that she does not shy away from difficulties and challenges, and I think she would have handled the revotes in the same way. I don't think she is crazy enough to be down 44 Electoral votes before the GE election starts. And BO seating the delegates AFTER the fact is no compromise, just arrogant manipulation. Why is this guy NOT acting like the frontrunner he is so deperately wanting to crow about?

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (none / 0)

Also for the record, I'm an Obama supporter who wants these states to count, in some way.

I think stripping their superdelegates is a fairer punishment, as the people really had nothing to do with these changes.

I'd be OK with seating Florida as-is, though I'd call on Clinton to not claim the popular vote advantage from that state, as we have no idea how many supporters from either side stayed home, voted in the GOP primary, or voted their conscience for a candidate who couldn't win (Kucinich, for example) because they knew their vote wouldn't count. Not that she'd do that, I expect. After all, diaries around here regularly include her Florida AND Michigan votes in her popular vote totals, even though those results are spurious.

Michigan is even more troublesome. It can't reasonably argued to be seated as-is, unless one lacks all sense of fair play. So it has to have a revote or a negotiated delegate split.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (none / 0)

Technically, they can't strip the SD's. According to the DNC charter (I don't have the language at my fingertips), but it says something to the effect that the SD's (or "unpledged delegates" SHALL be seated at the convention). I believe there is a Florida congressman who has filed suit. According to the DNC rule (you know - "the ROOLZ"?) there is no choice.

by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Good thing MI and FL will get seated at the convention, then. Just in time for Obama's nomination.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Just so we can be sure your outrage is linked to the injustice, and not to the candidate it disadvantages,could you please point us to any diaries or comments you posted on the subject prior to Super Tuesday?

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 2)

Nice try.

Time is running out to fully resolve this, with re-votes anyway. I fully expected the DNC and Obama to do the right thing. I guess my expectations were too high.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Nice dodge.

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Still waiting ...

by interestedbystander on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One can make a stronger (2.00 / 1)

argument that Senator Clinton's only plausible path to the nomination will leave her considered as an illegitimate candidate by most Democrats. Or an ILLEGITIMATE nominee, if you prefer.

Besides, it seems highly likely that the FL and MI delegates will be seated in some way. Not as-is, of course--that would be cause for capitalizing the word illegitimate and perhaps adding several exclamation points.

by McNasty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

The delegates will be seated. Is this HRC kitchen sink programme for this week.

As of that has done her any good so far.

McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future

by KathyM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST

OT: Love your .sig! (2.00 / 1)

Team Obama turned three student precincts here in Boulder that were no-shows in 2004 into well-run groups of 40, 50, and 80 young voters this year. I don't know how they did it, frankly, but Barack Obama's the person I want at the top of the ticket as a result.

by McNasty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are NO caucuses in the GE -- (1.50 / 2)

WE KNOW YOUR VOTE, LET US HAVE OURS.................................... .....It's called DEMOCRACY.

Obama= Disenfranchising 2 STATES

by chieflytrue on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One thing that bothers me about (2.00 / 3)

they "They deserve punishment because they broke the rules" argument is that the state isn't really being punished. It's voters are. It is not their fault that their state parties did what they did and there's probably nothing they could have done to prevent it.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST

Re: One thing that bothers me about (2.00 / 2)

Amen.

by MKyleM on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing that bothers me about (2.00 / 0)

not really, its not that hard to add 60 more delegates to the totals to see that MI and FL don't help Hillary.

They may officially not count, but everyone tracks their stats, MI and FL still don't put Hillary in the lead.

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 2)

It'll happen after the votes. They'll give a 50% haircut, Obama will be given the uncommitted delegates, and Clinton will net about 35 delegates but it won't be enough to flip anything.

That's my prediction.

There's no way that they're going to give Obama 0 delegates out of Michigan in order to flip an election.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

by thezzyzx on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM EST

In Soviet Russia, Vote COUNTS You. (none / 0)

"I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together." - William Jennings Bryan

by pinche tejano on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (2.00 / 1)

Please.

Those contests do not meet the most standards for "free and fair elections" that the US and international organizations apply all around the world.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, Obama will be an ILLEGITIMA (1.00 / 1)

he will be illegitimate nominee anyway, because he won 15 caucuses, where will of the people was not heard. And yes, without FL & MI nobody can be a legitimate candidate.

Landslide of lies

by engels on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST

Re: Without MI and FL, (2.00 / 1)

Isn't it illegal to beat a dead horse?

by PittsburghPete on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:01:11 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.