Editor of Village Voice defends FL and MI leaders, says DNC picking on Hillary.

[madfloridian]

I just read this at Huff Post, and it truly alarms me. It is using the premise that Republicans are trying to choose our nominee...that the leaders in FL and MI had no choice but to play along. I found several statements that are just wrong, but when I click to post a comment....nothing happens. I am unable to post a comment there.

This article worries me, like it is laying the groundwork to blame the DNC for all of it at the end. All through the posts rings the theme that the GOP made them do it.

These two paragraphs sound like they are setting up a scenario in which the DNC will be the culprit in keeping Hillary from winning the nomination.

Untold story of how the GOP rigged Fl and MI

The title sickens me.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

If that sounds like a curious way to end a nominating contest that 30 million to 33 million voters will participate in before it's done, even stranger is that the DNC is following only some of its rules -- and that the real culprits who caused this debacle are Republicans, who are now relishing the catfight they provoked.

That is only the beginning of his assertions that the DNC is to blame for all of it. Now they are blaming Dean personally through his old Yale roommate.

The Democratic national committeeman who introduced the motion on the party's Rules Committee to deprive Florida of all its delegates -- a precursor to the Michigan decision a few months later -- was Ralph Dawson, a New York lawyer who was Howard Dean's Yale roommate and an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign. Dawson's role was seen as a signal of Dean's appetite for a kick-ass rebuke.

As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.

Yes, the DNC had choices. They had the option to enforce the rules more stringently than the 50%.

This is the first time I have seen this play out openly like this. Barrett is blaming Howard Dean and saying he is keeping Hillary from winning. Perhaps he need to look at the total votes now...Obama is still ahead counting FL and MI....

This is getting dirty. If I could get the comments page to come up I would remind Mr. Barrett of a few things.

The nice young fellow who introduced the bill said something very telling.

Jeremy Ring (D-FL) said "relevance is more important than "partying" in Denver.

And Jeremy Ring, a Democratic state senator from Broward County and co-sponsor of the legislation, defended it.

"If the choice is Florida is relevant and has no delegates versus being irrelevant and having delegates, I'd choose being relevant with no delegates," Ring said. "We did this so 18 million Floridians could take part in the presidential primaries, not so a few hundred people can go to a party in Denver."

He also said:

"Back then, the nominees were already decided by the time our primary came around, so the candidates would come here to raise money but not to campaign for our votes," he said.

"So what are they doing now? The same thing. We're no worse - if anything, we're better.

"My hope is we've blown up the whole primary system," Ring said. "It would be the biggest legacy we'll get from this legislation."

Of course, Mr Barrett could also watch the video of Steve Geller on the floor of the Florida Senate. I call it the "bramble bush" video.

Laughing your own amendment off the floor.

I have spent a lot of time writing about this Florida primary fiasco.

It never occurred to my simple little mind that in the end it would be turned into a "Howard Dean picking on Hillary" scenario at Huffington Post.

Now that it has, I know for sure which side I am on.

Some people simply do not know when it is time to go.

[anigbrowl]

1. MF, you've become a deep expert on this topic

I think you should should call up the VV and tell them you want to do an op-ed for the next issue, then put your thoughts in print.

Indeed, you've written so many thoughtful and meticulously sourced posts about it over the last few months that you could do worse than start calling up publishers - I don't think it would be too hard for you to collect the material into a worthwhile book.

[Cha]

3. Thanks an excellent idea, anigbrowl!

Amazing how so many people write like they know what they're talking about and haven't done the research like whomever from the VV.

[madfloridian]

4. Blaming Dean's Yale roommate? Can you believe it?

There are so many things wrong with what he writes that it truly alarms me.

It scares me for the future of our party.

[Debi]

27. I've said that before - a book should be written about this and mf

is the one to do it!

[UALRBSofL]

2. Oh my goodness now they have gone and done it

Huffington Post is been marked off by the Obama supporters. They are no longer to be trusted. :rofl:

[youngharry]

17. Huffpost

Sorry, it's not the Obama people, it's the Huffington Post which has become the National Enquirer of the Blogs--THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Huffpost has taken a decided downturn in the last 6 months to the point I no linger recognize it. It use to have trustworthy info that you could rely on, but now most articles are bullshit and don't do anything except try to titillate. THEY ARE NO LONGER NEWSWORTHY.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

rut roh

here comes the bus

[chimpymustgo]

69. LOL. Here comes the bus.

[OHdem10]

5. When any election is perceived as unfair---and God Help us

this one does, it is not good for any of the involved.

It would have been better if in the beginning the DNC had
announced Obama is our candidate this year--no one else should
enter the race.

[madfloridian]

8. That is horrible for you to say.

[OzarkDem]

39. No, it sums up the situation succinctly

Obama supporters aren't just happy to pursue winning at all costs. They insist on canvassing the battlefield and shooting the wounded and innocent bystanders, too.

[chimpymustgo]

70. That is an excellent recap of the events. Re-vote NOW!

[JuniperLea]

15. That's pretty disgusting...

May as well not have a primary... may as well just tell one candidate to drop out... oh, wait.

:eyes:

[Mezzo]

23. ain't that the truth. nt

[OzarkDem]

37. Would have made it simpler for everyone

I mean, what the hell, what do we Democratic voters know anyway?

:sarcasm:

[spotbird]

43. Any of Hillary's revote proposals

are unfair.

That's what kills me about this new found outrage on the part of the Clinton campaign, they want an unfair vote but claim that it will be viewed as legitimate. That's just not true.

She only wants an outcome which benefits her campaign, same with Obama. Obama's advantage is that doing nothing benefits him.

[joshcryer]

82. How are they unfair? The caucusing plan only covers 1/10th of the people who *already* voted.

If you can't have a plan that covers just as many if not more people then the plan, by definition, is unfair.

[riskpeace]

50. I agree with you.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

It's a very strange strategy to disenfranchise your base in two key swing states.

It's very ironic that a registered Republican voter in an open primary state will have a voice in picking the Democratic nominee, but this registered Democratic voter and contributor seemingly will have none.

It's very frustrating that I live in a county where the elected officials are essentially chosen in the Republican primary. And then when there is an exciting and contested Democratic primary at the national level, my vote does not count.

The DNC might want to change that 50-state strategy to a 48-state strategy.

If everyone agrees that the Florida Democratic party has been very, very bad. And if we all agree that Howard Dean and the DNC are completely, 100% correct and are actually strategic geniuses by standing so strong for "the rules," then can my vote count?

[ms liberty]

6. K&R...n/t

[phrigndumass]

7. "I'd choose being relevant with no delegates"

Florida knew in advance that their delegation numbers wouldn't be counted. Senator Clinton agreed to these rules. It's not that Senator Obama is trying to keep them from being counted, because he also agreed to the same rules. The party made the rules, the candidates agreed, and the state of Florida changed the date knowing the results wouldn't be counted.

Now they're trying to be relevant with delegates, after choosing to be relevant with no delegates. Who exactly is trying to change the rules?

:kick:

[elixir]

9. OMG, MF. Another un freekin' believably long post. VV is stating the truth.

[WillyT]

16. Sorry About Your Attention Span...

:wtf:

[anigbrowl]

32. That's BS

Why don't you point out where MF has it wrong, then? Oh, it's too long for you to read? Waaaaaaaah.

[autorank]

10. You know the truth in detail. I know some of it through FL contacts.

What a cheap, uninformed opinion this editorial reflects.

The damn Republicans in Florida ruined a perfectly fine election reform bill by tacking on
this trash moving primaries up and some Democrats cooperated.

Hillary made a deal - no Florida, but now that breaking the deal works out, she wants to change
it. What kind of leader would she make? This issue reflects what kind.

Excellent post and excellent discussion and coverage of this issue.

Florida politics are fascinating.

I hope John Russell runs again and WINS. That would be a voice of truth in Congress and a real
affront to the powers that be in FDC.

The only good thing to come out of all of this was Sen. Nelson's call for abolition of the
Electoral College as part of his response to the overall mess

That's profound. I've been back and forth on Nelson (his conservatism and associates -
The Fellowship, on one hand, and his hero status for wiping the floor with Harris,
a great moment in our history.

The Electoral College move, however, reflects pure democracy, something resisted in this country
from day one (hence the Senate, how ironic for a Senator to call for this).

The notion of proportional representation only as reflecting real representation of the people
had a proud beginning in 1647 in the middle of the English Civil War but never quite made it
in England or the U.S.

[vssmith]

11. I live in Michigan and

I said this in another post:
Hillary and the DNC can stick the Michigan delegates where the sun never shines. Where was she when we first got disenfranchised? Now she needs our votes--ha!

[grantcart]

12. Is it me or have the Clinton's themselves stopped talking about MI and FL

[madfloridian]

14. I think they mentioned it during the week-end.

Will have to do a search. No, she does plan to continue this to the convention.

[madfloridian]

13. New tactic: If Hillary isn't the nominee, it will be blamed on Dean

and the DNC and his Yale roommate.

And the Clinton campaign needs to speak out when someone like this guy are accusing such things.

This is alarming.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. Don't hold your breath

Also, look at the ownership of the Voice.

hardly a progressive hootenanny.

owned by investors represented by Goldman Sachs, Weiss, Peck & Greer, and Trimaran Capital Partners.

Sounds pretty status quo.

[Hawkeye-X]

66. Yes, I was thinking when I saw the thread - it was owned by Republicans

from a thread months ago about VV.

I know they own one of our papers here in Colorado - can't remember which one - the Daily News or Westword.

Hawkeye-X

EDIT: Bingo - found it - it's Westword. http://www.newtimes.com/

Hawkeye-X

[OzarkDem]

40. You can get medical treatment for this

I suggest you seek it as soon as possible.

[madfloridian]

18. What is Barratt saying in this paragraph? Blaming Obama because of Jeremy?

"Obama's Backers--and the Road to the Nomination

The DNC critique of Florida's noncompliance included a reference to the fact that a Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. Obama even named Ring's 2006 campaign manager to run his statewide Florida effort. Ring was such a champion of the early primary that when Obama, like all the other candidates, supported the sanctions and agreed not to campaign in the state, Ring withdrew his endorsement."

"The support of Obama's principal backers in both states for the move-up bills was hardly consequential, but it does raise questions about his current opposition to any counting or recounting of these states. If bad faith is the DNC's standard, Obama doesn't have to look too far to find alleged examples of it, and to recognize that the national party might be unfairly characterizing what the leaders in these states did."

WTF is he saying? He can not possibly believe his own spin.

[joshcryer]

83. Is he an Obama supporter or not? You never answered.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. You mistate the article completely, Barret says the Dems broke their own rules

which called for anyone who moved up their primaries---Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida---to have only half of their delegates seated.


Those of you at DU who are demanding that we follow the letter of the law in the Democratic Party bylaws, according to Wayne Barret who says he actually went back and read the most recent rules, that is how they are written. No one is supposed to change and there is a prescribe penalty.

And he makes a very good case that this was the Republicans who did it and that Democrats tried to stop it---and that the Democratic Party's intention in issuing the "no seated delegates" ruling was not to strip the delegates but to apply additional political pressure at the time to aid the Democratic challenge to the Republicans moving up the date.

I am going to start my own thread about this excellent article by the excellent Mr. Barret. This is a hit thread.

[madfloridian]

22. No, that is NOT what Barrett is saying.

Let's be very clear. When he brought up Dawson's name, he made his intent very clear.

Florida KNEW they would lose ALL their delegates...they had 30 days to fix it.

Barrett is wrong.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1932

[joshcryer]

84. They had thirty days to create caucuses that would have resulted in 1/10th of the pop. being heard.

Yeah, that's a "fix" alright. A fix for Obama, that is.

[UALRBSofL]

35. McCamy you do know who actually stripped FL/MI of all delegates

Donna Brazille took charge and stripped us of all the delegates. She basically runs the DNC behind the scenes and then can go on CNN and push her agenda for the anointed one.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. I know. The Dems stripped Florida and Mi. The RNC wanted Rudi to get early wins

That is why they moved up the two primaries. They figured he would lose Iowa and they didn't want a GOP values to candidate to become the front runner. That was before Rudi's ties to News Corp made him a pariah to the rest of the MSM.

The Dems probably hoped that by stripping Mi and Florida of their votes it would put pressure on those states to move the primaries back, but the RNC was so determined to shove Rudi down its Party's throat in order to win that they did not care.

And now the pro Obama forces of the Democratic Party will be damned if they count Florida and Michigan's vote because the two states stand convicted of going for Hillary.

Meanwhile, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which according to the rules, should only seat half their delegates, are being let off without any punishment, because 2 of three were "good" and voted for Obama.

The women of the Democratic Party see the writing on the wall. One standard for Men another for Women.

[madfloridian]

72. I have seen some very good posters and bloggers let loyalty to Hillary

stand in the way of truth. I mentioned some of them in a post the other day.

Florida wanted to be relevant, they did not care about the other 48 states.

They knew they would all the delegates. They did not care.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1932

[joshcryer]

85. The concept of "relevancy" only simplifies the issue and does not cover everything Barret pointed...

...out. Like, you know, 1/10th of their population being heard by the DNCs "solution."

[McCamy Taylor]

74. There is a double standard in the DNC---one for men and one for women.

That is how rank and file Democrats are going to see this. If Barrett is correct all the states that moved their primaries should have seated half their delegates. However the two big states that went for Hillary are seating none of their delegates. Of the three smaller states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, two of which went for Obama and one for Hillary, they will seat all their delegates.

This makes it appear that the DNC has decided to change the rules to favor the man.

Combined with the recent flurry of men such as Richardson, Leahy, KO and others who have stepped forward to demand that Hillary, the "little woman" move aside to make way for the "real candidate" The Man who has a lead of about 100 based upon the favoritism showed by the DNC which is still basically an Old Boy's Club, this creates the impression that Women---an important voting block in the Democratic Party--are being taken for granted.

What will happen this fall if women get fed up with both of the two parties and decide that neither of them gives a damn about issues that affect their day to day lives?

[polmaven]

21. MF, you obviously did not see my question on this subject

several days ago...It was likely asked to late for you to catch it.

Please understand that I am not trying to be snide or snarky with the question, I am asking out of my honest "ignorance" on the subject.

I saw a gentlemen on Washington Journal a few weeks back..I do not remember his name...I think he may be the FL Democratic Majority leader, and he was defending the Dem legislators. He says that they attempted to put an amendment on the Primary bill changing the date to 2/5/08, but that they are badly outnumbered, and unable to get the necessary votes.

If the Dems in the legislature tried, but failed to pass a change of date, why would the DNC then be justified in "punishing" the voters in Florida.

I am obviously misinformed on the matter, and maybe he was not telling the whole story. You are doubtless the one to ask to help me get it straight......Thanks

[madfloridian]

24. I have two things for you. I have written much more.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1932

AND

this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHuQi17EaE

They KNEW they would lose all the delegates, they had 30 days to fix it.

[joshcryer]

86. Did they or did they not attempt to put a Feb 5th ammendment out there?

If they did I will never let you hear the end of it.

[joshcryer]

88. Indeed it seems they did. And while no doubt you have me on ignore, these lies will not be forgotten

I won't let these lies fester in your thread. You are circulating a video of the DNC (FLGOP provided, funnily enough) "laughing" about this vote. But the laughter comes because they know the vote will not pass under any circumstances.

You are the worst of the worst.

Dispicible.

The FL Democratic Party attempted with good will to move the vote.

The DNC needs to address this or it will be a pivotal aspect of the Nov. elections.

Obama does not need to have to worry about FL and MI defecting.

[Debi]

25. The Today show this morning

Dean was blamed for creating Calendar Commission and the calendar.

When was the Calendar Commission created?
Who was Chair of Rules and By-Laws?
Who was Chair of the Party?

x(

But go ahead and blame Dean :crazy:

[madfloridian]

26. FL knew they would lose all their delegates...had 30 day period to fix it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1932

And they refused.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Circumstances in FL and MI are very different. Calif was allowed to move up. nt

[asthmaticeog]

29. VV is now the property of the libertarian New Times Media.

That they changed the holding company name to "Village Voice Media" is merely a nod to that paper's 800 lb. gorilla status in altweekly-land. It's nothing more than snarky, right-leaning-libertarian trash now, like the entire chain of papers to which it now belongs.

[madfloridian]

31. And they are invited to be posters at Huff Post.

That tells you something about Huff Post.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Yes, Let The Voters Speak So The Superdelegates Can Decide

Who cares that the Clinton camp refused to hold simpler and less costly caucuses. Or that her only path to victory is convincing enough superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters through a bruising convention apocalypse that splits the Democratic Party in half.

Who cares that in addition to "precariously narrow lead in the final national vote" of 750,000 votes, Obama has DOUBLE the amount of states won and about 150 more pledged delegates?

It's because a New York weekly says that the New York Senator should be allowed to wipe all of that out with some backroom deals.

[Deep13]

33. I guess I agree with the V.V. writer.

Just a quick look right now. I'll examine it in depth later.

[madfloridian]

38. So you also blame Howard Dean's old Yale roommate? This is getting funnier daily.

:wow:

[Deep13]

45. What about the destruction of our Nov. chances do you find funny?

This isn't a fucking game.

[madfloridian]

49. It is a game to some. I am sorry but it is time for reality.

.

[OzarkDem]

34. Let's see if I can figure this out....

No, sorry, the twisted logic of the Obama supporters is too much to unravel. I gave it my best effort, but could not untangle the twisted logic.

Apparently they want to disenfranchise MI and FL Dem voters, simply because it means Clinton will pick up more delegates than Obama in those states.

Yet these are the same so-called Democrats who have raged for the last several years against rigging elections and disenfranchising voters.

And they justify their schizophrenic rationale by blaming it on Hillary Clinton.


Imagine for a moment, if the roles were reversed....

[madfloridian]

36. Okay.

:wow:

[OzarkDem]

42. Typical Obama frenzy

No logic or facts, all hysteria, all the time.

[Larkspur]

41. No MI and FL leaders disenfrachised their people

and most of those leaders were Clinton supporters trying to end the primary before Feb. 5.

My brother lives in FL and doesn't think FL delegation should be seated. It wasn't a fair primary to begin with because most voters either did know about the date change or felt that their votes wouldn't count anyway.

[OzarkDem]

44. Last I checked it was the GOP

Are you saying the GOP did this to get Hillary elected? :rofl: :tinfoilhat:

[Larkspur]

46. FL Dems co-sponsored the bill to move the dates up

They did not fight the date move.

[riskpeace]

58. FL Dems co-sponsored a verified voting bill

The GOP-controlled legislature and committees added the primary move and the outnumbered Dems chose to vote for the verified voting bill.

[riskpeace]

57. I respect your brother's opinion.

At the same time, 1.7 million other Florida Democratic voters did turn out and select their candidate.

There was also a property tax reform measure on the ballot, so presumably folks would have come out to the polls regardless of the disputed status of the Presidential primary.

[joshcryer]

87. And the DNC "solution" was to caucus with 1/10th the voting population.

:sigh:

[madfloridian]

47. Now I must say..

good by to you. I tried.

[OzarkDem]

52. As did I

but I can't accept the shifting conspiracy theories that ignore evidence and try to find some warped paranoid justification for denying Dems in MI, and FL from having their votes counted, especially when other states that "broke the rules" were not held to the same standard.

Now everyone is wading deep into the weeds to cook up conspiracy theories to justify crucifying Hillary. Its bullshit. Complete, unjustifiable bullshit.

The Obama emperor has no clothes. He wants to deprive Democrats of their right to have their votes counted simply because it doesn't further his goals. The antagonist is Obama and his supporters are going to extreme lengths to not only vilify Hillary to hide Obama's real intentions, they're now dragging others in for the daily Obama tar and feather parade.

Shame on you.

[ieoeja]

64. What other states broke what rules? n/t

[stillcool]

51. the roles and the rules..

sounds like the perfect explanation to the outrage.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stillcool]

54. Why? The Democrats in 48 states...

followed the rules, that were agreed upon in March..one year ago. Harold Ickes voted to strip the states of their delegates..in August! What has changed? And what about following the rules agreed upon in March of 2007..is depraved and delusional??

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.
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

[OzarkDem]

56. Like I said

get some medical help. Your post reminds me of the paranoid rants we used to read in our clinical psychology textbooks.

[riskpeace]

55. Some of them also are the same people

who say that if Gore got the nomination, then they would be disenfranchised.

[dchill]

48. K & R.

[madfloridian]

59. I see someone is posting it here already with credibility. Blaming Dean's roommate

for FL and MI...saying Dean is picking on Hillary.

Pathetic and sad.

[Beacool]

60. Thank you Mr. Barrett, a voice of reason in this chaos.

I read your paper faithfully and have done so for years, thanks for your evenhanded analysis of the MI & FL debacle.

[madfloridian]

61. Yes, blaming Dean's Yale roommate....very credible blog.

And totally amazing how Hillary supporters are hanging on by their fingernails.

That is the lowest...blaming Ralph Dawson. Sad and pathetic.

:sarcasm:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. loved that "laughing your amendment off the floor" description

well put!

Thank you for educating us and giving us the ammo to rebut the lies.

I have circulated this in North Carolina and eyes were opened!

[madfloridian]

63. And thank you for spreading the word as well.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

65. I see Norah O picking up on it on MSNBC

Love the way propaganda travels.

It is truly amazing.

[madfloridian]

67. From last August, four major papers chided Florida for being a primary bully.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1954

"Why don't we just vote for president tomorrow and be done with it? That would be the logical extension of the states' battle to get to, or at least near, the presidential primary starting line. California and 14 other states that wanted to weigh in early enough to make a difference picked Feb. 5 for their primaries, creating what's being called Super-Duper Tuesday because it's a month earlier and includes twice as many states as the Super Tuesdays of old. Now Florida lawmakers, unhappy at having their state's vote stuck in March, have decided to leapfrog that pack and set their nominating election for Jan. 29."

More:

"Boot rule-breaking states to the back of the line. Our view on picking a president: Boot rule-breaking states to the back of the line. Parties step in to stop primary leapfrog. It’s about time.

Finally, some adult supervision is coming to the process of picking presidential nominees. And not a moment too soon."

More:

"Friday, August 31, 2007

It's not a very proud time to be a Floridian.

We're looking bad again - and deservedly so. It's over voting. (Surprise!) And this time, a purely self-inflicted

Unfortunately, there's no good way to honey-coat this. Florida's transgression is something that people can understand, even if they have no interest in politics. It's one of those things you learn in kindergarten: Don't cut in line."

And more:

"U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida's highest ranking Democratic official, continues his aggressive public relations campaign against national party bureaucrats threatening to punish Florida for leapfrogging its presidential primary over other states. In a column in today's USA Today, he writes, "And it's ironic, because this year, after heartbreaking losses in 2000 and 2004, Democrats supposedly are united in their determination to win the presidency. That's hard to do when you tell 4 million Florida Democrats they don't count."

Some Democratic leaders are privately grumbling that the senator may be trying to help his colleague in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, who currently has the most to lose if Florida's primary doesn't count at the national convention. Nelson hasn't endorsed, but U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings, who have also been outspoken, are Clinton supporters."

[madfloridian]

68. Anyone recognize the rest of the names who submitted the article?

For a joint effort it surely is disjointed and sorry research abounds.

"Research assistance by: Kimberly Chin, Shaunna Murphy, Shea O'Rourke, Marguerite A. Suozzi, Adam Weinstein and John Wilwol.

Research support for this article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund."

The Nation provided the tools for this research? They keep calling to donate to their investigative fund....I don't think so.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/ifunds/

[madfloridian]

73. The Nation Institute funded the research for that article.

That annoys me a lot.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/ifunds/

[madfloridian]

75. Hallelujah, amen...Markos...good post.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/31/1402/43872/479/487699

"Actually, it's not one percent. I love how Clinton's surrogates continue to lie about the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida. My kids preschool cast ballots too, and Obama won. Should we count those votes as well?

But aside from that, I'd be saying the exact same thing I'm saying now, I'd just swap out Clinton's name for Obama. As for the media, they would've long-ago given up on her challengers. The only reason she's still in this race is because she's a Clinton. I don't begrudge her that advantage, but it's the reality of the matter. If Edwards was in Clinton's position, or Richardson, or anyone else, this thing would've been long gone after Clinton's February losing streak.

The math is clear: the only way for Clinton to win this race is via coup by super delegate, which would throw the party into civil war. Clinton knows this, of course, and doesn't care. In fact, she's hoping for it.

It's her best-case scenario."

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Barrett exposes a larger Big Lie; "Obama is not campaigning for Super Delegates"

Obama is campaigning for Super Delegates every hour of every day. He can not win without them. His 100 plus delegate lead is what he dangles in from of them. When he tells the world through surrogates that Hillary is divisive ( "a monster") a liar (Sinbad's comments about Bosnia which Viacom-CBS the network which crucified Dan Rather rushed to substantiate with a few seconds of much edited news footage which can not document what happened for the rest of the time on the ground) a racist ( comments too numerous to mention but start with Jesse Jackson Jr.) a bitch ( "nice enough") he is telling the Super Delegates "Vote for me." When he and his wife say that their voters will not support Hillary even though the polls said otherwise, they were telling the Super Delegates "Vote for me, or else...." Cynical people will wonder of McClatchy was on to something when they found a correlation between SD affiliation and money received from candidate's. In that Obama has bought more SDs than Hillary. Since Obama is the darling of the left wing, do nothing Dem Congresspeople like Nancy Pelosi can endorse him and hope to win back voters who are angry over the fact that they have not impeached or defunded the war. When Obama spun his Republican cross over votes early in the primary as "broad based appeal" but Hillary's cross over votes now as "GOP meddling in the primary" he is trying to win SDs. When he accuses Hillary of trying to win SD's---he is trying to win SDs. When his supporters openly cheer when Eliot Spizter is brought down by a corrupt Bush DOJ because it means one less SD for Hillary, Obama is trying to win SDs. When Obama says that SDs must only vote the way that the majority of the people and the delegates vote at a time when he has a slim delegate lead and majority lead---he is trying to win more SDs (in order to widen his lead).

Obama tries so hard to give the impression that he is not trying. This is utter bull shit. Anyone who falls for this pr line needs to take a course in remedial politics. I have no doubt that he has a favor list a mile long of pledges, promises, ambassador appointments and other goodies that he has promised to his SDs. That is how you win them. Not because they think you are the best candidate for the job.

Read "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" for more about SDs.

[madfloridian]

77. Who said he is not trying to get superdelegates? Where did that come from?

The post I refer to is blaming Howard Dean and his Yale roommate Ralph Dawson for picking on Hillary by applying the rules too strictly to FL and MI.

I do not see how anyone can take that seriously? I really do not.

After seeing the Geller video...how could anyone claim FL tried to obey the rules.

It is all a big joke.

[madfloridian]

78. I am appalled to see a candidate's support of lower tier Dems called "buying."

It is called helping the down ticket and building a farm team.

As I say...too many people, too many bloggers, have allowed loyalty to her to cause foggy thinking on some very important issues.

Anyone defending an article which blames Dean's Yale roommate is having some reality problems.

[madfloridian]

79. Meet Ralph Dawson...the one Huff Post is blaming for FL and MI

along with Dean. It is such an obvious ploy they are making. Bad Howard and Ralph picking on nice Hillary. I mean, come on.

From the OP:

The Democratic national committeeman who introduced the motion on the party's Rules Committee to deprive Florida of all its delegates -- a precursor to the Michigan decision a few months later -- was Ralph Dawson, a New York lawyer who was Howard Dean's Yale roommate and an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign. Dawson's role was seen as a signal of Dean's appetite for a kick-ass rebuke.

As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.

Well, here's a nice article aobut him from the New York Observer in February. Let's get the know the people are the accused now in the Fl and MI debacles.

http://www.observer.com/2008/patient-uncommitted-superdelegate-new-york-ralph-dawson

"You may not know Ralph Dawson. But he could be a pivotal player in the Democratic presidential primary. He’s an uncommitted superdelegate from New York—which is rare, since this is Hillary Clinton’s home state.

Dawson, a partner at the law firm, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., is also the Democratic National Committee member who introduced the resolution to strip Florida of its delegates for holding its presidential primary ahead of the February 5 date recommended by the D.N.C. Dawson said for him, it’s not a question of choosing a president he prefers—he likes them both—but rather, seeing which one is more electable in November

“I think both candidates have proven they’re worthy of being presidents and would make good presidents,” Dawson told me this afternoon. “So, for me, the real issue is who has the best chance of winning and I think that remains undetermined at this point.”

"Question: Did you anticipate your resolution to strip Florida of its delegates would be as pivotal as it is turning out to be now?]

“No. . No. well, I was a member of the rules and bylaws committee and as a member of that committee, the committee had worked hard to try to establish a fair and evenhanded process that would give us an opportunity to look at how our potential candidates faired with many of the constituencies of the party and with different parts of the country. “

Blame is spread in a different direction every single day. Except where it belongs...on the Dem leaders of both states.

[LulaMay]

80. It's the truth. Dean didn't care to resolve FL or MI because he knew Obama wouldn't win either

.... just in case it went that far, which he and his inner circle believed it wouldn't

This is old news that the media hasn't wanted to report on.



At least some are tiring of being cheerleaders for Dean and team Obama.

[joshcryer]

81. Is this your second post in this vein or am I losing it?

This is verging on spam.