Comments on: Michigan & Florida: Make Sure They Have a Voice

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:20 +0000

What a strange few weeks,do you think Obama can go all the way?…

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:11:23 +0000

Not every Clinton loss is a flaw in the process or the result of some massive conspiracy to keep her from winning. She had as much opportunity to participate in caucus states as Barack Obama did. One could say she had more advantages at the state and local level because of relationships developed with local party organizers and officials over the last decade or so. Hillary chose not to spend her campaign time and money there and instead focused more on large primary states. Few thought it would be this close so the strategy probably made sense at the time.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:31:52 +0000

Andre

I highly doubt, in fact I am absolutely certain, Hillary Clinton would not run as an Independent.

The fact is politics is an ugly game, it’s also an unfair game played with very messed up rules, but in the end, candidates themselves respect the process and it is the rare Joe Leiberman type that leaves his party to run as an Independent.

By: Andre

Andre — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:12:45 +0000

Look if the Dems, don’t get it and make this thing fair they we Hillary supporters should ask her to run as an independent, then we can see how comfortable they are with their candidate, as you watch Hillary take the democratic states and McCain take the republican states.

By: Kendall A. Johnson

Kendall A. Johnson — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:50:27 +0000

Leslie,

There is only one reason Michigan and Florida are being penalized. They are being penialized because Clinton won them. The DNC knew well in advance based on the demographics of these two states that they were going to go to Clinton. Navada want to Clinton, but was not penalized because more of the delegates went to Obama. And of course, South Carolina wasn’t penalized because the electorate was half black. How would that play? Its ok to disenfranchise Clinton’s big wins, but not Obama’s. Its all about screwing Clinton!!!! DEMS AND REPUBLICANS, ALONG WITH THE MEDIA, WORKING TOGETHER TO SCREW THE PEOPLE OUT OF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!GOD FORBID!!!!!!!LET THE CLINTON’S FIX THINGS!!!!! THE COROPORATIONS WON’T HAVE IT!!!!! SO THEY FEED US MR. ZERO BY DIVIDING THE ELECTORATE BY RACE, CLASS AND GENDER. THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WEAK KNEED DEMS LIKE KARRY, POLOSI AND KENNEDY, AND THEN THE DOOR OPENS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!!! AFTER THEY PUSH CLINTON OUT, WATCH THE OBAMA MIRAGE FALL APART QUICKLY!!!!!!!POOF AND HE”S BROKEN AS QUICKLY AS THE MEDIA MADE HIM!!!!
IT”S SO CLEAR THAT IT’S A NO BRAINER!!!!

By: JERRYDTX

JERRYDTX — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:15:05 +0000

I am glad to see that others like Kendall have let the DNC know we are not happy and that our donations to them will dry up until Senator Clinton is treated fairly. This also goes for the voters of FLA and Michigan. I am also starting to agree with the winner take all popular vote strategy. Senator Clinton would have already had the nomination in hand if it wasn’t for the caucases being so heavily manipulated by the Obama campaign.

By: KJ

KJ — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:50:24 +0000

One fact that has been completely ignored in this fiasco is that back in September Barak Obama was in Tampa vowing that if he is the presumptive nominee that he would seat the Florida delegates. Apparently since he is not in that position and did not win Florida, he has now flip flopped and does not want the votes counted. Why has the media and even Ms. Clinton’s campaign largely missed this?

Obama’s news conference…

By: Leslie Militzok

Leslie Militzok — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:20:24 +0000

[L]et’ look at the Delegate Selection Rules of the DNC :
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
The first Tuesday in February was the 5th, so that 22 days prior would be January 14th. Thus, the Nevada caucuses could be held no earlier than the 19th, the New Hampshire primary could be held no earlier than January 22nd, and so on. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all moved their caucuses in violation of DNC rules, and yet suffered no penalty, not even the standard 1/2 reduction in delegates. So why were Michigan and Florida afforded such draconian treatment?
I thought the Democratic Party was to count every vote. Six states violated the rules and only two states were penalized the two states with the remaining states will probably give Clinton the popular vote. In Florida it was an even playing field with the exception that Obama played commercials on CNN in Florida for weeks before the campaign. Clinton broke no rules. Moreover Floridians came out in record numbers to vote. These people are innocent voters and they have a right to count their votes as much as any state. Moreover it was a Republican Governor and Legislature who made this determination not the voters. We are letting Howard Dean disenfranchise 1.7 million voters because he does not want Clinton to win and will give the win to the Republicans.
In Michigan it was a Democratic Governor who made this determination not the innocent voters. In both states Clinton said count the original vote or do a revote. The Clinton people even came up with the money for the revote. However, Obama refused to agree with a revote or counting the original vote? I understand Obamas position but he wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters.Obama took his name off the ballet in Michigan because the polls showed he was going to be slaughtered. However, his campaign ran radio adds for weeks in Michigan urging people to vote uncommitted. Clinton did not break the rules and she won 55% of the vote the other 40% who voted uncommitted which has to be divided up among Edward’s, Obama and others still in the race. To not count all the votes is to live in a country where there is no democracy. Why count 4 states that violated DNC rules and arbitrary does not count 2 states! This is not Democracy. Why not remove South Carolina and Iowa they violated the rules as well? The only fair approach is to count all the votes we need these states in November and if we do not count their votes now we cannot count on Democrats to vote in the General Election. Recent polling of the two states supports my analyses.
Posted by Leslie Militzok | April 6, 2008 4:15 AM

By: Folkwolf101

Folkwolf101 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:47:46 +0000

The horrific tragedy to this all is that the liberal democratic party is combusting from the inside out, and that they are fueled along by the well-intentioned idealistic liberal media. The media have been giving Obama a free pass over almost everything and then they continue to praise his highly disengenuous speech on race relations as a new landmark of important historical speeches: at the eloquent level of the “Ghettysburg Address.” Please! Meanwhile, the media continually attacks Hillary Clinton. Sadly, tragically, what this adds up to is that it is inciting a trench warfare between the two campaigns, and the supporters of Hillary feel especially that their candidate, who is more qualified, more experienced, and has worked so hard doing all the right things, is being undermined by the media–they who choose and elect our candidates. As a result, 30% of Hillary’s die-hard voting block will ultimately vote for McCain, primarily to spite the are all the more outraged that their favorite candidate is being threatened. They will either stay home during the general election or vote Republican. Meanwhile, McCain sits by smiling and smug, for all he has to do is what he is best known for doing: being honest, not insulting anyone, and telling it all straight without embelishments. It’s almost just a tad disappointing that he wants the troops to stay in Iraq for 100 more years and to undo Roe vs Wade.

By: Angela

Angela — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:36:57 +0000

Obama campaigned in MICHIGAN when his supporters were on national TV and possibly local radio stations telling voters to mark “UNCOMMITTED” to cast their vote for Obama. Obama’s name may not have been on the MICHIGAN ballot, but essentially it was on the MICHIGAN ballot as “UNCOMMITTED.”

I did not hear Edwards’ name or any of the other candidates’ names that were removed from the MICHIGAN ballot being touted as the “UNCOMMITTED CANDIDATE.” Therefore, it is fair game for Obama to hold the title as “UNCOMMITTED” in the MICHIGAN PRIMARY ELECTION.

Count the MICHIGAN votes at hand and devy up their delegates accordingly. Folks waded through a snow storm to cast their votes which implies that they believed their vote would count. Otherwise, why would anyone wade through a snow storm to vote for “UNCOMMITTED”?

Obama did campaign in FLORIDA when his TV ads aired in FLORIDA. Obama’s name was on the ballot in FLORIDA and folks did vote for him. Count the FLORIDA votes at hand and devy up their delegates accordingly. Didn’t 1.8 million voters show up to vote in FLORIDA, which implies that they believed their vote would count?

Since Hillary and Obama are currently the only choices for the Democratic Party nominee for President, the votes for MICHIGAN and FLORIDA should be accepted by the Democratic Party and the delegates from MICHIGAN and FLORIDA should be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August 2008 according to the votes at hand.

No new campaigns in MICHIGAN and FLORIDA and no new voting in MICHIGAN and FLORIDA. Maybe the Democratic Party voted to ignore the voices/votes of MICHIGAN and FLORIDA, but apparently the voters did not agree to be ignored.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:15:23 +0000

Hi All:

I will say it again, like I said it before here at The Democratic Daily on March 28 – Memo to Democrats: Don’t be Afraid of Democracy — unless the DNC seats Florida and Michigan as is (uncommitteds to Obama), I won’t be rejoining the party.

And, unless the DNC institutes a primaries-only policy in the future, I won’t be rejoining the party. I have been complaining to my local district for years about how unrepresentative caucuses are and how they are so far from the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy….

Not being heard, not being counted… moving on, at least when it comes to the DNC.

We ARE NOT the country of our forefathers, and the checks and balances they felt were necessary need to be reassessed. Certainly, since 2000, we have been sensitized to the concept of an electoral college over-riding the will of the people. It’s time for the DNC to shape up and do the honorable thing… and start moving away from “old school politics.”

By: Shel

Shel — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:50:30 +0000

We need a 50-state nominee! Count ALL the votes!