I can basically see the argument for Florida...all names were on the ballot.

Michigan? Make them hold another one. There is no way those delegates should go to Clinton. It's not right, and it's patently not right. I wish Clinton would just drop this. Or, alternatively, that one or the other picks up enough candidates that it becomes moot.

This is disgusting. The votes in Michigan and Florida are being disqualified regardless of race.

It's time for the Obama campaign to speak forcefully for basic fairness and fight back against the Orwellian doublespeak of the Clinton campaign and her allies on this issue.

Allowing Michigan and Florida delegates as-is would disenfranchise the voters in all of the 48 other states.

In the interest of fairness, though, I would like to see both states hold a new primary/caucus.

How is it fair to prohibit candidates from campaigning in a state, have them all agree (and "all" includes Clinton) not to recognize the vote, and then seat the delegates anyway?

Don't you think Obama might have won a few more votes if he could have campaigned and advertised in the state? Don't you think a few more of his supporters might have come to the polls if he was able to organize a GOTV effort?

The Florida vote proves nothing more than Hillary had better name recognition.

Also remember that Hillary agreed not to recognize the votes. Her reason now for reneging on the pledge? She didn't realize so many people would be voting. That sounds pretty weak. I'm sure if it turned out those people were voting for Obama, she wouldn't give a damn about seating them. Why can't we recognize this for the cynical political plot it is?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding -- didn't the party decide NOT to count these delegates?

You can't change the rules of the game because you don't like who won.

Maybe Hillary's going to take any opportunity available to win, and I don't mind having someone like that in my Foxhole, but the Democratic Party needs to veto any such ideas.

I'll be one of the Clinton-haters if she does this.

Matthew and CT Voter...there is nothing fair about seating any of these delegates. Their votes were not sought by any of the candidates (save Hillary's "I'm-not-campaigning campaigning in Florida") because ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AGREED WITH THE DNC DECISION MONTHS IN ADVANCE OF THE CONTESTS.

If Michigan and Florida voters want to be pissed, they should direct their frustration not at the national party but their state parties, who decided on a course that would disenfranchise constituents against the express wishes of the national party.

If Michigan and Florida voters want to be counted, their state parties should find the funds/resources necessary to hold some sort of contest between now and August. Else, no dice.

Is Bond another Clinton surrogate?

The photo caption says it was taken at a Clinton rally in 1992:

http://george.loper.org/rogue/democrats/bond/bond.html

Anyone know?

The Clintons have an army of loyal lapdogs -- Bob Kerrey, now Paul Krugman, and perhaps Bond?

Thank God there's somebody who will speak up for the millions of voters in FL and MI.

While Obama supporters have in the past expressed great outrage over "voter suppression" when it served their purpose, they have shamefully been entirely happy to dismiss the voters in FL and MI because it suited their narrow political expediency.

Whoever is to blame for the absurdity of the FL and MI voters being denied a voice in the nomination process, it is emphatically NOT the fault of the FL and MI voters themselves. If you're willing to throw away those votes because of some arbitrary "rules", what does that say about your commitment to basic democracy?

But I guess if you're part of personality cult, consistency in your dedication to fundamental principles, such as democracy, is not to be expected.

Neither should be seated. Nor, frankly, should they run the primaries again - they moved their primaries up so they could have a larger voice in choosing the nominee, and they will get 'punished' by being given a larger voice than they ever imagined in choosing the nominee?

"I can basically see the argument for Florida...all names were on the ballot."

Sorry, they didn't get to campaign. Clinton obviously would win since she was the only one with name recognition.

And sorry again, the DNC made its decision, and the candidates were supposed to honor the rules. They pledged to honro the rules, and also made the promise to Iowa and New Hampshrie voters.

I dare say Hillary would have lost in NH if they had known she was lying to them. I guess she fooled them!! Ha ha. Too late now.

"Cheat for President 2008!"

Someone, can't remember who, quoted Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign theme about promising to fight for those who "play by the rules."

I like that thought. How about you, Chairman Dean?

Is Hillary on record anywhere (i.e. linkable) as "[agreeing] not to recognize the votes" as asserted above?

Yet another person who suddenly has an opinion AFTER everyone agreed to the DNC policy. Anyone see a letter from Julian Bond back when the decision was made and the Clinton campaign jumped on board?

Anyone?

Anyone?

A modest proposal:

Seat all the Florida and Michigan delegates, in this manner.

Apportion them between Hillary and Obama in the same ratio as their delegate totals from all the other states combined.

Since those two states were not open to actual contested primaries, then that would be the only fair way to solve it.

They get seated at the convention, but they do not get granted the right to become the king makers that can trump the votes of all the states that played fair.

Yes, Bond is a Hillary supporter because the old-guard NAACP is backing Hillary. So yes, to answer your question, this has NOTHING to do with race whatsoever, and EVERYTHING to do with political tricks. I'm frankly disgusted that the NAACP would be involved in exploiting the issue of race to try to get Hillary elected. But hey, I guess I shouldn't be surprised after the kind of horrible crap we've heard from NOW and Emily's List. The longer this primary goes on the more respect I lose for these organizations. I guess I can add the NAACP to the list. Way to go, sellout.

Clinton's been pushing this issue with her supporters in emails. She wants those delegates. I've been in many arguments with Clinton supporters saying how unfair that would be, especially in Michigan, where nobody but Hillary appeared on the ballot. I always get the same talking point in response: "They were stupid to pull their names just because the party requested it. Hillary wasn't." I always reply the same. "They were stupid to think that Hillary would play fairly."

The Democratic leaders in Michigan (Carl Levin and Jennifer Granholm, notably) and Florida made a stupid decision. This is a fight between the DNC and the states which opted to buck the primary calendar. The candidates -- and most of them abided by the rules in Michigan by taking their names off the ballot (only Clinton and Kucinich stayed on) and did not campaign. In Florida, the names stayed on the ballot, but it was agreed to beforehand that the votes would not count as both states had been sanctioned by the DNC. Clinton opted to attend "fundraisers" (a crazy loophole that none of the other candidates exploited.) She also had the active campaigning of AFSCME and others who "campaigned" on her behalf in spite of prohibitions to the contrary.

Michigan and Florida had an obligation to play by the party rules. They did not. The sanctions should stand.

Now if the DNC decides to allow for a "do-over" as a caucus prior to the convention, that is fine. (Caucuses in most states are paid for by the political party and not the state. Caucuses are also cheaper to administer. And contrary to the Clinton campaign spin, voters are not disenfranchised anymore than those who cannot vote during a primary election. It is possible to conduct a caucus and also conduct a portion of it by ballot.)

Julian Bond is a great American, BUT on this count, he is wrong.

The generational nature of this fight once again rears its ugly head.

Have the consequences of allowing Florida and Michigan's pols to flip the bird to the party and get away with it occurred to no one? If the parties lose all of their already tenuous control over the scheduling of primaries to the states, a race to be first will begin, just as sure as cops eat dougnuts. Next thing you know, the primaries for the 2016 election will be held in 2011 and the primaries for 2012 will be, well, hell I think they were last week.

Florida and Michigan agreed to the rules and then decided to change their minds and ignore them. Michigan plowed ahead, as heedless of consequences as a coal burning utility. Florida's Democrats coyly allowed themselves to be drug into this disaster with only token protests. And now, of course, they want to blame everyone but themselves.

Hillary's position is worse. She flat out made an agreement and then broke it the second it was convenient.

And the bitterest irony of all is that if Florida and Michigan had just left things they way they were before they pointed their cars at the edge of the cliffs and stomped on the gas, they'd have both been in the catbird's seat this election.

I do have one modest proposal. Why don't they schedule real primaries in Michigan and Florida for April and force Carl Levin and Hillary to pay for it out of their own pockets. He bears about half the responsibility for this clusterf**k and she's the one who's suddenly discovered the nobility of having the voices of the voters in that state heard.

And one more thing... Julian Bond is a prominent civil rights leader. julian Bond served in the Georgia legislature, was as US Rep from Georgia during the Carter administration (if I remember correctly) and more. However, like most who carry that honorific, Mr. Bond is much older now, and more or less retired. He now is chairman of the NAACP one of the oldest civil rights organizations in the country. He is not a "Bob Johnson" type. Johnson has no civil rights credentials. Do not conflate these two men. They are not "functional equivalents."

I agree with some of wwjb's points, but I would clarify a few things.

First, I DO feel sorry for all the Democratic Party voters in Michigan and Florida -- they've ALL been disenfranchised (regardless of race) because they're having to bear the punishment for a conflict between the party leadership at national and state levels. If I were a voter in one of those states, I'd be extremely pissed -- at Democratic Party leadership.

Second, I think it would be disastrous to consider seating delegates from these two states without having a do-over primary. The cloud of questions about the fairness of seating delegates without having a fair do-over might provoke rancor and division in the Party that would outweigh any benefits.

If there are do-over elections in MI and FL, each candidate should be given the opportunity to campaign for votes. How feasible would this be? Is it unrealistic (due to time constraints and expense to candidates) to even propose it?

laurajordan, I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't feel sorry for the voters there. I completely agree with you, it isn't their fault, just like it isn't Obama's fault, or Hillary's fault, or Edwards' fault, or anyones fault except the state party leadership. The voters there should be livid at the state party leadership who basically disenfranchised the whole lot of them.

The only people I'm pissed at more than the state party leaders are Hillary and her supporters who are exploiting the situation, trying to change the rules in mid-game, just so they can get an unfair advantage (another unfair advantage, as if they haven't had every conceivable advantage from the very beginning). It is just another example of the Clintons caring about nothing but winning, and being willing to say and do anything to get ahead, just like their supporters' little post-endorsement lawsuit in NV. It is disgusting, and I'm very disappointed with the unions and advocacy organizations that go along with these schemes, purposely exploiting their supporters for the Clintons' political gain.

I think Barack is going to stay out of it atleast until March 4. If he wins TX or OH, case closed.

I'm sure he is not going to stay silent.Get ready for him to ask for FL, MI caucus one of these days especially if he looses TX and OH.

CT Voter, Ghengis- I think to make "conceding FL" as a talking point so early in the game in ridiculous. If he has to concede FL- he has to make it look as if he had an unfair deal. There should be no talk of conceding FL- until the issue takes national attention. And then if he concedes, we all know where the public opinion will stand. He shouldn't bring the conversation of conceding FL at all right now;

wwjb,

I understand your anger. I just think we should be clear about who the most important people are in this whole mess: the voters in MI and FL. It seems like the injustice done to them should be addressed, and there may be a way to do that.

What do you think about the feasibility of having do-overs in MI and FL?

This is what Obama folks should do right now: We agree with NAACP. FL ans MI should get a fair chance to particpate in the democratic process. So we appeal for FL and MI caucuses, and seating at the convention.

According to Bill Maxwell of the St. Petersburg Times, "For these reasons and others, older civil rights leaders and politicians, such as John Lewis, Julian Bond and Charles Rangel, supported Hillary Clinton's run for the White House from the beginning. They believe they know her, and they trust her."

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/27/Opinion/Behind_the_love_for_C.shtml

With the timing of this taken into account it seems fair at this point to question the motives of Mr. Bond. Is he concerned about disenfranchised minorities or disenfranchised Hillary delegates?

One reason Florida and Michigan were penalized is because the DNC wanted to give blacks (SC) and hispancis (NV) more of a voice in the choice of nominee than they had had historically. Now, you can say, well, there are plenty of blacks in MI and plenty of hispanics in FL, but the DNC chose those two states. The move to put SC near the beginning was led by black leaders.

This suggests that the fight over this, if it happens, could prove a bruising and divisive one, something I'm not sure people have really focused on yet. Everyone's talking about super-delegates instead.

I know that I have focussed on it, and I daresay that others have as well. If we are all talking about super-delegates right now it is not because we are unaware of the looming ugliness; rather, it is because we see the super-delegates as being the last, best chance of avoiding the looming ugliness. That is to say, if the super-delegates can provide enough support to one candidate or the other such that s/he can win without MI & FL, then MI & FL can be seated without causing any real friction. If, on the other hand, we end up in a situation where there is one result if MI/FL are seated and another if they are not, then the riots break out. As such, here's hoping the super-delegates see their responsiblity to the good of the party and act accordingly.

Reports are that Gore wants to serve as the neutral elder statesman. I would very much like to hear his view on this.

If they are seated and it allows Hillary to win the nomination it will either lead to the further disenfranchisement of a large percentage of our population or the formation of a new major party. The first would be devastating to our democracy.

I think they should just split the delegates down the middle and seat them. Either that, or hold new elections. If they seat the delegates under the current set of circumstances, Obama should sue. Neither he nor Edwards was on the ticket in Michigan. And Florida was essentially meaningless. People are just trying to find a way to allow Hillary to cheat her way to the nomination.

Mark my words: if they seat those delegates without holding a new pair of contests, there will be riots in Denver. It will not be good for the Democratic Party.

I have friends in FL who did not vote because they knew there vote would not count. This was no secret. What about all the people from FL and MI who did not vote because they knew no delegates from their states would be allowed to vote at the Democratic Convention? Wouldn't this disenfranchise all those people?

You can't make rules and then change them in midstream. I think if MI and FL want to be heard, they should hold a caucus so that ALL the voters can have an equal chance to vote. You can't tell voters their vote will not count, hold the primary, and then later say we changed our mind, the votes now count. Not fair to those who stayed home because they were told their vote would not count. They need to be heard. Either re-do so everyone can vote or don't count it.

Of course we know Clinton does not do well in the caucus states, so she probably would not go for this either.

Look, nobody in their right minds believes that voters in FL & MI shouldn't have a voice. But the primaries were held in violation of a DNC ruling. So the candidates (except Hillary in MI) deferred to the DNC. There would nothing "fair" about recognizing these votes. They were not held under responsible circumstances. The only way to rectify this is to have either caucuses or 2nd primaries. What's involved in that I don't know. But suddenly choosing to change the rules after the fact would be wrong on all levels.

How many people in those states didn't vote because the DNC had already ruled the primaries null and void?

How many people would have voted differently if campaigning had been allowed? (i.e. how many states went for Obama after he campaigned in them?)

If two major league baseball teams play an exhibition game it doesn't count in the regular season. Period. The team that wins can't afterwards claim the game should count in the standings because... the team is owned by the Clintons.

The DNC made a mess along with the state Dem parties in MI and FL. The price should not now be paid by Obama and his supporters. Find a fair way to include these 2 states - new votes for everyone. But those elections were bogus.

Why did they have a primary at all? Millions of people in those states went out to vote. Did they know their votes wouldn't count? The state should not even have had a primary, if the votes wouldn't count. If I was in MI or FL and I voted, I damn sure wouldn't go out to do it all over again. I would also think twice about voting in the general election. It is ridiculous that millions of voters wasted their time and gas. The democratic party is now looking like idiots. Two of the largest states in the nation are being told you don't matter. Democrats always find a way to screw themselves. The republicans sanctioned their party in FL, but they didn't take all of the delegates away, just some.

The way I basically see it going down, is that if the Michigan and Florida delegations WOULD swing it to Hillary, a corresponding number of her supers will do the right thing and switch over to Obama's camp to prevent a war from breaking out. She might be willing to risk a complete break in the party, but I imagine her DNC superdelegates aren't.

Changing rules in the middle of the game. People trying to be the Supreme Court and appoint George Bush again.

Give them their delegates back... Super delegates vote for the winner of the total delegates if its Obama (minus FL & MI) so as to keep the party together and then let their delegates back. If its Clinton that wins the delegate total without FL & MI, don't worry about it and give them back their delegates.

If this thing gets too close, someone may think they've gotten screwed and there could be problems in the end. I myself would be happy with what I just described above. Unfortunately, MI and FL might not be since they wanted to have a say in whole process

Florida needs to understand that the joke will be on them if this whole "counting the votes/delegates" and "changing rules in the middle of the game" and "appointing the winner" business goes through.

Let's also be clear about why this STATE party leaders wanted to move UP their primaries.

They too were working with Bill Clinton.

This entire power play is right out of the Clinton playbook from WJC encouraging the State Party Chairs in MI and FL to move up the primaries to benefit Hillary to Hillary not taking her name off the ballot and all the way to Bill agitating and making Julian Bond make this statement.

Bill racemongering Clinton is shameless in the way he will use black folks to pitt them against one another and to achieve his own selfish political ambitions.

Make no mistake this is nothing but more racebaiting on the part of the Clintons.

Rules and the democratic party mean nothing to them. Hill and Bill have decided that if Hillary can't have the nomination, no one will because they are going to tear up the Democratic party in pursuit of their own selfish goals.

Just like they did when they ran the WH and the set the pary back 20 years and the party suffered huge losses as the GOP ran both houses of Congress.

I hope someone like Ted Kennedy has the balls to stand up to Bill Clinton.

The technical point about no one being dissenfranchised because there wasn't an election is really semantic nit-picking but there is always room for some of that.

The fact is a lot of people voted in Michigan and Florida but there were also a lot that probably stayed home because they knew it didn't matter. Add to that there were probably many that didn't have enough of an opinion on the candidates because there had been no campaigning.

If we redid primaries in Florida and Michigan and told people that the delegates would be seated how would that change the result? It might be an interesting poll question both because of people who have changed their mind and because of people who didn't vote.

I know of one person in Florida who voted for Clinton simply because she always votes and didn't have much of an opinion on Obama. As far as she was concerned Clinton would be a fine president (she still thinks that). She now thinks Obama would perhaps be a better one but because no one was actively campaigning and the delegates didn't count anyway she didn't take the decision that seriously which she now regrets a little.