“I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn’t have any choice whatsoever. And I don’t think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.”

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview-clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

Shorter Clinton: Just give me the damn delegates! Anything else is a threat to my chances of being the Democratic nominee...Wait, did I say that last part out loud.

Even as a Hillary supporter I'd be very angry if they just gave her the delegates. That ain't right. But ignoring Florida and Michigan ain't right either. How much would revotes cost? Can't the state parties pay for them?

What gets me is how it is even ethical for her to claim that she deserves them. It seems like Obama's campaign could completely nail her to the wall on this. I'm amazed they're not going for this harder.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!! Hillary supporters are gonna cry b/c they can't get FL and MI seated. Oh, poor babies! Everything will be ok, trust me. When Barack is President, the country will be in good hands, so you can get back to overhauling your engine out in the front yard.

why is not seating the Michigan and Florida delegates not fair? you could say not seating them would be politically sticky, as it would cause friction between the DNC and critical states in the general election, but unfair?

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, they knew what they were doing and the clearly outlined consequences. why should the DNC, or anyone else, shovel out money to help them get out of a punishment?

i'm all for breaking the rules when they are unfair, but this was a simple case of their respective legislatures being greedy and wanting to have a higher national profile for their primaries. which is made doubly stupid by the fact that this year, had they not tried to change the date, their primaries would have arguably been MORE important. so to hell with them for trying to game the system now.

and not even the Democrats are dumb enough to simply seat these delegates as is, particularly Michigan. they would have a total shitstorm on their hands, and rightly so.

As a Florida resident who voted (for Edwards), I think the delegates should be seated, OR there should be a re-vote (No CAUCUS!), and the state party can foot the bill.

Incidentally, the DNC's stand was 100% right. With more and more states wanting to be first in holding their primaries, a line had to be drawn before things got out of hand.

If not, we'd might as well establish Thanksgiving as national primary day!

Hillary is a cheater, a liar, and a creep. I want nothing to do with her. Ever. She flew into Florida at the end of voting and DECLARED HERSELF THE WINNER!!!! Just like bush and his codpiece on the carrier. Obama had no time to campaign. And yet...on Hillary's website there is a whole page of Obama's attacks on her, and it says he 'illegally had commercials' in Fl. He bought time on CNN. It ran in Fl. Big freaking deal. She is a loser, and it is oozing everywhere. She actually said that she and mcbush have more experience than Obama...they have crossed the threshold of commander in chief...whatever the hell that means. Good move...promote the other party before you promote your own.
Anyway...I live in Fl. I know...I accept your sympathy...I live in Pensacola...even worse. This is where that famous pic of mcbush and bush snuggeling was taken. There is no way anyone is paying for a re-do. We are dying here in Fl. Hillary cheating is beyond the pale. She did not win this state, nor did she win in Michigan where she was the only name on the ballot. We must, as Obama stated abide by the rules. I was pissed before I voted for him in the primary, and I am pissed now, but fair is fair, rules are rules. Our votes do not count. And that is as it should be. Maybe...if we pray to the FEC really hard, our votes may count in the General. Will you all pray with me????

I agree with Dean. If FL wants its delegates seated, then a revote should occur that allows for both candidates to actually contest the state.

However, if no revote occurs, then the FL delegates are SOL.

A do-over would be as unfair now as it was for Clinton to defy the party and chump the other candidates then. Maybe here's one place I'll out-conservative Hillary and her entourage: rules are rules. There should be consequences for breaking them. Let the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida take it out on the hacks who run their state organizations.

From the New York Times:

"The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank."

So, yeah - given that a mail-in primary runs $5 million, and a full-out election closer to $20 million, I think it's safe to say the DNC won't be footing the bill. In practical terms, it can't foot the bill because it doesn't have the cash.

Here are the facts:

- DNC total $$'s raised in 2007: ~ $51 million
- DNC Cash on Hand (end of '07): $2.9 million
- Cost of both revotes: $20 MILLION

If you believe the DNC should spend 40% of its budget and go in the hole $17 million to fund a "re-do," then you are insane (or a republican). This is just not a debatable topic.

PS: As for the state party footing the bill: it took them 3 months to raise $1 million in 2007. Why on earth would anyone think they would be smart to, or even capable of, footing the bill? If they actually could pull it off, don't they have better things to do with $20 million (like win some races)?

Uh, you do realize what the rules are right? She and Obama both knew nothing would come of Florida because of what the DNC had decided. And even Hillary didn't protest the decision to strip them of their delegates. Now all of the sudden she's two stepping and saying that the people shouldn't be stripped of their voices? Do you not see anything wrong with the logic given the fact that she initially didn't make a stink about the whole thing?

CNN makes so much money from these primaries, they could pay for it. And have a debate in Florida for even more ad dollars.

Florida sucks.

Several points:

Florida needs a serious smack down!

The first SUSA poll has Obama losing Florida, but getting the NOM.

We all know that Dems cannot rely on Florida, since the Big O can win without Florida, why not dis them?

Obama has a huge advantage. What is it? The advantage is that the politicos tried to fix the timing of the primary. Republicans moved the date, Dems agreed that nothing would count. Now the Repubs, who have no legal input in the Dem primary, want the Dems to either pay $20M for a revote, or seat 'never selected delegates' based upon the uncontested primary.

Please a Clinton supporter IF she was to win the nomination how can you expected me to vote her. Remeber I'm a informed voter and I seen everything that has happen since Jan 1st, 2007.

My understanding is that the GOP dominated Florida legislature forced the early primary on the Democrats. So though I support a revote, it does seem fair that the DNC should help with footing the bill for it.

As for Michigan, it looks as though the opposite happened and the state Democratic party is responsible for their own misfortune. Here, I expect that the DNC should hold the line and make the state party foot the bill to get out of this mess.

Finally, I do think that having the candidates actively campaign in those two states will help the party come November, so its not as though it will be a complete waste of money.

"Very large numbers of Obama voters stayed home because they were told their vote wouldn't count."

Do you have a source for this, and perhaps a rationale for why more Obama supporters than Hillary supporters stayed home? I mean, he did advertise in the state. That must have given him some advantage.

What is it with Florida? Every presidential election, there is always some sort of controversy and every few years, there is always some international incident or crisis that drags the rest of the country with it. Elian Gonzalez, Terri Schiavo, 2000 elections and now Florida demanding the DNC pay millions of dollars to hold another election when Florida broke the rules in the first place. Honestly, its just a major drag that the rest of the country has to suffer for their own shenanigans.

Florida screwed Florida. That is the bottom line. They just want everybody else to pay for it.

All the " FEEL SORRY FOR US. The Democrats are picking on us!" is such BS. Why should all the other states, who followed the agreed upon rules, be penalized?

Why should the DNC be penalized?

Dean is right here - the DNC shouldn't have to pay for any revote.


If the party wants to keep control over the primary calendar for 2012, it can't allow states to ignore its rules without some penalty. If Florida (and Michigan) revote on the DNC's dime to get their full delegation seated, then they get exactly what they wanted when they moved up: more influence in the selection process. And because this race is so close, they would have even more influence than they would have had voting in January.

Isn't this interesting:

all the headlines on TPM are about the MI/FLA delegate struggle.

I really have admired Marshall's tenacity in tracking down the attorneys(sp)general scandal this past year. What a wonderful public service!

Maybe the investigative arm of this blog might want to spend just a little time writing about the NAFTA-Canada incident? It did seem really intent on linking the supposed Obama campaign-Canada phone call last week.

I hope everyone at least thinks about the fact that this whole delegate seating "debate" is happening at a time when other questions are on the table: i.e., tax returns, NAFTA-Clinton campaign connections, slow, quiet but undeniable move of superdelegates to Obama's column (not all of them connected to states he won in the primaries/some are members of the DNC) in the first 6 days of March )3 AFTER Tuesday...

All of these are wonderful, useful stories to pursue, but the press seems to be obsessing over really what is fundamentally a Clinton story that has little or no practical consequence. Since the DNC/Dean has said it will not pay for Fla, and MI seems committed to the caucus - AND (this seems to get lost in the coverage), NOTHING happens without the Obama campaign's consent - this Fla/MI delegation seating issue is possibly of little practical consequence for who wins the nomination. Let's take a look at the Clinton cast of characters: Nelson (a narrowly-reelected Senator), Crist (a Republican gov in an increasingly Repub state with a Repub legislature), a deeply unpopular gov of BROKE (as in having no money) Michigan who was: (1) at odds with the state party in pushing for the primary in the first place; (2) is gov of a state whose demographics and population densities favor Obama; and (3)who is gov of a state whose democrats are angry about so many things, one of them being the way Granholm pushed for an early date/primary (and by the way, AAs in the state provided her margin of victory in 2006). None of these players have the political capital to (as Tim Gunn would say) "make it work" without substantial "give" from Obama.

So why are we talking about this story (I suspect this will all be "managed" amicably in the summer)?

Because,as usual, Clinton's campaign is driving the news, and I must admire them for this ability. What is disappointing is that I expect blogs (as independent "news" sources) to be better than CNN and MSNBC in being seduced into one campaign's media strategy.

Too bad.

Folks, the FL primary move was not soley a GOP move. In fact, it was co-sponsored by a Democrat, State Sen. Jeremy Ring of Broward County. The only Democratic uproar over the FL legislature's move was from the national party. FL Dem legislators supported it - they're equally culpable.

Gee:

You're right. Hillary Clinton has participated without objection in the caucus process, beginning in Iowa. And there is no doubt that her campaign wants to avoid caucuses for political reasons, at least in part or even in large measure.

But, Gee, I don't think you would argue that a secret-ballot primary is the best and purest way to assess the will of the people, is it not? So, respectfully, I would not believe you if you were to assert that you favored caucuses in Florida and Michigan (two states that had primaries) for something other than poor, political old-style political considerations.

In short, on the generic issue of whether there should be primaries or caucuses in Michigan and Florida, both sides are being political, but in a moral sense HRC has the upper hand in this battle if she's gonna push primaries over caucuses. And, from a political standpoint, I am thrilled to have the moral highground on this issue. :)

Can all of these people bitching about Florida and Michigan remember for *just one second* that it's individual PEOPLE, not just party apparatchiks, who are being disenfranchised by this foolishness? After realizing that my choice wouldn't even appear on my ballot, and that the contest in question was destined to be dustbinned, I was thoroughly discouraged and disapointed.

I am tired of the average voter, the peon "little guy" having to pay with his constitutional right to vote for the machinations of idiotic politicians.

Surely you are all not so heartless that you can't put yourselves into our places and understand how it feels...

I live in Michigan. We can not afford a "do over". We have been in recession for years.

Obama and Edwards did not have to take their names off the ballot. All candidates followed the rules and did not campaign here. Obama should not have taken his name off the ballot.

Let the election stand.

The DNC should offer to pay 50% as a compromise. It's more reasonable, and acknowledges both that while Florida made a mistake and should pay a cost, Democrats have a lot to gain nationally from energizing the base in Fl and advertising there early on.

Michigan's economy is arguably the worst in the country. The state cannot pay for another contest.

The party needs to look at the intangibles that it will reap from new contests in Michigan and Florida.
• Candidates at the top of the news cycle for an additional week.
• Millions on engaged voters in Michigan and Florida.
• An image of a party free of corruption.
• Less controversy at the convention.

Yes the party should pay for the new contests. As stated above, Michigan doesn't have the money. This is an opportunity for the party to spend soft money to bolster the eventual nominee. If voters bond with a candidate in the primary/caucus, that hopefully will carry over into the general election.

okay, then, eriday and others who want a do-over: How does the Democratic party enforce the rules against earlier and earlier primaries? How is it good for the states to continually leapfrog each other, trying to be the first primary or caucus state? How early should we start the election process? And to reiterate my first question, once we've answered those questions, how do we enforce the decision? I say we have rules and we stick to them. What way to do you suggest going forward: Okay, break the rules - we'll let you off the hook later!!! That's why I'm against telecommunications company immunity. Aren't you Hillary people being a bit hypocritical? (And, by the way, the Constitutional right to vote - doesn't it apply to the general election? Doesn't the party have some say in how to nominate someone to represent the party?)

Why in the world should the Democratic party pay for a new primary in Florida when there was already a primary in Florida - and Obama LOST. The voters in Florida have already expressed their will.

It wasn't the fault of Democrats in Florida that their party leaders got Howard Dean so angry. The Republicans didn't disenfranchise Republican voters in Florida just because they voted too early. John McCain wasn't penalized - he still has all the delegates from Florida, and every Republican vote still counts. But I guess if your a Democrat in Florida your vote will never count - not in the primary or in the general election either.

This is the message Barack Obama and Howard Dean are sending to Democratic voters in Florida: "don't bother showing up at the polls because unless you're a Republican, your vote won't count."

This problem was caused by the stupidity of Howard Dean for the benefit of Barack Obama. This is how they plan to steal the primary, in the exact same way that Bush stole the 2000 election - by not counting votes. Obama + Howard Dean = Bush + US Supreme Court. The ones being punished for his mistake are all the Democratic voters in Florida, and Hillary Clinton for winning a primary where Obama wasn't able to buy the election by outspending her 2 to 1.

This is how we pretend that Obama is the choice of most democrats when he really isn't. As long as we're disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan, we might as well include all the voters in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts and California too, and just call it a landslide for Obama. How about it? Because if the votes in Florida and Michigan don't count then the whole election is just another electoral fraud, and nobody's vote really matters at all.

Gay Marriage? Are they trying to stop Charlie Crist from getting Married?

I would look at the two states independently.

Michigan normally has a caucus for National Convention Delegates -- the Michigan Dem. Party has the rules, voters know how to caucus, and if the Legislature and some state party officers had not decided to violate the DNC rules, they would have had a caucus this year. So the Michigan solution is simple -- set a date for a Caucus run by the State Party under DNC rules, and raise soft money to finance the fairly minimal costs.

Party Caucuses are run by party volunteers, and Michigan is advantaged in having many such party workers who know how to run a local caucus.

Florida has never been a caucus state, and thus it lacks the critical asset Michigan possesses. Any re-do will involve a Primary Election, for which the State Party will have to pay the costs of all the election workers required. Florida also has a long history of mail ballots (postage does cost you know), and it has early voting provisions. For it to be fair, it would have to be re-run according to normal standards.

The DNC was clear in both making the rules and advising the state parties in advance the consequences of breaking those rules. The point of the Rules -- to provide for four states with relatively small populations where the first contests would be "retail" politics, that taken together represent the demographics of the Democratic Electorate, to make the first cut of the field. After they are finished, then other states have a window -- this year it was from Feb 4th into June, in which they can schedule their selection process. In the case of both Michigan and Florida they made their cases for being in the first group, and the DNC decided not to include them, as they are too large, and didn't meet other criteria. So no way party assets needed for the whole election this year should be used to fix the bone headed decisions their party leadership and state legislators made in deciding to violate the rules.

And yes, soft money should be available to finance this, and both Obama and Clinton contributors that are maxed out should be willing to pitch in a bit.

Dean is by no means stupid, he is doing precisely what he should do. He is the Chair of the National Party, and he has a responsibility to defend and execute the decisions of the DNC, which if you followed this, spent a good deal of time and effort on this matter. Anything else would be a defense of anarchy.