Michigan and Florida: Will an Obscure Democratic Party Committee End up Deciding Who Gets the Nomination?

here is a link that you should look at. it is brilliant and shows a point by point analysis of the 2 candidates.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/

Yes I am a fervent supporter of Sen. Obama. Yes I am angry that I was not able to fully participate in the selection of delegates for my candidate. I am angry that clinton is now trying to rig the process in her favor. It angers me everytime I watch CNN and see Michigan and Florida glowing red as a "victory states". They are not victories. Its pathetic. But honestly would you expect anything less from the clintons? She and he once again show their true colors and the complete lack of integrity in their souls. Clinton is a congenital liar, its in her DNA. Makes me sick when she parades around with african americans claiming to be a lifelong supporter of civil rights legislation. Does anybody report the fact that she was a republican and a volunteer for Barry Goldwater, who campaigned against the civil rights act and promoted a segregationist policy. Odd that President Clinton sealed all of her papers and writings from this era.....something to hide I am sure. Such a phony.

I want a re-run caucus here in my state of Michigan. Plenty of time to pull it off, and then and only then will I be satisfied.

My disclosure: I voted for Clinton in the Florida Primary. Everyone that I know of thought that we were voting in a Primary Election, not a beauty contest. As I understand it, the date was picked by the Florida Legislature which is controlled by Republicans. We were really looking forward to having some say in our party's nominee for the first time that I can remember. The Republican candidates campaigned like crazy here.
Personally I thought that it was a good thing that the Democratic candidates weren't being "marketed" here. We don't exist in a vacuum so we still had a lot of exposure. And much of that had to come from reading about the candidates and their proposals. I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't more knowledgable about what the candidates stand for than the people who got their infomation from commercials, flyers and phone calls.
In 2000 Floridians had the Republican Party keeping our votes from being counted. Now the Democratic Party is doing it. A lot of us are getting fed up with both parties.
Some of the other comments have mentioned something that I have noticed lately. I perceive a bias in Buzzflash's own news that in past times they would try to expose.

First a discloure: I am an Edwards supporter and in the Michigan Primary I voted Uncommitted.

If there was any campaign at all in Michigan (albeit a lame one) it was an appeal to vote Uncommitted.

Other commenters here, most notably Swift2 and cmugirl, have made solid, irrefutable points so I won't go back over plowed ground.

My comment concerns the disingenuous statements made in the Buzzflash News Alert.

These statements are jaw dropping text one would expect to find in Orwell's 1984.

From the "News Alert"
"The DNC's Credentialing Committee includes party insiders who are active in the institutional management of the Democratic Party. Would anyone who won the Democratic nomination through a changing of the rules -- the breaking of a written pledge -- on the last down be considered a credible candidate? Or would it be like the Supreme Court intervening to anoint George W. Bush as president in 2000?"

Apparently the author has forgotten that in Bush v Gore the Supreme Court ordered that votes NOT be counted. Yet the article suggests just that. That votes NOT be counted. That 2.2 million votes (combined Michigan and Florida) not be counted.

An appeal to the Credentials Committee, it seems to me, is a legitimate effort to recognize not just voters but also the rejection of a very foolish ruling much as the Supreme Court would strike down a law that is unconstitutional. If those two delegations are seated by the Credentialing Committee it will be a triumph for the democratic process not rejection of the process as the article shamefully suggests. I would suggest that the credible candidate is the one selected by people who actually saw fit to get out and vote.

Also from the "News Alert"
"Hopefully, it will not come down to this, because a back room deal to reverse the original party sanctions, and candidate pledges to abide by those sanctions, could doom the opportunity for the Democrats to take back the White House."

This is NOT a back room deal. Appealing to the Credentials Committee is an open public process. Reversing a foolish decision would show wisdom. I hardly think that showing wisdom, the willingness to correct an error and completely in the open would hurt our chances in any way to take back the White House. The author's characterization of an open process as a back room deal is again shameful. The author is in fact creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The last paragraph of the "News Alert"
"It will be best for the future of our nation, the Democratic Party, and our Constitution if Clinton or Obama reach the delegate threshold necessary for nomination without the "coronation" being decided by a DNC committee of party insiders."

It would be best if people who actually voted decide who gets ‘coronated.’ It’s the insiders, not an open and public committee, who created this mess that is risking the future of nation and party.

Howard Dean suggested that Michigan now hold a caucus as the ticket to seating its delegation and to avoid a brokered convention. A caucus would provide him with an easy way easy out for his exceedingly poor decision. This suggestion compounds the matter by substituting one bad decision with yet another. I won't even get into the ridiculous idea that he's asking Michigan voters to do what they've already done, to get HIM off the hook. The fact is that the state paid for the primary and both can't and won't pay for a caucus. That leaves the Micigan Democratic Party to foot the bill. Every penny spent on a caucus diminishes resources for Michigan Democrats running for public office. This is not acceptable. The caucus is for Dean's benefit and no one else.

Regarding the withdrawal from the Michigan ballot. Both Edwards and Obama withdrew from the ballot as cmugirl noted at the last minute. We should place this decision in context by remembering that at the time Clinton had a significant lead in all polling. The Edwards/Obama decision was intended to minimize both a sure loss and a Clinton win. It bought them time to establish themselves in the smaller states and avoid using resources in a much larger state following quickly on the heals of possible victories that would have broken any momentum.

In Florida there was no choice.

For everyone’s benefit the Credentials Committee should seat the Michigan and Florida delegates perhaps with a loss of 25% of delegates to serve as “punishment.”

Finally, it's very clear that this article is written to advocate for one of the candidates while making an assault on the other candidate. Shame on you, you're setting the ground work for disaster. The sub-rational demonizing of a potential Democratic nominee is worse than painting oneself into a corner, it's handing ammunition to the opposition. Please stop WANKING.

The people have spoken. What are we afraid of?

Somebody on here tell me why we cannot put Zogby in jail for his purposeful manipulation of the polls before super Tuesday? I may be wrong but this guy had in California Romney's totals off by a swing of 20 points and Hillary's off by a swing of 26 points. A lot of media outlets printed this garbage and it no doubt affected a lot of votes. Could it be that this pollster who happens to be Muslim wanted to help Romney who was seen as a weaker Republican Candidate in the general election and to directly try and help Obama for some unknown reason??

First of all Obama is the ONLY candidate who ran TV ads in Florida. The Florida primary date was chosen by the Florida legislature which is Republican controlled. The week before Florida Obama won his big victory in South Carolina the Kennedys came out in support of Obama and the media basically annointed Obama the new Kennedy. Yet in the primary 1.6 million democrats came out and voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Obama knew he would lose Florida so he hides behind the DNC. Obama knew he would lose Michigan so he took his name off the ballot. (His choice by the way).

Currently Hillary would be up by around 500,000 total votes if we get to count the democrats who went to the polls just like all other democrats in other states and cast their ballots. Seems like there has been a plan all along to try and let Obama who by the way seems somehow to win all the "caucuses" and who is perfectly willing to disenfranchise over 2 million democrat voters from having their voices heard.

If by any chance that happens you can kiss Michigan and Florida good by in November. Throw in New York, Texas and New Jersey and probably Massechusists, plus all red states in the Western U.S. and this will over before it even starts and we get McCain, which is four more years of Bush........Senator Obama you have a choice to prove your a real american and stand up like a man and allow these 2 million voices to be heard.

What is it with Florida and electoral problems? We could easily put an end to this perpetual mess by giving Florida back to Spain.

The Credentials Committee of the DNC. Not so obscure to old farts like me. Now, when Fannie Lou Hamer and the civil rights activists formed the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, they went to the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City and demanded to be seated as the official delegation, bypassing the two segregationist senators, Eastland and, uh, what's-his-name. The credentials committee was kind of stuck. They had to go with the party bylaws as written, and they rejected the suit. So that's the "obscure committee." It's existed for a long time in the Democratic Party. And when it makes the wrong decision, in favor of the suppression of votes, it later regrets it.

Not to compare Hillary to Fannie Lou Hamer, of course. But you characterize this group as "obscure." Well, they made a stupid legalistic ruling before. Senator Eastland ended up campaigning for Barry Goldwater anyway. But the Freedom Democratic Party was so effective that it helped convince Johnson that the time was right for the Voting Rights bill.

In the midst of all your panic about party discipline, and whether this will hurt your candidate -- the real subtext here -- please consider that we're the Democratic Party. Kind of silly to demand a recount in 2000 based on "the intent of the voter," but the clear intent of Florida and Michigan voters can go suck eggs, huh? How about fining the party officials for screwing up, but letting the votes in?

Don't be so paranoid. All Hillary did was leave her name on the Michigan ballot. She had put it there because she was better organized (at that time). And the others left their names on the Florida ballot because they couldn't get them off anyway. She didn't play ads in either state, and she didn't organize. Now all the Buzzflash activists are paranoid because "she's going to steal the delegates." Think about it. You're starting to sound like David frickin' Bossie.

She won two votes where nobody campaigned. People came to the polls, marked their ballot. The Meaning of Democracy. Right? The votes can't count unless it gets past the committee, made up of members of the Democratic Party, not the Party of the Moon Dictators, for God's sake. Look, if she's well ahead, they'll let them in. If Obama's well ahead and their inclusion won't hurt him, they'll let them in. If anybody is actually able to "force" the votes to go in on the present basis when it would swing the election to Hillary, there would be hell to pay. No politician would just force those votes to be counted except Stalin. Oh, I guess some of you believe Hillary's Stalin, having been told that for years by the GOP, and Obama seems to give that thought a knowing wink, like a lot of the bad Republican ideas he seems to espouse because it gets him votes. Si, puede.

Think about it, Heroes of Democracy: Party politics has now reduced you to the argument that the people of Michigan and the people of Florida couldn't move their primaries forward like everybody else. So they broke party rules. But the people voted, and they voted in large numbers. You want to tell them to screw off because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to. I know there are arguments to be made against, legitimate ones, but this is politics, babies. Think how it looks. The seating of the Freedom Democratic Party. Your ability to dictate the will of the people is extremely limited. Do you think that Hillary bought these votes? Detroit voted for her because they trust the Clinton name on the economy, which is pretty shaky in Detroit. The Florida Dems got snookered by Charlie Criss. They wanted to obey Dean, but Criss put this monster of a wedge issue on the ballot in the state-run primary on that day. So the Florida Dems could either let this cockamamie tax measure pass, or hold their primary that day too. They played chicken with Dean, and they lost. (I know, I know. The argument is that we needed to keep the traditional first primaries in small states so more candidates can afford the entry fee, and that's a good idea. One more reason to be for publicly-funded elections.)

So this morning, I hear Dean trying to compromise with caucuses to decide those delegates. That sounds interesting. (Ever notice that Obama's wins in the red states came in caucuses, which suppress the vote? Just an aside.) So no doubt, he would do well in Florida and Michigan, right? Interest you? Seriously, you've got to do better than getting yourself up into a frenzy about Mommy Stalin Clinton being so nasty and undemocratic as to want to count the votes of people who came to the polls in huge numbers. Yeah, she should be ashamed of herself for thanking Florida voters for their INTENT to vote. Sound familiar? Florida voters not getting their votes counted? Have you, at long last, no shame? Heh, heh.

I think people are confused about what role political parties have in our democracy. How were they defined by the Constitution? Answer: They weren't. Parties are political orginizations that run candidates for public office. In the past, nominees were selected by party leaders. Now, the opinion of the masses is solicited. It's a way of bettering the chances of the candidate by nominating someone with proven appeal, and it's a way of being inclusive. I look at it this way - if the Democratic Party ends up picking the nominee by flipping a coin or having an arm-wrestling match and I don't like it, I am free to affiliate with another party. It's not really a subversion of Democracy because the parties aren't part of our Democracy except in a voluntary sense.

I think the real tragedy is the extent to which the two party system is institutionalized. The current system makes it very hard for other parties to emerge, because it does not have a mechanism to counter the effect of people voting for the lesser of two evils because they are afraid their least favorite candidate will win.

We need a constitutional amendment that establishes instant runoff voting. If we had that, we would vote for our first and second choices. Our second choice would be used in a runoff calculation between the two greatest vote-getters if no one acheived a plurality. In this way, we could vote for a Green party candidate like Ralph Nader, with a second choice of the Democrat, without fear of electing the Republican unwittingly. Only in this way can we break the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the political process. Only in this way can we really hope to effect substantial change in this country.

That being said, I hope the Democratic Party decides to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan. If they don't (or even if they do), we may end up having our nominee selected as a result of superdelegate votes and back-room wheeling and dealing. That hasn't happened since 1968.

It would be extremely frustrating for the candidate that doesn't come out on top, and for their supporters. But the country is very evenly divided between Obama and Clinton. In this case, the party has traditions to resolve the issue - traditions that are older than the primary system itself. In the absence of the instant runoff system, I think we will have to accept this for now, and get behind the eventual nominee for the sake of the country.

And then we need to start a movement to create two amendments: the Instant Runoff Voting amendment and the Corporate-Political separation amendment, which would prohibit for-profit Corporations from donating to political parties or candidates, and would make unconstitutional the process of hiring lobbyists to advance a legislative agenda.

And THEN, we will begin to see real change, the kind promised in the soaring rhetoric of our political heroes.

I'm intrigued with Hillary's newly found inspiration to include the votes cast in the defunk MI and FL primaries. Months ago she signs off on a 'PLEDGE' that disenfranchises their votes in response to their State party's disregard for national party rules. Then when Hillary looses her monumental lead, she changes her mind; after Barack doesn't even bother to visit those states. But she campaigned there after coming in third in IA...real honorable. Hillary claims that, well you have to count their votes, this is a democracy.

Well, let me shed a little light here, voters in most of the 50 states have never gotten a chance to vote between candidates in primaries, because the nomination process is over by the time Super Tuesday arrives....Their hasn't been a brokered convention since nicotine patches replaced cigars 40 years ago. So how about all of us who literally never have had a say in who our Democratic candidates will be? Hmmmm...???

WillB

The candidates agreed to the DNC rules in Florida and Michigan. Now, "Clinton has been backpedaling on her pledge not to honor the unsanctioned-by-the-DNC primaries." I wonder how many signing statements we can expect if she is president.

" It will be best for the future of our nation" What an arrogant piece of crap. Who are you to decide what is best for the future of our nation?
Christine Who? You don't have the courage to give your name,your party affiliation ,your allegiance to which candidate,your interest in the Democratic Party,your most recent contribution to the welfare of our country, or any information to evaluate your judgment of what would be "best for the future of our nation" as an objective and meaningful statement.Finally what's with the "obscure democratic party committee" that is just blowing smoke at the democratic party organization when you don't think you will get the outcome you secretly desire. A process is in place for two hundred years by which the convention of democratic or republic party resolved the battle for the nomination. A process by which Jack Kennedy got the democratic nomination and Ronald Regan the Republic nomination amongst others.Now you have decided that that is not "best for the future of our nation". Well "how about that"?
Andy O'Donnell, Sacramento.

I'm one of a large number of Florida Democrats who feel that the DNC disenfranchised us when it stripped the state of delegates. Now there's talk of putting those "delegates" back into play, perhaps holding "do-over" caucuses. If they now want to include Florida delegates, holding new caucuses is the only fair thing to do, because so many people did not vote (I did), thinking rightly that their votes wouldn't count anyway. I've emailed the DNC and urged it to plan for a caucus and to include our delegates so that we in this state, who have been struggling for years to make our voices heard, can finally BE heard. I urge all Florida Democrats to contact the DNC and ask for a caucus, and thus the candidates will come here to campaign, as they should. This whole episode is a black mark on the party. One would think that after all the problems in this state, the last thing the DNC would want to do is make this populous state irrelevent by disenfranchising the voters. But there's still time to fix this, and only an outcry from Florida Dems making their voices heard by the DNC will allows us to make our voices heard in this, the most important election of our time.

We are left with two presidential prospects on the democrat side: two sellouts to big business and two warmongers that will perpetuate bushwa's war possibly into the next century.

We had some excellent Democratic candidates, but they got weeded out one by one, with the help of mainstream media. Worse, they got weeded out by the democrat party, for nonconformism (like not signing the loyalty pledge).

I, for one, am not going to give my vote to any of the democrat party candidates. It would be wasted time, and voting for the lesser evil (again). I will stick with my first choice: Dennis Kucinich. That was who I voted for at a caucus, and that will be who I will vote for in the presidential election.

I know my vote does not count. Neither do yours. The votes that count are those of the electoral college, an antiquated, outdated beast, who sucks up the voice of the people, silences it and spits out whatever it wants. Or whatever it was paid for to spit out. Thus the lesser or greater evil presidents.

I will nevertheless vote for Kucinich. Why? Because I know he was right, and I know I do the right thing voting for him. If only for one reason: so later on, when the things remain same ol', same ol' or worse - I can put a bumper sticker on my car: "don't blame me. I voted for Kucinich."